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

[Reds4Life]

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).

Bowman is no longer part of the Red Wings. He has coached a lot of good players and if he says he does not rank anyone ahead of Lidstrom, he actually means it. He actually worked with those players and knows their strengths and weaknesses. And now tell me, why should I take yours opinion over his? I just don't see it, sorry.

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.

Scoring more points does not equal better peak. Some teams might prefer/need better defense, which consequently lowers chances of winning the Hart.

Lidstrom does not get enough credit for being the backbone of one of the best teams in the league for so long. That is not easy to do.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

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.

Like TSN voting Toews as the #3 player in the NHL going into this season? No bias there?

 

[mooseOAK*]

This is a strange thread. Lidstrom is clearly better than Bourque, I guess that people don't remember that he was never the defensive rock that Lidstrom is. Bourque because he was offensively inclined tended to make the mistakes that Lidstom has never been prone to.

 

[arrbez]

Like TSN voting Toews as the #3 player in the NHL going into this season? No bias there?

That's exactly the point he's making.

Like THN and The Sporting News, TSN is just a panel of a few "experts". The actual awards are voted on by the PHWA, an organization with around 400 members based in every market in the NHL.

 

[BigT2002]

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.

While I get what your trying to point out, it also makes it that much harder for him to achieve any MVP honors when his team is "stacked" as everyone keeps claiming. When your first 3 championships consisted of players like Stevie Y, Federov, Shanny, Hull, Robi, et al. you need to step it up to get the honor of MVP through the playoffs because your whole team at that point gels like no other and they are all a piece to the puzzle. Same thing when it comes for the Hart. It actually is easier to pull the one player that stands out, something that Lidstrom has never done, especially when he wasn't the Captain of the team. The fact that he is still consistently playing a game on a level that very few 40 year olds have been able to do at his position, I find that remarkable in itself though.

 

[Reds4Life]

That's exactly the point he's making.

Like THN and The Sporting News, TSN is just a panel of a few "experts". The actual awards are voted on by the PHWA, an organization with around 400 members based in every market in the NHL.

PWHA is nothing more than bunch of hockey journalists.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Bowman is no longer part of the Red Wings. He has coached a lot of good players and if he says he does not rank anyone ahead of Lidstrom, he actually means it. He actually worked with those players and knows their strengths and weaknesses. And now tell me, why should I take yours opinion over his? I just don't see it, sorry.

Bowman is not a representative sample of professionals from around the NHL. I respect his expertise and opinion, but his personal opinions are not authoritative.

Why should you take my opinion over his? You shouldn't. The relevant evidence here is the Hart voting record, which despite its weaknesses is the only data we can reference in regard to "best player" arguments.

Scoring more points does not equal better peak. Some teams might prefer/need better defense, which consequently lowers chances of winning the Hart.

When Bourque (should have) won the Hart, he was only the third-leading defenseman in points, behind Coffey and MacInnis. However, he was the backbone of the best defense in the league, the only All-Star quality blueliner in front of a Lemelin/Moog goalie tandem that had a sub-.900 save percentage and was coached by Mike Milbury.

To be honest, your implication that Bourque wasn't a premier defensive player kinda ruins your credibility in comparing the two players. Bourque was an elite shutdown defenseman who could ALSO score points on his own.

Like TSN voting Toews as the #3 player in the NHL going into this season? No bias there?

I'm not sure if you're trying to agree with me or not, but yes there is an obvious bias there. Hence, polls like that don't have any credibility.

 

[Reds4Life]

Bowman is not a representative sample of professionals from around the NHL. I respect his expertise and opinion, but his personal opinions are not authoritative.

Why should you take my opinion over his? You shouldn't. The relevant evidence here is the Hart voting record, which despite its weaknesses is the only data we can reference in regard to "best player" arguments.

For me, he is a lot more credible than 400 hockey writers. The journalists are observers, Sotty was actually IN the game.

