What does Lidstrom have to do to be considered better than Bourque?

[CC Chiefs*]

To the OP.

Change the birth place to Canada on his birth certificate.

 

[Hardyvan123]

What's this nonsense that the only reason Lidstrom has never competed for the Art Ross is that the competition from forwards is too high compared to Orr's era?

Since the lockout 2nd in PPG among defenseman has 0.77 and 10th has 0.68. 1st, Lidstrom, had 0.82.

From 69 to 74, second among defenseman had 0.81 and 10th had 0.60. About the same competition, if not less. 1st, Orr, had 1.53

Orr was doubling his peers in scoring. If Lidstrom had ever been outscoring his fellow defenseman by the same margin, he'd be putting up ~130 points per year, easily enough to compete for the Art Ross.

Interesting stats but the level of competition in the league overall is the main difference in trying to evaluate players from the 2 different eras, stats only show part of the picture.

For what it is worth I have already stated that I think Lidstrom is ahead of Bourque and is in the discussion with Orr as best of all time but I value career length ( and the high level of production) quite a bit.

 

[Mouse21*]

he cant catch him now. no matter what he realistically does this season, even winning the cup.

its a done deal, no way around it.

and being close to Orr? lol. keep dreaming.

99
66
4

 

[Hockey Outsider]

For what it is worth I have already stated that I think Lidstrom is ahead of Bourque and is in the discussion with Orr as best of all time but I value career length ( and the high level of production) quite a bit.

Bourque has a massive longevity advantage compared to Orr - nearly 1,000 more games, 13 more seasons, 10 more years as a first- or second-team all-star, scored over 650 points more than Orr.

Yet virtually nobody who watched both players (and there are tens of thousands of serious fans who watched both) would argue that Bourque was better than Orr, because #4 was so much better than Bouque in his prime that no amount of longevity could possibly make up for this.

Lidstrom is, at best, a bit better than Bourque, and, as of early 2011, is still probably ranked lower. In any case, let's say they're in the same ballpark. If you're arguing that Lidstrom is "in the discussion with Orr as best of all time", are you saying that Bourque is also as good as Orr?

 

[Trottier]

One more Norris or Cup should do it. But you'll never convince the Orr fanboys here.

Indeed. Thery're as delusional as those Gretzky and Lemieux fanboys.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Bourque has a massive longevity advantage compared to Orr - nearly 1,000 more games, 13 more seasons, 10 more years as a first- or second-team all-star, scored over 650 points more than Orr.

Yet virtually nobody who watched both players (and there are tens of thousands of serious fans who watched both) would argue that Bourque was better than Orr, because #4 was so much better than Bouque in his prime that no amount of longevity could possibly make up for this.

Lidstrom is, at best, a bit better than Bourque, and, as of early 2011, is still probably ranked lower. In any case, let's say they're in the same ballpark. If you're arguing that Lidstrom is "in the discussion with Orr as best of all time", are you saying that Bourque is also as good as Orr?

It really depends on exactly what question one is asking.

I bet most people only think of players at their absolute best within their era and don't try (or in some cases even acknowledge) the differences in how the game was played and the talent level of the NHL (and the differences) during the years Orr, Potvin, Bourque and Lidstrom played in.

Orr's dominance was the greatest ever by a Dman sure but it was a perfect storm of a ever expanding NHL (in terms of teams causing a serious dilution of the overall talent level)), and the free wheeling style that Boston played as well. I will acknowledged that both he and Gretzky were the main reasons their teams played the way they did though.

At the end of the day Orr has 7 superstar seasons, 1 more that would have been close but he only played 46 games, an excellent rookie season and his last 3 season which he played a combined 36 games.

Best peak and Prime to be sure but Lidstrom has played 20 (I'm going to count and give him credit for the lock out year) at an extremely high level for most of it and pretty decent even in his early years (looked pretty decent in the Canada Cup as a 21 year old, even though his role expanded on the red Wings as he got older and other players left or retired).

Lidstrom is subtle in his play while the other big 3 from the modern era were far more flashy and obvious to see why they were great.

