Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[seventieslord]

I would also like to remind people of another point of comparison: 1998 Olympic appearance by Bourque (failed to score on Hasek) and 2006 appearance by Lidstrom (scored in the final game).

wow, I have heard of defining a player based on a few seasons, one season, one playoff, or even one international tournament, a single game, or a single big play, but... ONE shootout attempt?

Unreal.

 

[Hardyvan123]

wow, I have heard of defining a player based on a few seasons, one season, one playoff, or even one international tournament, a single game, or a single big play, but... ONE shootout attempt?

Unreal.

Yes exactly it was like the guy trying to define Sittler by his 10 point game and a couple of playoff games.

 

[seventieslord]

Yes exactly it was like the guy trying to define Sittler by his 10 point game and a couple of playoff games.

Except this is even worse. Haha!

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here's a thread that I TOTALLY hoped someone would necro.

 

[Wrath]

I take Lidstrom. A better defenseman, and a far greater trophy list. Yes, he didn't carry his team the way Bourque did, so what? Where exactly DID Bourque carry his Bruins? Lidstrom didn't have to provide offense every time he touched the puck, like Bourque, because playing alongside Fedorov, Yzerman, and Shanahan, he had to do two things first and foremost: play defense (and he was perfect) and provide the first pass. He did that, and did it well. He took nearly half as many shots as Bourque did... for a reason. He could pass the puck to one of his teammates and expect a goal. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I would also like to remind people of another point of comparison: 1998 Olympic appearance by Bourque (failed to score on Hasek) and 2006 appearance by Lidstrom (scored in the final game).

We are talking about DEFENSEMEN here. Lidstrom may not have been the better hockey player (if there is such a thing), but he was surely a better defensman.

There's no player who ever played "perfect" defense. The very idea that there is a "perfect" defense at all is flawed.


We're talking about who is the better hockey player, look at the title of the thread.

By your definition Federov winning a hart on two-way play is ridculous. He wasn't the best forward (and lets face it... the Hart is basically the best forward award for 90% of seasons), he may have been the best player, but his offense wasn't the best, and that's what a forward does.



Looking through this thread the last 7-8 pages are a complete crap fest where the regulars of the thread devolved into cycling arguments and personal attacks while newcomers just homered it up with arguments like "look at _____'s trophy case, facts are facts".



I'm actually interested in what the arguments are like for this topic now that Lidstrom retired, hopefully it just doesn't return to that sad state...

 

[jkrx]

There's no player who ever played "perfect" defense. The very idea that there is a "perfect" defense at all is flawed.


We're talking about who is the better hockey player, look at the title of the thread.

By your definition Federov winning a hart on two-way play is ridculous. He wasn't the best forward (and lets face it... the Hart is basically the best forward award for 90% of seasons), he may have been the best player, but his offense wasn't the best, and that's what a forward does.



Looking through this thread the last 7-8 pages are a complete crap fest where the regulars of the thread devolved into cycling arguments and personal attacks while newcomers just homered it up with arguments like "look at _____'s trophy case, facts are facts".



I'm actually interested in what the arguments are like for this topic now that Lidstrom retired, hopefully it just doesn't return to that sad state...

The Hart is awarded to the most valuable player and not the best player. Too bad that definition has become obscured over the years.

 

[67 others]

I take Lidstrom. A better defenseman, and a far greater trophy list. Yes, he didn't carry his team the way Bourque did, so what? Where exactly DID Bourque carry his Bruins? Lidstrom didn't have to provide offense every time he touched the puck, like Bourque, because playing alongside Fedorov, Yzerman, and Shanahan, he had to do two things first and foremost: play defense (and he was perfect) and provide the first pass. He did that, and did it well. He took nearly half as many shots as Bourque did... for a reason. He could pass the puck to one of his teammates and expect a goal. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I would also like to remind people of another point of comparison: 1998 Olympic appearance by Bourque (failed to score on Hasek) and 2006 appearance by Lidstrom (scored in the final game).

We are talking about DEFENSEMEN here. Lidstrom may not have been the better hockey player (if there is such a thing), but he was surely a better defensman.

even as a huge lidstrom fan, i would say you just made the argument for why bourque is better

 

[seventieslord]

I don't know most of the people who voted here. But if I look just at the people who I know as posters from the HOH section and the ATD, it is 51-17 (75%) for Bourque, so it is just 94-73 (56%) among more "casual" or "main board" fans.... interesting.

 

[CLF4life]

Bourque > Lidstrom It's not even worth debating.

 

[Epsilon]

Here's a thread that I TOTALLY hoped someone would necro.

Came here to post this, with the exact same disdainful sarcasm. Thankfully, it can only happen so many times before the thread reaches the limit and gets locked.

Seriously people, aren't there more original things to discuss at this point?

 

[Kresnik]

It's impossible to measure actually, because people usually pick a player beforehand and after he tries to logically explain his decision. Just for a change, people who vote Lidström should try with his own mind and senses to make a case for Bourque and vise versa. Just for a change, or else it's nothing but an opinion that is already scripted beforehand.

 

[jkrx]

It's impossible to measure actually, because people usually pick a player beforehand and after he tries to logically explain his decision. Just for a change, people who vote Lidström should try with his own mind and senses to make a case for Bourque and vise versa. Just for a change, or else it's nothing but an opinion that is already scripted beforehand.

This might be the only rational thing written in this thread.

 

[Sentinel]

Naturally, nobody's perfect, not even Nick. But that's the way many experts (including Bowman) described him.

With Lidstrom taking half as many shots as Bourque, his accuracy had to be higher.