When Bourque (should have) won the Hart, he was only the third-leading defenseman in points, behind Coffey and MacInnis. However, he was the backbone of the best defense in the league, the only All-Star quality blueliner in front of a Lemelin/Moog goalie tandem that had a sub-.900 save percentage and was coached by Mike Milbury.

To be honest, your implication that Bourque wasn't a premier defensive player kinda ruins your credibility in comparing the two players. Bourque was an elite shutdown defenseman who could ALSO score points on his own.

I never said/implied that Ray was not elite defensively. Just that Lidstrom was better defensively.

 

[tarheelhockey]

While I get what your trying to point out, it also makes it that much harder for him to achieve any MVP honors when his team is "stacked" as everyone keeps claiming. When your first 3 championships consisted of players like Stevie Y, Federov, Shanny, Hull, Robi, et al. you need to step it up to get the honor of MVP through the playoffs because your whole team at that point gels like no other and they are all a piece to the puzzle. Same thing when it comes for the Hart. It actually is easier to pull the one player that stands out, something that Lidstrom has never done, especially when he wasn't the Captain of the team.

Doesn't that seem perfectly fair to you, though? Bourque was almost single-handedly carrying his teams to division titles and Cup runs by visibly dominating all three zones. Lidstrom was playing elite defense in support of a group of Hall of Famers, in such a way that he was just subtly under the radar much of the time. Doesn't that, in itself, clearly identify who was the more dominant player?

The fact that he is still consistently playing a game on a level that very few 40 year olds have been able to do at his position, I find that remarkable in itself though.

I completely agree, and I don't understand why there has been this obsession with trying to argue for Lidstrom over Bourque the past few months. It's not like tearing Bourque down makes Lidstrom look better, just let his career speak for itself and the chips fall where they may. Lidstrom is an all-time player and doesn't need to be "ranked" over Bourque to be appreciated.

PWHA is nothing more than bunch of hockey journalists.

As stated above... over 400 hockey journalists more-or-less equally distributed over the entire league. Not a magazine editor taking a straw poll of the office.

 

[arrbez]

PWHA is nothing more than bunch of hockey journalists.

Exactly. It's the biggest group out there, it's a group that makes a living watching the game, and it's a group that collectively covers every team and sees every single game in the league.

The idea that someone has to be a coach, GM, or player to be able to judge talent is silly. Mike Milbury was all three, and he's also one of the worst judges of talent the league has ever seen.

Wayne Gretzky probably understood the game better than anyone in history. Wayne Gretzky is on the record stating that Peter Forsberg is one of the top-5 players of all time. Does that make it so just because Wayne Gretzky said it?

The average of the opinions of a large group of knowledgeable people will generally give a better result than just relying on the opinion of one man.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Bowman is not a representative sample of professionals from around the NHL. I respect his expertise and opinion, but his personal opinions are not authoritative.

Why should you take my opinion over his? You shouldn't. The relevant evidence here is the Hart voting record, which despite its weaknesses is the only data we can reference in regard to "best player" arguments.



When Bourque (should have) won the Hart, he was only the third-leading defenseman in points, behind Coffey and MacInnis. However, he was the backbone of the best defense in the league, the only All-Star quality blueliner in front of a Lemelin/Moog goalie tandem that had a sub-.900 save percentage and was coached by Mike Milbury.

To be honest, your implication that Bourque wasn't a premier defensive player kinda ruins your credibility in comparing the two players. Bourque was an elite shutdown defenseman who could ALSO score points on his own.



I'm not sure if you're trying to agree with me or not, but yes there is an obvious bias there. Hence, polls like that don't have any credibility.

IMO that bias is why Lidstrom got screwed out maybe 2 more Norris's. If had 8 and going for #9 this year this thread would not be here today.

 

[Reds4Life]

As stated above... over 400 hockey journalists more-or-less equally distributed over the entire league. Not a magazine editor taking a straw poll of the office.