At the end of the day the difference in style of play is the biggest reason IMO why some hold Lidstrom is a lesser light than he should be seen in IMO.

 

[pluppe]

It really depends on exactly what question one is asking.

I bet most people only think of players at their absolute best within their era and don't try (or in some cases even acknowledge) the differences in how the game was played and the talent level of the NHL (and the differences) during the years Orr, Potvin, Bourque and Lidstrom played in.

Orr's dominance was the greatest ever by a Dman sure but it was a perfect storm of a ever expanding NHL (in terms of teams causing a serious dilution of the overall talent level)), and the free wheeling style that Boston played as well. I will acknowledged that both he and Gretzky were the main reasons their teams played the way they did though.

At the end of the day Orr has 7 superstar seasons, 1 more that would have been close but he only played 46 games, an excellent rookie season and his last 3 season which he played a combined 36 games.

Best peak and Prime to be sure but Lidstrom has played 20 (I'm going to count and give him credit for the lock out year) at an extremely high level for most of it and pretty decent even in his early years (looked pretty decent in the Canada Cup as a 21 year old, even though his role expanded on the red Wings as he got older and other players left or retired).

Lidstrom is subtle in his play while the other big 3 from the modern era were far more flashy and obvious to see why they were great.

At the end of the day the difference in style of play is the biggest reason IMO why some hold Lidstrom is a lesser light than he should be seen in IMO.

you do understand that you did not answer the question that was asked at all. HO wondered if you, in line with this thinking that you only repeated, consider Bourque in the same ballpark as Orr aswell?

 

[Rhiessan71]

It really depends on exactly what question one is asking.

I bet most people only think of players at their absolute best within their era and don't try (or in some cases even acknowledge) the differences in how the game was played and the talent level of the NHL (and the differences) during the years Orr, Potvin, Bourque and Lidstrom played in.

Orr's dominance was the greatest ever by a Dman sure but it was a perfect storm of a ever expanding NHL (in terms of teams causing a serious dilution of the overall talent level)), and the free wheeling style that Boston played as well. I will acknowledged that both he and Gretzky were the main reasons their teams played the way they did though.

At the end of the day Orr has 7 superstar seasons, 1 more that would have been close but he only played 46 games, an excellent rookie season and his last 3 season which he played a combined 36 games.

Best peak and Prime to be sure but Lidstrom has played 20 (I'm going to count and give him credit for the lock out year) at an extremely high level for most of it and pretty decent even in his early years (looked pretty decent in the Canada Cup as a 21 year old, even though his role expanded on the red Wings as he got older and other players left or retired).

Lidstrom is subtle in his play while the other big 3 from the modern era were far more flashy and obvious to see why they were great.

At the end of the day the difference in style of play is the biggest reason IMO why some hold Lidstrom is a lesser light than he should be seen in IMO.

Style of play could be a valid argument IF we were talking about Coffey but we're not.
We're talking about Bobby Orr who while wasn't perhaps the very best in the league defensively every year, he was among the best every year.

You can talk about how much offense Orr brought all you want but he was also ridiculously good defensively taking a lot of pride in it to boot.

Whether the league was supposedly watered down or not, the fact remains that Orr didn't just beat out his fellow d-men, he beat out everyone period.
Was the first player of three total to ever tally 100 assists in a season and he did so when scoring was much closer to today's levels.

Also it should be noted that Orr's mighty Bruins in the 70's were pretty much an average team when he didn't play.
The same can not be said about Lidstrom's Wings.

I said it before and I'll say it again...if you wanna argue for Lidstrom over Bourque, have at it, there is fire with that smoke even if I do not agree.
Pitting him against Orr though....pure silliness, as well you put Lids against Gretzky for how far anyone will get with it.

 

[Reds4Life]

Also it should be noted that Orr's mighty Bruins in the 70's were pretty much an average team when he didn't play.
The same can not be said about Lidstrom's Wings.

Really? First of all, Lidstrom has not missed many games. So what do you base your argument on?
Look at the record when he was not in the lineup, it is a small sample but it clearly shows how important he is to the Red Wings.

