seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Thank you for pointing this out. I was going to do the same thing.
Lidstromless Wings >> Orrless Bruins.
Bruins with Orr >>>> Wings with Lidstrom.
What does Lidstrom have to do to be considered better than Bourque?
- Thread starter jcbio11
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for pointing this out. I was going to do the same thing.
Lidstromless Wings >> Orrless Bruins.
Bruins with Orr >>>> Wings with Lidstrom.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
Lidstrom has been an incredible defenseman for many years, but he does not compare to Bourque. And that is not an insult to Lidstrom; who's career I have loved watching.
Measuring peak, and prime, and career, and level of competition are all incidental, (although other than a slight edge to Lidstrom in playoff performance, I give every other conceivable advantage to Bourque). It reminds me of the Crosby's first 5 years vs. Lemieux's first 5 years debate that popped up in another thread.
No measuring of achievements can change the simple base fact that Bourque was just a superior hockey player to Lidstrom.
Simplest way to put it; Bourque is a top 10 player all time. Lidstrom is a top 20 player all-time.
.....but I know how the History section hates succinctness so I expect a rebut, lol.
Measuring peak, and prime, and career, and level of competition are all incidental, (although other than a slight edge to Lidstrom in playoff performance, I give every other conceivable advantage to Bourque). It reminds me of the Crosby's first 5 years vs. Lemieux's first 5 years debate that popped up in another thread.
No measuring of achievements can change the simple base fact that Bourque was just a superior hockey player to Lidstrom.
Simplest way to put it; Bourque is a top 10 player all time. Lidstrom is a top 20 player all-time.
.....but I know how the History section hates succinctness so I expect a rebut, lol.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
We got it the first time.
Are your attempts at witticism supposed to be sufficient in changing anyone's mind? Or are you just trying to amuse yourself?
lextune
I'm too old for this.
You left out Bourque's Hart Trophy, and runner-up to Gretz....(O.K. 2 runner-ups, technically, lol). And Hart Trophy vote shares in general.
The Canadian/now Boston bias is amazingly thick here. And the typical crap of you obviously don't what you are talking about happens whenever someone goes against the bias.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
When did those teams play against each other? Lidstrom-less Wings basically do not exist and unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way to tell how would they do without him.
Also, Orr's Bruins won only 2 Cups. Lidstrom's Wings won 4. So "Bruins with Orr >>>> Wings with Lidstrom" makes no sense.
That's just ridiculous. They are very close either way.
Level of competition is arguable at best. Lidstrom has had a better career, quite easily at that.
Bourque scored more points, if that makes for a better prime in your opinion, why not.
IMHO Bourque is not top 10 player ever.
As for Hart trophy, Lidstrom never got much recognition despite being the best player on one of the best teams in the league for quite some time, it is not his fault that media did not appreciate him in this voting.
Last edited:
For those who are using the case "Lidstrom has played on a stacked Detroit team to achieve success" wouldnt that actually make it harder and demand him to stand up a lot more in order to maintain his playing time and position on the Powerplay? It isn't like Detroit has never had amazing Top 4 defensemen, let alone 6 at some points during his career with the team. I find that to be an extreme test of ability especially when he has gotten older and the team has gotten younger as the years have gone on.
However, I do agree that the only way he overtakes Bourque (in my opinion) would be to win the Norris, Comm Smythe, and Stanley Cup at his age against the level of competition on the blue line and playoffs would make a way stronger case.
However, I do agree that the only way he overtakes Bourque (in my opinion) would be to win the Norris, Comm Smythe, and Stanley Cup at his age against the level of competition on the blue line and playoffs would make a way stronger case.
Playing the "euro card" is a convenient way to continue an argument when you don't have anything smart to say. What makes you think anyone here is biased against European players? Look at how high Hasek and Jagr placed on the top-100 list this board made. They have Hasek as the best goalie ever. Jagr listed ahead of Trottier, Bossy, Sakic, Yzerman, etc. Considering the questionable attitudes these guys had at times, it wouldn't have been hard to find an excuse to move them down the list if everyone around here really hated European players.
Based on your posting history, I think a more appropriate remark would be: "Change Bourque's sweater to a winged wheel and he's instantly much better".
Remember the last Lidstrom thread where you made this argument to put him over Bourque:
It's like you don't know a single thing about Ray Bourque or what made him so special. Your main argument to put Lidstrom ahead of Bourque is longevity and time-on-ice? The areas where Bourque has perhaps his most obvious edge?
Last edited:
lextune
I'm too old for this.
In the opinion of the History section he is:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=669817
....and we are wicked smart! Lol...
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
So where does that leave Lidstrom? 3rd loser?
It seems petty to try and run down legitimate accomplishments just to score argument "points".It's generally agreed-upon that Bourque was the rightful winner of the '91 Hart, and was denied only because of a "voting anomaly" (aka, fixed by the Edmonton ballot). For all intents and purposes, he was the MVP of the league at the time.
That IMO is what really separates Bourque from Lidstrom... that he was regarded as the best overall PLAYER in the league for several years, outside of Gretzky and Lemieux. Lidstrom has not reached that peak at any point. He has consistently been the best player at his position, but there has always been a cluster of players above him overall. And they haven't exactly been Gretzky-Lemieux type generational talents either.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
In the opinion of the History section he is:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=669817
....and we are wicked smart! Lol...
So? Who cares?
IMHO putting the top3 goalies behind Bourque is just wrong. What makes your/their opinion more valid?
For example Hasek has dominated the league in a way Bourque never has. What makes Ray better or greater? That list is not the ultimate hockey players ranking.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
So where does that leave Lidstrom? 3rd loser?
