Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Elvis P]

...Anyway, more people choose Bourque here and that's fine. I'll choose Lidstrom. More Cups, Conn Smythe, more Norris's, and hell, even a Gold Medal (I know my fellow Canadians like to throw that in there) does it for me.

Thanks for the great debate everyone! Here's a couple stats about Lidstrom's teammates. Chelios has the most (24) playoff appearances and Brett Hull is 3rd all time in goals! I've seen some experts rank Hull ahead of Marcel Dionne and Chelios ahead of Serge Savard. Here's some Chelios highlights.

Currently in his 25th season in the National Hockey League and 10th with Detroit.
-Currently sixth on the all-time games played list (1,644) and first among active players, first among American born players, and first among defensemen.
-Re-signed a one-year deal with Detroit on September 9, 2008.
-Three time Norris Trophy winner (1989, 1993 and 1996).
-Finished second in Norris Tophy voting twice (1995-Coffey, 2002-Lidstrom).
-Only player in NHL history to play 400 games for three different teams (Monteal-402, Chicago-664 and Detroit-578).
-11 All-Star Game Appearances.
-Three time Stanley Cup champion (Montreal 1986, Detroit 2002 and 2008).
-Ranks eighth all-time among defensemen with 763 assists.

-2008-09 Regular Season
-Moved past Dave Andreychuk into 4th all-time games played on 3/29 vs NSH. Currently at 1,644 games played.
-Set an NHL record by playing in his 880th regular season victory 1/6 vs CBJ.

 

[Corto]

It's completely mindboggling that there are fans that say Bourque was better than Lidstrom, "fact".

IMO, Lidstrom is the #2 all-time, behind Orr, Bourque a close 3rd.

But whether you agree or not, it is VERY close, and really, is down to preference, opinion and liking one player or the other more.

Saying Bourque/Lidstrom, and then "it's not even close" or "fact", just shows bias, or worse, ignorance.

 

[Slapshooter]

I'm certain that some 80% of people who voted Lidstrom in this are either Red Wings fans or those who did not see Bourque in prime.

Not saying it's plasphemy to vote for Nick, as the guy is TOP5 alltime D in everyones list (and TOP3 of most people), so some votes for him are understandable in any case.

While Orr is the 1st and Bourque is the 2nd, imo Lidstrom is having a tough fight with Denis Potvin for the 3rd place.

It still seems weird that a few, if aynone, talked Lidstrom in the same sentence with Al MacInnis or Chris Chelios - yet alone Bourque - when it was mid 90's. And yet it's still has been the pretty much same good old Lidstrom all the time.

 

[Sens Rule]

Bourque was 35th in league scoring that year, Lidstrom was 17th. Plenty of defenseman in that era had multiple top twenty finishes throughout thier career, bourque isn't the only one. Bourque's stats wold take a complete nosedive if he was on bowman's redwings, he wouldnt be outscoring yzerman and federov. As always ignore the differences in era and not take into account that defenseman dont join the rush as much anymore.

In the last 15 years, Lidstrom is the only defenseman to hit 80 points. In Bourque's peak years, Suter hit 91, Zubov hit 89, Housley scored 97, and the all time great larry murphy scored 80 plus on 3 occasions. Yeah both eras were equal in terms of offensive output from d-men, lol.

Coffey won a Norris and was among the best scorers in the NHL under Bowman in Detroit. Bowman would have no problem with Bourque's game. He took more risks then Lidstrom but he was the best of the best ever at taking calculated risks.

 

[Sens Rule]

It's completely mindboggling that there are fans that say Bourque was better than Lidstrom, "fact".

IMO, Lidstrom is the #2 all-time, behind Orr, Bourque a close 3rd.

But whether you agree or not, it is VERY close, and really, is down to preference, opinion and liking one player or the other more.

Saying Bourque/Lidstrom, and then "it's not even close" or "fact", just shows bias, or worse, ignorance.