Scotty Bowman said he did not rank anyone ahead of Lidstrom, so obviously some people already think he is better than Bourque or Shore.

 

[jkrx]

Also it should be noted that Orr's mighty Bruins in the 70's were pretty much an average team when he didn't play.
The same can not be said about Lidstrom's Wings.

Where did you get this "fact" from?

 

[LiveeviL]

To the OP.

Change the birth place to Canada on his birth certificate.

This, and of course change name to Nick "The great Canadian"Bourque.

 

[VMBM]

The same people that will defend Bourque as having "played on bad Bruins teams" are the same ones who will pound on Marcel Dionne and others regardless of their teams being even worse.

In Dionne's case, it's not just about the missing Cups. It's also about his decreased point production during the post-season, which is one of the most noticeable among the superstar calibre players. Bourque, on the other hand, was a noted - maybe legendary - playoff performer.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but: has anyone ever studied Dionne's scoring against 'bad/mediocre teams' and 'good teams' during the regular season? Was there also a dramatic difference there? I might be totally wrong to even suspect this, but considering the drop in his numbers in the playoffs, could it be that much of his scoring was done against the poorer teams? Even if so, it should not affect his all-time ranking (as he did outscore many other superstars of his day who were also playing against the same poor teams), but it would be interesting to know nevertheless.

Edit:
oops, BraveCanadian's post was already countered (I myself have to 'decrease' my enthusiasm, har har)

 

[Rhiessan71]

Really? First of all, Lidstrom has not missed many games. So what do you base your argument on?
Look at the record when he was not in the lineup, it is a small sample but it clearly shows how important he is to the Red Wings.

Scotty Bowman said he did not rank anyone ahead of Lidstrom, so obviously some people already think he is better than Bourque or Shore.

First off Bowman has never ranked Lidstrom ahead of Orr. In fact he always makes a point of expressing how Orr changed the face of the game when ever asked. Maybe you take what he says in one regard but I think I actually take it correctly in meaning that he holds Orr above all others in saying it that way and then mentions the others.

As far how Orr's bruins and Lidstrom's Wings did without them is quite easily viewed here http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

Orr's absolutely ridiculous 2.18 to 1.10 R-on to R-off numbers to Lidstrom's 1.43 to 1.25 show just how good Orr made the Bruins.
Especially when you cross reference Orr's teammates R-off numbers and discover how high they are. Only Orr's R-off numbers are as low as 1.10 and no other teammate is even remotely close to that.
Lidstrom's teammates on the other hand are all about the same as his.

R-on = How many goals are scored per 100 against while said player is on the ice.
R-off = How many goals are scored per 100 against while said player is not on the ice.

 

[Reds4Life]

First off Bowman has never ranked Lidstrom ahead of Orr. In fact he always makes a point of expressing how Orr changed the face of the game when ever asked. Maybe you take what he says in one regard but I think I actually take it correctly in meaning that he holds Orr above all others in saying it that way and then mentions the others.

As far how Orr's bruins and Lidstrom's Wings did without them is quite easily viewed here http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

Orr's absolutely ridiculous 2.18 to 1.10 R-on to R-off numbers to Lidstrom's 1.43 to 1.25 show just how good Orr made the Bruins.
Especially when you cross reference Orr's teammates R-off numbers and discover how high they are. Only Orr's R-off numbers are as low as 1.10 and no other teammate is even remotely close to that.
Lidstrom's teammates on the other hand are all about the same as his.

I did not even mention Orr in my previous post. If you have not noticed yet, this is about Raymond Bourque and Nicklas Lidstrom.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I did not even mention Orr in my previous post. If you have not noticed yet, this is about Raymond Bourque and Nicklas Lidstrom.

...and apparently you missed the final paragraph in my previous post.

I was rebutting a post by Hardyvan about Orr vs Lidstrom.

You then quoted that rebuttal and did indeed mention Orr.

My views on Bourque vs Lidstrom are well known through the almost weekly re-posting of this subject.
I have Bourque over Lidstrom by a small margin and always will.

I begrudge no one for taking Lidstrom over Bourque, it's a valid choice, it's just not my choice and never will be.

