Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[alanschu]

For what it's worth I missed most of Bourque's career, and have been a huge fan of Lidstrom's.

Hard to argue against Bourque after reading this thread!

 

[Dark Shadows]

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.

The post I was responding to stated that Lidstrom had a far more accurate shot due to the fact that he was taking far less shots. Which is completely inaccurate

 

[Hobnobs]

The post I was responding to stated that Lidstrom had a far more accurate shot due to the fact that he was taking far less shots. Which is completely inaccurate

Oh, I agree with you on that. Sorry.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The post I was responding to stated that Lidstrom had a far more accurate shot due to the fact that he was taking far less shots. Which is completely inaccurate

Right, that was a pretty goofy assertion. Bourque might have had the most accurate wristshot from the point ever

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

No it's not the same.
There's a HUGE difference between shooting the puck wide of a blocker or around traffic to make a slap-pass or bounce it off the boards than to actually be able to get the puck through traffic and fooling blockers to actually get the puck on net.

Honestly, you would actually have to be blind not to see the huge gap between these two on this point.

No one is saying that Lidstrom wasn't smart or that he didn't run a good PP but he was not in Bourque's class offensively.
The only person I saw that was near Bourque for getting his shot through was MacInnis and he could only do it as well when he was working a PP because unlike Bourque, a double team on Big Mac at even strength could shut him down.

Right, that was a pretty goofy assertion. Bourque might have had the most accurate wristshot from the point ever

Not to mention it was bullet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think a lot of posters on this board greatly underestimate Lidstrom, including in comparisons to Bourque, but Bourque's shot from the point is the one skill that he had that is greatly and should be uncontroversially better

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think a lot of posters on this board greatly underestimate Lidstrom, including in comparisons to Bourque, but Bourque's shot from the point is the one skill that he had that is greatly and should be uncontroversially better

Honestly, I don't think many people underestimate Lidstrom at all.
In fact I think more people overestimate him than underestimate him.

I mean if a supposed "Lidstrom hater" like myself still has him as the 4th or 5th (depending on where I have Shore that week ) best D-man in History...I don't see any underestimating going on there no?

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

I'm not sure how casual the history section guys are, I'm guessing a bit less than the "regular boards from my reading but it's a pretty safe bet that all 3 different groups have their own dynamic and strengths and weaknesses too.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

I agree that some people say things like this but as it is with all idols including Orr, the simple fact is that all players are human and descriptions like this aren't really necessary IMO.

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

It didn't have to be but it does indicate that Bourque was involved more in the offense of his teams and IMO was more offensively gifted than Lidstrom was.

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.

Bringing up 2 shots from 2 guys helps us how?

There is a huge body of evidence to compare these guys and 2 shots or even 200 shots wouldn't make a difference IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Right, that was a pretty goofy assertion. Bourque might have had the most accurate wristshot from the point ever

Yes he did get all 4 targets in 4 shots in one of those all star showcases, not that it means all that much to the greatness of his career but I was really impressed when I saw that, kinda like Kent Nilsson hitting the crossbar and calling it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think a lot of posters on this board greatly underestimate Lidstrom, including in comparisons to Bourque, but Bourque's shot from the point is the one skill that he had that is greatly and should be uncontroversially better

Honestly, I don't think many people underestimate Lidstrom at all.
In fact I think more people overestimate him than underestimate him.

I mean if a supposed "Lidstrom hater" like myself still has him as the 4th or 5th (depending on where I have Shore that week ) best D-man in History...I don't see any underestimating going on there no?

It's weird but Lidstrom seems to be one of those focal points that people respect but really get upset about if other people rank him higher than they do.

I mean people disagree about alot of things in the history section but Lidstrom seems to get the least respect from people who rank him in the top 10 but not as high as some other (not even including how I treat him).

I can't think of any player who at the same time gets so much respect and yet is nitpicked as much as Lidstrom is.

Maybe with the passing of time and we get some historical perspective some might change their mind but my guess is that it will remain as one of those "weird unexplained things"

 

[Sentinel]

I didn't say Lidstrom was better than Bourque offensively. I said he didn't have to be because of his teammates. I said that Lidstrom was better defensively, was a better leader, and in the direst of circumstances with everything on the line he delivered better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes he did get all 4 targets in 4 shots in one of those all star showcases

Not only that, he did it 2 years in a row. 8-for-8!

It's weird but Lidstrom seems to be one of those focal points that people respect but really get upset about if other people rank him higher than they do.