Chicago Chelios was better than Lidstrom. Bourque was better than Lidstrom. Pronger at his very best (short stretches.... 2000 and 2006 playoffs) was better than Lidstrom. Potvin was better than Lidstrom. Coffey at his best for 4 or 5 years in Edmonton was better than Lidstrom.

Lidstrom tops all these guys overall based on a ridiculously long and consistent peak... all except Bourque who had an equally long peak (pretty much his career!) and a better peak.

 

[Corto]

Chicago Chelios was better than Lidstrom. Bourque was better than Lidstrom. Pronger at his very best (short stretches.... 2000 and 2006 playoffs) was better than Lidstrom. Potvin was better than Lidstrom. Coffey at his best for 4 or 5 years in Edmonton was better than Lidstrom.

The what now? Chelios, Pronger? Short stretches, lol?
Coffey, the benchmark dude for offensive D in a high-scoring era who was always descredited on D - though IMO, sometimes undeservedly?
Bourque and Potvin (and Harvey) have arguments etc., but even those are NOT facts or obvious, but opinions based on personal preference, points of view, liking certain players more than others.
There are so many factors here, players who peaked in different era, players with longevity, leadership and a winning aura around them, etc.

Now, even ignoring the fact that you're talking about things that don't make sense there (Pronger "for short stretches"...???? was this a "PEAK" thread, even if it were true), again IMHO, anyone who thinks that Lidstrom is/was better than Bourque or vice-versa is a "FACT" is either biased or ignorant.
Either way, a joke.

 

[jkrx]

In my opinion, Bourque faced the toughest competition ever. His prime was right in the late 80s/early 90s at the exact same time Chris Chelios, Al MacInnis, Scott Stevens, Brian Leetch, and Larry Murphy were all peaking. Paul Coffey was still great during this time, too. Even the less lights who peaked during this time like Gary Suter and Phil Housley were very good.

Did you grow up watching these players I can see why you think that. Childhood heroes + the ridiculously overrated 80s usually do that.

However nothing beats the early 50's up to the expansion.

Gadsby, Harvey, Kelly, Pilote, Stanley, Horton, Provonost, Howell, Boivin, Quackenbush, Brewer, Tremblay, Laperierre etc... This was an era of great depth much better than the 80s.

 

[Sens Rule]

The what now? Chelios, Pronger? Short stretches, lol?
Coffey, the benchmark dude for offensive D in a high-scoring era who was always descredited on D - though IMO, sometimes undeservedly?
Bourque and Potvin (and Harvey) have arguments etc., but even those are NOT facts or obvious, but opinions based on personal preference, points of view, liking certain players more than others.
There are so many factors here, players who peaked in different era, players with longevity, leadership and a winning aura around them, etc.

Now, even ignoring the fact that you're talking about things that don't make sense there (Pronger "for short stretches"...???? was this a "PEAK" thread, even if it were true), again IMHO, anyone who thinks that Lidstrom is/was better than Bourque or vice-versa is a "FACT" is either biased or ignorant.
Either way, a joke.

Lidstrom was NEVER as dominant as Pronger in 2000 regular season or the 2006 playoffs when he took the Oliers to Game 7 of the finals. Nor was Lidstrom ever as dominant as Chelios being BY FAR the best player on Chicago President Trophy/finals teams... or Bourque at his best in 87-92 when he was the best player in the world that didn't have a number 66 or 99 on his back. (Settled for 77!) Potvin was straight up BETTER his entire career then Lidstrom... but his career lasted less time then Lidstrom played at his best!

Lidstrom was great... astounding... so safe and so productive. Chelios was not safe... he was a monster... getting stupid PIMs and just being a force of nature and sometimes stupidity. But he was a monster... a freaking force of nature in Chicago for several seasons.... he was like Scott Stevens in Jersey but he also was the offensive leader of his team.

I rank Lidstrom OVERALL as better than everyone of his contemporaies but Bourque.. I even rate him better than Potvin on his career.