 

[danincanada]

Lidstrom has not and will not revolutionize the game like Shore, Harvey or Orr did nor can he skate like Orr did nor does he have his on ice vision or ability.

Of course Shore changed the game, the game was still fairly new in the 30s and 40s. You're really grasping at straws if this is supposed to be a black mark for Lidstrom.

I think Lidstrom is going to be remembered for playing an amazingly unique style of defense that didn't require physicallity yet was more effective than anyone else. That is about as revolutionary as one can be at this stage in the evolution of hockey. He's like Gretzky on defense...out thinks everyone, positions himself better than everyone, isn't overpowering or lightning fast, rarely gets hit or plays physical, yet dominates.

That leaves Bourque. Lidstrom could not compete with an aging Bourque let alone a prime Bourque. Not the skater that Bourque was in his prime. Bourque had much better offense. Lidstrom brings longevity due to a non-physical approach. Their defensive skills balance.

Lidstrom couldn't compete with an aging Bourque? Now you're just making things up. Lidstrom was winning cups and shutting down the most dominating physical player ever (Lindros) back when Bourque started to age.

Lidstrom is about 3" taller than Bourque and, although he may not look fast, he's got a stride similar Mario Lemieux. Lidstrom covers the ice very very well and I'd even venture to say better than Bourque did. If skating is a weak point it sure hasn't hurt him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think Lidstrom is going to be remembered for playing an amazingly unique style of defense that didn't require physicallity yet was more effective than anyone else. That is about as revolutionary as one can be at this stage in the evolution of hockey. He's like Gretzky on defense...out thinks everyone, positions himself better than everyone, isn't overpowering or lightning fast, rarely gets hit or plays physical, yet dominates.

Amazingly unique style my ass. Harvey wrote the book on that "unique" style over 50 years ago.
Harvey pioneered positional defensive play before Lidstrom was even a gleam in his father's eye.
What's more, Harvey was able to be physical with it to boot.
Sorry but you're the one trying to be a revisionist here heh.

 

[danincanada]

Except that Bourque retained his superb play in the playoffs, often carrying his team far further than they would have made it his team carrying superhuman efforts, despite almost always being the prime target of shutdown for the opposing team, while Dionne's play in the playoffs was the opposite.

"Superhuman efforts"? "Superb play"?

You are an absolutely huge Bourque fan. I've admitted I'm a Red Wings fan and therefore a Lidstrom fan too. Please at least admit that you adore Bourque and have a biased opinion as well if you are going to always show up in these debates. This, "I have no bias like you" shtick it getting tired.

I was going to ask for an explanation for Bourque being an all-time career high +528 during the regular season and only a +5 in his playoff career. I know the response I was going to get was basically what you posted above. To me it shows that maybe Bourque couldn't quite elevate his game like Lidstrom has in the playoffs. To me the playoffs is far more important than the regular season cause that's when your clutch players have to show up and peform. Lidstrom has certainly done that as well as any defenseman.

 

[danincanada]

Amazingly unique style my ass. Harvey wrote the book on that "unique" style over 50 years ago.
Harvey pioneered positional defensive play before Lidstrom was even a gleam in his father's eye.
What's more, Harvey was able to be physical with it to boot.
Sorry but you're the one trying to be a revisionist here heh.

So you're telling me I'm wrong about Lidstrom playing similar to Gretzky as a defenseman by saying Harvey did it first, then you tell me Harvey was more physical? I think you missed my point altogether. My point was that Lidstrom didn't need to be physcial to dominate, even as a defenseman. Get it now?

I'm sorry but Doug Harvey played in an NHL that basically only consisted of Canadians. Can we give the European leagues and their players back in the 50s this much credit, too? I'm Canadian but this reeks of a national bias to me. It's really hard to compare Harvey to Lidstrom when Lidstrom has had so much more international competition and there has been a population explosion too. I like the way Bowman went about it saying Harvey was the best pre-expansion defenseman and kept it at that. You guys should do the same.

I never mentioned anything about being a revisionist so I don't get why you made that remark.