I mean people disagree about alot of things in the history section but Lidstrom seems to get the least respect from people who rank him in the top 10 but not as high as some other (not even including how I treat him).

I can't think of any player who at the same time gets so much respect and yet is nitpicked as much as Lidstrom is.

Maybe with the passing of time and we get some historical perspective some might change their mind but my guess is that it will remain as one of those "weird unexplained things"

This is true, and I think it has a lot to do with him being SO highly ranked that the only ones generally ranked above him are the "untouchables" Orr, Bourque and Harvey. Attempting to put him over those guys is a pretty provocative task.

 

[86Habs]

I didn't say Lidstrom was better than Bourque offensively. I said he didn't have to be because of his teammates. I said that Lidstrom was better defensively, was a better leader, and in the direst of circumstances with everything on the line he delivered better.

Why was he a better leader? I don't see any reason to believe that was the case - by all accounts Bourque was a tremendous leader, and was put in a position where he had to be a leader at a much younger age than was Lidstrom. Not to take anything away from Lidstrom, but his circumstances were much different. And you're basing your last sentence off of one shoot out attempt that Bourque as a defenceman shouldn't have even been asked to take - talk about not putting your players in a position to succeed...

 

[Sentinel]

What exactly did Bourque LEAD his Bruins to? What about Team Canada? True, his Avalanche won the Cup (in his second year with them, so it's not like he was some missing piece), but that team was stocked. DRW08 had a good lineup, but far from a favorite that year. Lidstrom's role as captain in that run is indisputable.

Lidstrom lead the 2008 Wings to the Cup, becoming the first Euro captain to do so. He won the Conn Smythe in 2002, overcoming tremendous competition from his teammates.

 

[jkrx]

Why was he a better leader? I don't see any reason to believe that was the case - by all accounts Bourque was a tremendous leader, and was put in a position where he had to be a leader at a much younger age than was Lidstrom. Not to take anything away from Lidstrom, but his circumstances were much different. And you're basing your last sentence off of one shoot out attempt that Bourque as a defenceman shouldn't have even been asked to take - talk about not putting your players in a position to succeed...

Lidstrom was given the "A" at 24. Bourque wouldnt have been captain of Detroit over Yzerman.

Rest I agree with.

Edit: sorry, 25, not 24.

 

[seventieslord]

Lidstrom was given the "A" at 24. Bourque wouldnt have been captain of Detroit over Yzerman.
.

If we assume their dates of birth are the same and both get drafted by the same team, yeah, I think he would have been.

 

[jkrx]

If we assume their dates of birth are the same and both get drafted by the same team, yeah, I think he would have been.

I doubt it but it doesnt matter. Detroit had an established captain who was the most popular guy in Detroit. No way Bourque or Lidström can compete with that when joining the team in '91.

I think Lidstrom could have been too if drafted at the same time as Yzerman.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

What exactly did Bourque LEAD his Bruins to? What about Team Canada. True, his Avalanche won the Cup (in his second year with them, so it's not like he was some missing piece), but that team was stocked. DRW08 had a good lineup, but far from a favorite that year. Lidstrom's role as captain in that run is indisputable.

Lidstrom lead the 2008 Wings to the Cup, becoming the first Euro captain to do so. He won the Conn Smythe in 2002, overcoming tremendous competition from his teammates.

I may have been snoozing at the time, but I'm pretty sure the Bruins (with Bourque) reached two Stanley Cup finals against the Edmonton Oilers and a couple of COnference Finals against the Penguinos.

Never mind that Harry Sinden was a noted tightwad at the time, which may have inhibited the Bruins from actually pushing over the top to a Championship. Make no mistake, there may have been some superb players in Boston during the 80s-90s but Raymond Bourque was there logging huge minutes, peppering goalies with tons of shots both PP and ES, doing yeoman's work SH and even using a little elbow grease as needed. No question in my mind that you take Raymond Bourque away from the Bruins and replace him with a lesser defeneseman and that team doesn't have half as much success as it did.

Bourque was an absolute freaking beast. I say this as a then fan of the Montreal Canadiens (before Ottawa got a team), there were many nights when Cam Neely got me all and that Bourque made me that he never played for the Canadiens. Just seemed that the play gravitated around him whenever he was on the ice. What a phenom!

 

[67 others]

What exactly did Bourque LEAD his Bruins to? What about Team Canada? True, his Avalanche won the Cup (in his second year with them, so it's not like he was some missing piece), but that team was stocked. DRW08 had a good lineup, but far from a favorite that year. Lidstrom's role as captain in that run is indisputable.