But Lidstrom's issue is he was TOO PERFECT... Chelios at his best.. in Montreal and especially Chicago had warts.. but what warts they were!!!! He was nuts! And a someone that made you afraid and intimidated. Coffey at his flawed best was the second best offensive player in the world. That is insane for a D-Man.. only Orr is comparable. Potvin was a beast his whole career... even after he stopped leading the Isles in scoring... even after the Stanley Cups. Bourque didn't have warts... he was just the best at everything.. all the time... his whole career. He was so much better offensively then Lidstrom he gets the nod over Nic for his career... adjusted stats are for crap... Bourque was the offensive catalyst for the Bruins his whole career... significantly better than Lidstrom on offence and not much behind him on defence.

I don't get Lidstrom fans... they take offence to him being the 4th or 5th best D-Men of all-time. They take offence to him being rated OVER several D-Men who had better peaks in their careers.

Kelly
Harvey
Orr
Potvin
Bourque
Lidstrom

The best D-Men since WW2 and all have better peaks then Lidstrom and Lidstrom is rated OVER Potvin and Kelly and often Harvey or Bourque and Lidstrom fans take offence? I don't get that? I don't.

Seems to me those that rate Lidstrom as second best to Orr never watched hockey in the 1980's (or the 70's or 90's either maybe!)

 

[pluppe]

Lidstrom was NEVER as dominant as Pronger in 2000 regular season or the 2006 playoffs when he took the Oliers to Game 7 of the finals. Nor was Lidstrom ever as dominant as Chelios being BY FAR the best player on Chicago President Trophy/finals teams... or Bourque at his best in 87-92 when he was the best player in the world that didn't have a number 66 or 99 on his back. (Settled for 77!) Potvin was straight up BETTER his entire career then Lidstrom... but his career lasted less time then Lidstrom played at his best!

Lidstrom was great... astounding... so safe and so productive. Chelios was not safe... he was a monster... getting stupid PIMs and just being a force of nature and sometimes stupidity. But he was a monster... a freaking force of nature in Chicago for several seasons.... he was like Scott Stevens in Jersey but he also was the offensive leader of his team.

I rank Lidstrom OVERALL as better than everyone of his contemporaies but Bourque.. I even rate him better than Potvin on his career.

But Lidstrom's issue is he was TOO PERFECT... Chelios at his best.. in Montreal and especially Chicago had warts.. but what warts they were!!!! He was nuts! And a someone that made you afraid and intimidated. Coffey at his flawed best was the second best offensive player in the world. That is insane for a D-Man.. only Orr is comparable. Potvin was a beast his whole career... even after he stopped leading the Isles in scoring... even after the Stanley Cups. Bourque didn't have warts... he was just the best at everything.. all the time... his whole career. He was so much better offensively then Lidstrom he gets the nod over Nic for his career... adjusted stats are for crap... Bourque was the offensive catalyst for the Bruins his whole career... significantly better than Lidstrom on offence and not much behind him on defence.

I don't get Lidstrom fans... they take offence to him being the 4th or 5th best D-Men of all-time. They take offence to him being rated OVER several D-Men who had better peaks in their careers.

Kelly
Harvey
Orr
Potvin
Bourque
Lidstrom

The best D-Men since WW2 and all have better peaks then Lidstrom and Lidstrom is rated OVER Potvin and Kelly and often Harvey or Bourque and Lidstrom fans take offence? I don't get that? I don't.

Seems to me those that rate Lidstrom as second best to Orr never watched hockey in the 1980's (or the 70's or 90's either maybe!)

you also "don't get" the difference between opinions and facts. a few of your points are ok but the amount of "facts" make it hard to take serious.

 

[Sens Rule]

you also "don't get" the difference between opinions and facts. a few of your points are ok but the amount of "facts" make it hard to take serious.

Hmmm you seem unable to differentiate facts from opinions... just a clue for you... about 99.9% of posts on HF are opinion... as are mine and yours. There are really no facts... except straight up stats.

Straight up stats tell you ****... you need to make opinions from them to mean anything.

 

[Reds4Life]

Lidstrom was NEVER as dominant as Pronger in 2000

In terms of flashiness and big hits? Sure, you have a point.