70sLord: it's as good of a clutch moment as any. Both players knew what was at stake. But then again, you and I never see eye to eye.

 

[seventieslord]

Naturally, nobody's perfect, not even Nick. But that's the way many experts (including Bowman) described him.

With Lidstrom taking half as many shots as Bourque, his accuracy had to be higher.

70sLord: it's as good of a clutch moment as any. Both players knew what was at stake. But then again, you and I never see eye to eye.

I'll take a whole career over a single shootout attempt. You can do whatever you wish.

 

[Sentinel]

And Bourque would most likely take Lidstom's career

 

[seventieslord]

And Bourque would most likely take Lidstom's career

Of course; why would he choose to win one cup over four?

This is a silly argument that people use all the time to pump up the tires of a guy who won more in his career. just because a player would rather win more, doesn't mean we should automatically think he's better because he did. There is no logical connection there.

 

[revolverjgw]

And Bourque would most likely take Lidstom's career

He'd rather Kevin Lowe's

 

[Epsilon]

If I was another player I'd take Jagr's career, I mean, he made the most money ever right?

 

[Sentinel]

70sL: Lidstom's tires don't need to be pumped. He won way more than Bourque, was a better leader than Bourque, and I'd trust him on my blue line more than Bourque.

 

[seventieslord]

70sL: Lidstom's tires don't need to be pumped. He won way more than Bourque, was a better leader than Bourque, and I'd trust him on my blue line more than Bourque.

why was he a better leader?

 

[Rhiessan71]

With Lidstrom taking half as many shots as Bourque, his accuracy had to be higher.

Bourque G-410 S-6206 S%-6.6%
Lidstrom G-264 S-3875 S%-6.8%

...and Bourque had so many shots on goal over his career because he was one of the best at getting it there through screens and blockers. A skill Lidstrom was not even on the same planet as Bourque, very, very few were.
To even attempt to say different can only be explained IMO from not having seen much of Bourque.

70sL: Lidstom's tires don't need to be pumped. He won way more than Bourque, was a better leader than Bourque, and I'd trust him on my blue line more than Bourque.

He won more than Bourque because he had the better/one of the best teams for almost the entirety of his career while Ray loyally toiled for the cheapskate Bruins.
Ray Bourque WAS the Boston Bruin's for more years than you have fingers on your hands.
Oh and btw, Bourque wore the "C" in Boston for 15 years. He was given it at age 25.
He is among the longest serving and most respected Captains in NHL history.

 

[seventieslord]

downgrading players based on SOG is ridiculous. Getting SOG in the NHL is a skill. I'd like to see any one of us get into an NHL game and get the puck, position, time and space to get a shot off. It would take some of us half the season.

You see the same argument about Ovechkin too and it's bogus. "Yeah he scores so many goals but look at how many shots he takes". Getting more shots is a GOOD thing. If it was easy, everyone would take as many shots as Ovechkin.

Also, SOG have proven to be a much better predictor of offensive totals than the actual offensive totals themselves. Players whose shot rates don't change drastically but see a spike or fall in their goal totals, predictably return to their old goal totals the next year, showing that the spike was the result of an unsustainable shooting percentage or the drop was the result of bad puck luck. A drop in a SOG rate is actual cause for concern.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did defensemen as a group average more SOG in the 80s than in later years (particularly relative to forwards)? If so, it would be a valid point. Edit: though still probably a minor one

That said, Bourque was the best I ever saw at getting shots through from the point

 

[Dark Shadows]

Naturally, nobody's perfect, not even Nick. But that's the way many experts (including Bowman) described him.

With Lidstrom taking half as many shots as Bourque, his accuracy had to be higher.

70sLord: it's as good of a clutch moment as any. Both players knew what was at stake. But then again, you and I never see eye to eye.

Interesting logic. Especially given that a good deal of Bourque's shots were not intended to score. They were intended to create juicy rebounds. The bruins teams offense revolved around his abilities. His ability to get the puck through a cluster of player legs, bodies, sticks at all kinds of different heights was legendary. His shot, and array of shot speeds and accuracy was ridiculous.

Who you have capitalizing on those juicy rebounds makes a big difference. Much like who you are making those outlet passes to matters. Bourque generally carried the puck because, well, he was the best guy to carry it into the zone on the team. Other teams focused on shutting Ray down to shut down the Bruins.

 

[Hobnobs]

Interesting logic. Especially given that a good deal of Bourque's shots were not intended to score. They were intended to create juicy rebounds. The bruins teams offense revolved around his abilities. His ability to get the puck through a cluster of player legs, bodies, sticks at all kinds of different heights was legendary. His shot, and array of shot speeds and accuracy was ridiculous.

Who you have capitalizing on those juicy rebounds makes a big difference. Much like who you are making those outlet passes to matters. Bourque generally carried the puck because, well, he was the best guy to carry it into the zone on the team. Other teams focused on shutting Ray down to shut down the Bruins.

Same with Lidström really. He was a shot-passer. I don't know where we are getting with this. No one will convince the Bourque fans and no one will convince the Lidström fans. It's a dead end. This will just end up with everyone repeating themselves over and over again.

Did defensemen as a group average more SOG in the 80s than in later years (particularly relative to forwards)? If so, it would be a valid point. Edit: though still probably a minor one

That said, Bourque was the best I ever saw at getting shots through from the point

I took a quick peak and it looks like that. Atleast in the high scoring era but I havent done anything conclusive.

Edit: Regardless, Bourque always had more SOG than Lidström regardless of era. Except at very end. It seems that the difference (in Bourques case) is about a 100 shots less in the DPE.