It's generally agreed-upon that Bourque was the rightful winner of the '91 Hart, and was denied only because of a "voting anomaly" (aka, fixed by the Edmonton ballot). For all intents and purposes, he was the MVP of the league at the time.
That IMO is what really separates Bourque from Lidstrom... that he was regarded as the best overall PLAYER in the league for several years, outside of Gretzky and Lemieux. Lidstrom has not reached that peak at any point. He has consistently been the best player at his position, but there has always been a cluster of players above him overall. And they haven't exactly been Gretzky-Lemieux type generational talents either.
Lidstrom was voted the best player (all positions) of the decade.
Media based voting has not been consistent throughout the history of the game.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Not by the PHWA, which creates the definitive record in their awards voting. Heck, I'd even agree that Lidstrom would be the player of the 00s (tied with Brodeur perhaps), but that doesn't mean he was the best player in any given season.
I'm not pretending that it has. At the same time, there was no season where Lidstrom was clearly robbed of a Hart. There WAS a season where Bourque was clearly robbed. Media voting aside, the general consensus rules on that matter.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
You are either missing the joke completely or are unaware of the scandalous 1990 voting results.
And if you put no value on finishing runner up to a prime Gretzky then you are in the wrong section, and I wish I hadn't wasted my time talking to someone so clueless.
Actually I pointed out that 'technically' he was runner up twice
Thanks for missing the point completely, lol.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
Says who? Ask Ken Holland. Then ask Scotty Bowman.
Hart is MVP, not the best player. If your team sucks, it's much easier to be MVP. Recently, they just give Hart to the highest scoring player lol. Lidstrom won a Conn Smythe, Bourque has not. Why? Lidstrom certainly had a better chance since he played more playoffs. With Bourque and Hart it's the other way around.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Lidstrom plays only half the game, not the whole game. So yes, there is plenty of time to see how the Red Wings have fared without him. 1.43 goals for per goal against with him on the ice, 1.25 without. Orr took the Bruins from 1.09 to 2.16. He's in a whole other stratospher from anyone.
FWIW, Bourque's Bruins were actually negative when he wasn't on the ice: 0.95. But they were 1.37 with him on. So his on-ice impact was likely greater too.
Not sure why it makes sense to compare the simplest item with the smallest sample size of instances. We are so beyond using "cup wins" as a measure of a player's greatness.
Thousands of goals for and against happened during their careers; it makes a lot more sense to analyze something like this as it is far less dependent on luck.
both players were greatly underrated by Hart voting, simply by being defensemen. Both got their due strictly as defensemen, but were consistently voted less valuable than forwards who, in retrospect, aren't better players. Bourque, as a two-time runner-up and arguable one-time should-have-won, transcended this disadvantage just a little better.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
Seriously?
Us.
The people you are talking to, lol.
....look at the top of the page, you are in the History section.
You think we put all that work/time into the list for nothing? You think you throwing out some blurb of an opinion counters thousands of posts worth of debate?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
goalies are a little more hot and cold, and I don't think their rankings on all-time lists often consider that. There are also no goalies without some flaw or question mark to them. There are more "perfect" skaters out there, guys who you just can't say anything bad about - Harvey, Beliveau, Bourque, etc. Lastly, the thee consensus top goalies probably caused a lot of vote-splitting among guys who felt the need to separate them (i.e. place one 6th, another 10th, another 15th) - I didn't succumb to that personally. I voted them 11th, 12th, 13th, IIRC.
And IMO again MY OPINION Lidstrom was the non-winner due to scandalous voting. See Rob Blake and Al MacInnis.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
you could very well be right about both of those years. On the other hand, I think MacInnis have have been robbed in 2003. And this is the norris we're talking about now, not the Hart, hockey's most prestigious trophy.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,896
- 223
I never compared Orr to Lidstrom.
In any case, ranking Orr's Bruins ahead Lidstrom's Wings is just funny, since the latter team has had more success in a league with a lot more true Cup contenders.
Not player greatness. You were comparing teams. Team's greatness is measured by Cup wins.
Yes. Bourque has won regular season MVP (almost, should have) and Lidstrom has won playoff MVP.
So what exactly makes your opinion right? For example, I'd take Scotty Bowman's opinion over anyone else's here..combined.
Wake up man, that list is never gonna be universally accepted as THE ONE.
You said Lidstrom is not even close to Bourque..so if you took part in the voting for that list..well, that speaks volumes.
Personally, I do not think rating Beliveau over Roy or Bourque over Hasek is right. Goalies are a special kind of men, they come with baggage, but in the end, if they dominate in a way Hasek has shown in Nagano 98, there is nothing that would make me take Bourque over him. Morenz over the big 3 boggles my mind for example. IMHO that list is incredibly biased against the top3 goalies.
And just a sidenote: Hasek's "problems" are nothing more than media bubble.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
So I'm supposed to ask Lidstrom's bosses? That would be completely meaningless.
The point of awards voting panels is to have a representative sample of professionals from across the league, which organizations like The Sporting News and the Hockey News do not (which is why they are the ones voting on things like Player of the Decade, rather than the Hart).
No, it's quite different actually. Players from 2 teams are eligible for the Conn Smythe, with one team being very heavily favored. Lidstrom happens to have been on that one team 4 times, to Bourque's 0.
Players from all 30 teams are eligible for the Hart with the divison winners being heavily favored. Despite what you say, only once has a player won the Hart on a non-playoff team (Mario). Players from a division winner have won the Hart 27 times. Lidstrom actually had a distinct advantage by playing on 12 division winners to Bourque's 6. Intuitively it might seem easier to be MVP on a bad team, but the voters favor the best player on the best team. Advantage Lidstrom.
Yet Lidstrom's Hart voting record is considerably weaker, which really does suggest that he had a lower peak. It is what it is.
- Status