 

[steve141]

So you're telling me I'm wrong about Lidstrom playing similar to Gretzky as a defenseman by saying Harvey did it first, then you tell me Harvey was more physical? I think you missed my point altogether. My point was that Lidstrom didn't need to be physcial to dominate, even as a defenseman. Get it now?

From what I've seen of Doug Harvey his positional play in the defensive zone made him seem almost like a second goalie, doing spectacular "save" after "save". Time after time it seems the forwards are shooting right into him. Of course they weren't, he just was that good positionally. Doug Harvey didn't need to be physical to dominate, it was just another tool in his toolbox that he could use when it was called for. He seldom caused unnecessary penalties.

 

[adaptation]

Lidstrom will probably get recognized as a better ''defensive D-man'' or w/e general term that comes from EA NHL.

However Ray could play D very well, but he brought a lot more firepower then Lidstrom can take. Its not like nick is ''close'' to ray in terms of points.

I do think Lidstrom is the greatest non super-physical Dman that ever played.
Greatest Offensive d-man is probably a flip between orr/bourque, of course how can you put anyone over the great bobby...

Last but not least is that very often ''greatness'' is mesured in offense first, then defense, and with that bourque and orr will always be considered greater then lidstrom. However, really knowledgeable fans will know that Nicklas is the most defensively sound d-man ever.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It really depends on exactly what question one is asking.

I bet most people only think of players at their absolute best within their era and don't try (or in some cases even acknowledge) the differences in how the game was played and the talent level of the NHL (and the differences) during the years Orr, Potvin, Bourque and Lidstrom played in.

Orr's dominance was the greatest ever by a Dman sure but it was a perfect storm of a ever expanding NHL (in terms of teams causing a serious dilution of the overall talent level)), and the free wheeling style that Boston played as well. I will acknowledged that both he and Gretzky were the main reasons their teams played the way they did though.

At the end of the day Orr has 7 superstar seasons, 1 more that would have been close but he only played 46 games, an excellent rookie season and his last 3 season which he played a combined 36 games.

Best peak and Prime to be sure but Lidstrom has played 20 (I'm going to count and give him credit for the lock out year) at an extremely high level for most of it and pretty decent even in his early years (looked pretty decent in the Canada Cup as a 21 year old, even though his role expanded on the red Wings as he got older and other players left or retired).

Lidstrom is subtle in his play while the other big 3 from the modern era were far more flashy and obvious to see why they were great.

At the end of the day the difference in style of play is the biggest reason IMO why some hold Lidstrom is a lesser light than he should be seen in IMO.

How do you account for the fact that had Orr played in Lidstrom's era, there is a good chance medical advances would have enabled him to play 15-20 seasons as well?

If you're going to take away from Orr because of certain circumstances of the era he played in you also have to give him credit for others.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Change his name to Nick Listromque and he's instantly as good or better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't think you can just do something to be "better" than another player. Having watched them both play, I believe Bourque was a better player. Unless Lidstrom plays the best hockey of his career in the future, I won't shift from that opinion.

Now, if the question is what can he do to have a better resume, I guess a Hart would seal the deal.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Ray Bourque (22 seasons; 18 y/o - 40 y/o)

Career Stats (Reg. + PO): 1,826 GP - 451 G - 1,308 A - 1,759 PTS
Averaged 19.76 G - 57.31 A - 77.06 PTS / 80 GP


(5) Norris Trophies
Calder Trophy
(13) 1st Team All-Star selections
(6) 2nd Team All-Star selections
(1) Stanley Cup
(2) Canada Cup Championships
(1) Canada Cup All-Star Team selection

---

Nicklas Lidstrom (19 Seasons; 21 y/o - 40 y/o)

Career Stats (Reg. + PO): 1,702 GP - 298 G - 964 A - 1,262 PTS
Averaging 14.36 G - 46.44 - 60.80 PTS / 80 GP


(6) Norris Trophies
(1) Conn Smythe Trophy
(9) 1st Team All-Star selections
(2) 2nd Team All-Star selections
(4) Stanley Cups
(1) Olympic Gold
(1) Olympics All-Star Team selection