Near-flawless defense and significant offensive support quietly result in a dominant performance as well. Prime Lidstrom provided that on regular basis.

Pronger is definitely a great player, however he is capable of producing really huge brainfart (and be suspended for it) at any given time.

As for the topic at hand, I am not sure. Bourque was better offensively and has more "elite" years. But I would probably lean to Lidstrom because a) I am a Red Wings fan and b) imho Lidstrom has a clear playoff edge over Bourque and c) Lidstrom was better defensively.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Brainfarts aren't that bad if they're not made on a regular basis.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That is nonsense, like others have pointed out. Just compare the teams and it will tell why Nick won the Cups at the Detroit and why Ray did not win at the Boston.

It's not like Lidstrom turned Detroit into a dynasty. Red Wings were well stacked (and the best-coached) superstar team during all of their Cup winning years. Bruins were basically a medicore team made contender by - more than anybody else - Bourque. Red Wings had the depth, Bruins did not.[/B]

Let's not rewrite history here.

The Bruins were a 100 point team the eyar before Bourque joined them and went into the 2nd round of the playoffs and were a 105 point team and 2nd round team in his 1st year as well.

Detroit in the two years before Lidstrom got there was a 70 point, non playoff team and then 76 one round team up to 98 points and 2 rounds in Lidstrom's 1st year.

Sure Federov was also emerging as were other players but make no mistake Lidstrom is one of the main reasons that Detroit has made the playoffs every year he has been there and has been to the finals 6 times, he's not some bit player.

Sure Detroit had better players than Boston but it's not like Bourque played with the Vancouver Canucks, they had some talent on soem of his teams as well and the bad supporting cast gets overplayed alot in the Bourque cornrer.

 

[plusandminus]

Earlier today, I looked at 1988-89, when Bourque in his prime played in only 60 games.

Boston overall: 80 37-29-14 .5500
Boston with Bourque: 60 29-19-12 .5833
Boston without Bourque: 20 8-10- 2 .4500
Difference: .1333 better with Bourque.
(Done manually, so errors may exist.)

That may look good, and it is good. But having looked at other stars too, they often improved their team by .200 or higher. For example, I think Borje Salming was such a player.

"Problem" with Lidstrom is that he never misses many games.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is a misnomer and total exaggeration. No, there wasn't as many Euro's in the league, mostly no Russians.
At the same time though, there were only 21 teams and almost every team had 2 or 3 loaded up straight scoring lines.
Unlike today where with 30 teams, it's quite rare to even have 2 straight scoring lines.
So while there are more Euro's playing, they do NOT account for a whopping 43% league increase.
Last year, Canadians and Americans accounted for 77.2% of NHL players and it's been around 75% for the last decade.
755 of 978 players are North American. That's an average of 32.6 players per team.
That leaves 223 non-NA players.
223/32.6 = 6.8 or 7 teams
30 - 21 = 9 teams and Europeans already accounted for almost 10% of the league in 1990 as it was. (I used 1990 because that was basically the last year before the Russians really came over)
So going with the 32.6 team average, in 1991 there were roughly 684 players of which 68 of them were non-North American.
Today that number, as above, is 223 players. That's an increase of 155 players.
Again, that only covers 4.75 teams, a far cry from the 9 team increase through expansion.

So while the European population of the NHL has gone up by 200-250%, that is still not enough to cover the 9 expansion teams through the early 90's and 2000's.

Whether or not Bourque faced fewer total top players matters little when the top players he did face were more condensed on fewer teams.


Either way, I think the poll itself has spoken and it's really not close

28 Swedes in 86

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

31 Swedes in 96
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

44 Swedes in 01

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

The pace of the game is vastly different in the 80's for Bourque than it was for Lidstrom in the 00's. The "clutch and grab" in the mid 90's also made the game quite different.

Your continued ignorance of how adjusted stats work only hurt your argument.