Lidstrom lead the 2008 Wings to the Cup, becoming the first Euro captain to do so. He won the Conn Smythe in 2002, overcoming tremendous competition from his teammates.

leading those bruins teams to the finals twice doesn't count for anything? replace lidstrom with bourque on those red wing squads and the result is quite likely the same. put lidstrom on those bruins teams, and they do not beat the oilers either

and i love lidstrom

sakic offered bourque his captaincy because he respected him as a leader so much

not only that, but the avs improved a ton once bourque arrived. as a team and as individuals. it was not fun for me in particular since i kind of hated the avs

my 08 wings were far from a favorite to win?
the 115 point president trophy winning wings with dats and zetter both shooting for the selke, lids having a great year and everyone else playing great? we all thought we were winning the cup that year against anyone, and we did.

 

[seventieslord]

No question in my mind that you take Raymond Bourque away from the Bruins and replace him with a lesser defeneseman and that team doesn't have half as much success as it did.

It's not just your mind, it is a fact. The Bruins were a minus team when Bourque was off the ice.

 

[Laphroaig]

Bourque by a landslide. I've watched them both their whole careers and while Lidstrom was an absolute rock defensively he never controlled the tempo of the game the way Bourque could. Personally I'd take Potvin ahead of both. He had a higher and shorter peak but it was his physical play that makes me value him more.

 

[Dark Shadows]

It's not just your mind, it is a fact. The Bruins were a minus team when Bourque was off the ice.

I think the same would apply to Lidstrom. Just not to the same degree. Mostly because of the red wings tremendous depth.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think the same would apply to Lidstrom. Just not to the same degree. Mostly because of the red wings tremendous depth.

It's not true though. There are many seasons in which Detroit had as good or better GF/GA ratio at ES without Lidstrom than with him. Players like Potvin and Robinson frequently played on similarly good or better teams and this rarely happened to them. Bourque's team was better at ES with him on the ice than without him, until his last 3 years in Boston.

That's why many are balking that he is placed so highly amongst d-men and/or amongst players of all positions. There are other players with much higher peaks, better primes and similarly long careers. It seems like he's the "easy answer" due to counting trophies and Cups, but it's far from settled in the eyes of many. Of course it depends on what each person values. Those who value consistency, voting (the opinions of others) and count Cups tend to favor Lidstrom. Those who favor peak/prime dominance and don't penalize players like Bourque for being great on mediocre teams tend not to favor Lidstrom so much. It's somewhat bothersome how Lidstrom almost came out of nowhere to become ranked so highly. That's because he was never considered nearly as dominant at his peak and in his prime as many other players. It's apparently not allowed to point out that he played on perpetually stacked teams and that his competition for the Norris hasn't been so strong the past decade as it was in previous years. What's amazing to me is that so many rank him so highly, seemingly without much second thought, as if it's a given.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not true though. There are many seasons in which Detroit had as good or better GF/GA ratio at ES without Lidstrom than with him. Players like Potvin and Robinson frequently played on similarly good or better teams and this rarely happened to them. Bourque's team was better at ES with him on the ice than without him, until his last 3 years in Boston.

That's why many are balking that he is placed so highly amongst d-men and/or amongst players of all positions. There are other players with much higher peaks, better primes and similarly long careers. It seems like he's the "easy answer" due to counting trophies and Cups, but it's far from settled in the eyes of many. Of course it depends on what each person values. Those who value consistency, Cup/trophy counting and voting (the opinions of others) tend to favor Lidstrom. Those who favor peak/prime dominance and don't penalize players like Bourque for being great on mediocre teams tend not to favor Lidstrom so much. It's somewhat bothersome how Lidstrom almost came out of nowhere to become ranked so highly. That's because he was never considered nearly as dominant at his peak and in his prime as many other players. It's apparently not allowed to point out that he played on perpetually stacked teams and that his competition for the Norris hasn't been so strong the past decade as it was in previous years. What's amazing to me is that so many rank him so highly, seemingly without much second thought, as if it's a given.

But isn't using Lidstrom's on ice / off ice ratio just punishing him for having better teammates?

At various times, Lidstrom's off ice compatibles were the Russian 5 and later Chris Chelios. Bourque and Potvin had nobody close to that. Robinson had Lapointe off ice, but he had Serge Savard as a partner to help his on-ice