Most would acknowledge that Bourque was the more dyanmic offensive player, I remember him winning the shooting accuracy contest at an all star game, prety sure he smashed 4 targets in 4 or 5 shots but the gap isn't as large as it's made out to be either.

there were exactly 27 80 plus point seasons by dmen from 80-91 in which bourque played (before 92 when Lidstrom came onto the scene) and in your world you would have all of thsoe guys replicating there 80 stats in the 2000's no doubt.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[jkrx]

This is a misnomer and total exaggeration. No, there wasn't as many Euro's in the league, mostly no Russians.
At the same time though, there were only 21 teams and almost every team had 2 or 3 loaded up straight scoring lines.
Unlike today where with 30 teams, it's quite rare to even have 2 straight scoring lines.
So while there are more Euro's playing, they do NOT account for a whopping 43% league increase.
Last year, Canadians and Americans accounted for 77.2% of NHL players and it's been around 75% for the last decade.
755 of 978 players are North American. That's an average of 32.6 players per team.
That leaves 223 non-NA players.
223/32.6 = 6.8 or 7 teams
30 - 21 = 9 teams and Europeans already accounted for almost 10% of the league in 1990 as it was. (I used 1990 because that was basically the last year before the Russians really came over)
So going with the 32.6 team average, in 1991 there were roughly 684 players of which 68 of them were non-North American.
Today that number, as above, is 223 players. That's an increase of 155 players.
Again, that only covers 4.75 teams, a far cry from the 9 team increase through expansion.

So while the European population of the NHL has gone up by 200-250%, that is still not enough to cover the 9 expansion teams through the early 90's and 2000's.

Whether or not Bourque faced fewer total top players matters little when the top players he did face were more condensed on fewer teams.


Either way, I think the poll itself has spoken and it's really not close

You mean when alot of those teams went to the playoffs with a .450 or below point %? I remember a year where the maple leafs won about 20 games and went to the playoffs. Your memory is slipping if you think that even half those teams had two effective scoring lines. The futility of the bottom dwellers was horrific. The quality between top teams and bottom teams and maybe even the average teams were quite big.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Earlier today, I looked at 1988-89, when Bourque in his prime played in only 60 games.

Boston overall: 80 37-29-14 .5500
Boston with Bourque: 60 29-19-12 .5833
Boston without Bourque: 20 8-10- 2 .4500
Difference: .1333 better with Bourque.
(Done manually, so errors may exist.)

That may look good, and it is good. But having looked at other stars too, they often improved their team by .200 or higher. For example, I think Borje Salming was such a player.

"Problem" with Lidstrom is that he never misses many games.

Detroit is astoundingly bad in games Lidstrom does not play - well under .500 - but yeah, it's like 20 games over 20 years.

 

[Epsilon]

Lidstrom was NEVER as dominant as Pronger in 2000 regular season or the 2006 playoffs when he took the Oliers to Game 7 of the finals.

Lidstrom has at least two regular seasons (2005/06, 20007/08, and possibly some others) that were better than Pronger in 1999/00, they just didn't happen to coincide with a year where the Art Ross trophy winner missed a quarter of the season, no one broke 100 points, and Hasek did not play at the level of his previous seasons. Pronger's 99/00 season is one of the more overrated ones by a defenseman because he cut lightning in a bottle and had a great year at the perfect time, and the result was winning the Hart trophy.

As for the 2006 playoffs, while it may be the case that Pronger "dominated" more, Lidstrom was equally "effective" in 2002 when he won the Conn Smythe trophy. He's also got several playoff years that are better than Pronger's 2nd best performance.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did you grow up watching these players I can see why you think that. Childhood heroes + the ridiculously overrated 80s usually do that.

However nothing beats the early 50's up to the expansion.

Gadsby, Harvey, Kelly, Pilote, Stanley, Horton, Provonost, Howell, Boivin, Quackenbush, Brewer, Tremblay, Laperierre etc... This was an era of great depth much better than the 80s.

Let's not pretend all those guys you listed even played at the same time, let alone peaked at the same time. Quackenbush and Laperriere competed as much head to head as Lidstrom and Potvin did.

As for your question, Bourque and Chelios were starting to decline slightly when I started seriously following hockey.

 

[jkrx]

Let's not pretend all those guys you listed even played at the same time, let alone peaked at the same time. Quackenbush and Laperriere competed as much head to head as Lidstrom and Potvin did.

As for your question, Bourque and Chelios were starting to decline slightly when I started seriously following hockey.

Yes it was more of a comparison of some of the great D's of this era. I could have continued with adding Talbot, Vasko, Baun, Goldham, Johnson, Flaman, St. Laurent, Green, Bouchard, Arbour, Dewsbury, Goegan, Godfrey, Langlois, Mohns and Morrison.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't get Lidstrom fans... they take offence to him being the 4th or 5th best D-Men of all-time. They take offence to him being rated OVER several D-Men who had better peaks in their careers.

Kelly
Harvey
Orr
Potvin
Bourque
Lidstrom

The best D-Men since WW2 and all have better peaks then Lidstrom and Lidstrom is rated OVER Potvin and Kelly and often Harvey or Bourque and Lidstrom fans take offence? I don't get that? I don't.

Seems to me those that rate Lidstrom as second best to Orr never watched hockey in the 1980's (or the 70's or 90's either maybe!)

I would imagine that Lidstrom fans have a problem being told that all those defensemen had better peaks than him, period, and the general attitude on the HOH board that anyone who disagrees is just a kid who doesn't know any better. Makes the HOH board a bit of a hostile place for younger posters, I'd imagine

 

[Rhiessan71]

Did you grow up watching these players I can see why you think that. Childhood heroes + the ridiculously overrated 80s usually do that.

Ohhhh I see, you're using the "If you actually saw them play, you overrate them" argument.

Hmmm...you wouldn't of happened to be a child during the first part of Lidstrom's career would you?



Thanks, I needed a good laugh

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ohhhh I see, you're using the "If you actually saw them play, you overrate them" argument.

Hmmm...you wouldn't of happened to be a child during the first part of Lidstrom's career would you?



Thanks, I needed a good laugh

Pretty sure jkrx has been around longer than either of us.

 

[Peter9]

I would imagine that Lidstrom fans have a problem being told that all those defensemen had better peaks than him, period, and the general attitude on the HOH board that anyone who disagrees is just a kid who doesn't know any better. Makes the HOH board a bit of a hostile place for younger posters, I'd imagine

I can see that that might be a problem, although I take what seems to be a radical position among those who contribute to this board, that sometimes perhaps some deference ought to be given to the views of those who actually saw a particular player play. I also think at least one comment in this thread violated what I gather is a fundamental rule on this board--that players from older eras are not to be devalued merely on the ground that the game and those who play it have drastically improved with time. (Or does that apply only to arguments that are extreme, like Mike Cammalleri is better than Maurice Richard and Guy Lafleur because hockey has improved so much and athletes are so much bigger and faster these days?) And I think this sentiment, albeit usually not expressed explicitly, prevails among many of the younger voters and influences them to the point that they do not give any weight to the views of those who actually saw the player play, not even when it comes to things that cannot be reduced to statistics. This doesn't make this board a hostile place for older commenters; it makes it an irrelevant place.

Since joining this board, I've consistently held to the position that comparing players from different eras is doomed to failure, although I enjoy the discussions that ranking efforts elicit and take part in them. I've even voted in a couple of polls, like this one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can see that that might be a problem, although I take what seems to be a radical position among those who contribute to this board, that sometimes perhaps some deference ought to be given to the views of those who actually saw a particular player play.

I really don't think that's a radical view at all. The vast majority of us here agree with you.

I'm also pretty sure nobody on this board saw Eddie Shore play and I'm not sure if anyone on this board saw Red Kelly in his prime. I am sure that those who saw Kelly play were pretty much universal in thinking Harvey peaked higher as a defenseman, so I do have problems with declarative statements like "Kelly peaked higher than Lidstrom" with no proof offered to back it up.