They are observers that get paid for writing facts and opinions. They are not experts like Scotty Bowman. They are not even in Ken Holland territory. And they are not the actual NHL players that play against each other either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

For me, he is a lot more credible than 400 hockey writers. The journalists are observers, Sotty was actually IN the game.

If he had actually coached them both at the same time, maybe I'd agree. But why would Bowman say anything other than the polite, "My Player X is the best I've ever seen at that position?". We can dig up many, many quotes to the same effect from different coaches.

I never said Ray was not elite defensively. Just that Lidstrom was better defensively.

I'm speaking to your "Scoring more points does not equal a better peak" comment. The implication is that my argument is based on Bourque's dominance in one direction.

Honestly, I can't think of any evidence that Lidstrom's peak was higher than Bourque's. Honors, stats, the "eyeball test" all say Bourque was more dominant at his best. That's not a terrible thing considering Bourque had arguably the highest peak of any defenseman not named Orr.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

At this point it seems that both sides have stated their opinions on the Bourque vs. Lidstrom issue (AGAIN), so how about looking at it a different way...

In the last HOH Top 100 the following players were ranked after Bourque in this order...

Howie Morenz
Dominik Hasek
Jaques Plante
Patrick Roy
Stan Mikita
Red Kelly
Nicklas Lidstrom

Forget about Bourque. Which of these players has Lidstrom passed? For the ones you don't think he has passed yet, what will he have to do to pass them?

 

[Reds4Life]

If he had actually coached them both at the same time, maybe I'd agree. But why would Bowman say anything other than the polite, "My Player X is the best I've ever seen at that position?". We can dig up many, many quotes to the same effect from different coaches.

He did not say that. He has said it is tough to rank players and that he can only say he would not rank anyone ahead.

I'm speaking to your "Scoring more points does not equal a better peak" comment. The implication is that my argument is based on Bourque's dominance in one direction.

Honestly, I can't think of any evidence that Lidstrom's peak was higher than Bourque's. Honors, stats, the "eyeball test" all say Bourque was more dominant at his best. That's not a terrible thing considering Bourque had arguably the highest peak of any defenseman not named Orr.

So if Ray scores 15 more points in a season and Lids prevents 15 more goals against. Ray has had the better season?
(just example)

 

[tarheelhockey]

IMO that bias is why Lidstrom got screwed out maybe 2 more Norris's. If had 8 and going for #9 this year this thread would not be here today.

But the TSN panel doesn't vote on the Norrises, nor does any other similar small group. In one of the years you claim he was robbed, he got ZERO first-place votes... zero! How can you say he should have won when MacInnis got 54 out of 55 possible first-place votes??

The previous year, Blake had 27 first-place votes to Lidstrom's 15. Not as decisive, but it's still almost a 2-to-1 ratio. That's not a voting anomaly, like when we could narrow Bourque's Hart loss down to two specific Edmonton ballots.

They are observers that get paid for writing facts and opinions. They are not experts like Scotty Bowman. They are not even in Ken Holland territory. And they are not the actual NHL players that play against each other either.

So you are basically saying that the personal opinion of two men, who happen to have been employed for your favorite team at the same time Lidstrom played there, trump the consensus of the rest of the hockey world?

I can't really argue with that, but it seems pretty far out in left field TBH.

 

[Reds4Life]

At this point it seems that both sides have stated their opinions on the Bourque vs. Lidstrom issue (AGAIN), so how about looking at it a different way...

In the last HOH Top 100 the following players were ranked after Bourque in this order...

Howie Morenz
Dominik Hasek
Jaques Plante
Patrick Roy
Stan Mikita
Red Kelly
Nicklas Lidstrom

Forget about Bourque. Which of these players has Lidstrom passed? For the ones you don't think he has passed yet, what will he have to do to pass them?

And what makes Bourque better than Plante/Roy/Hasek?
The list is subjective and IMHO very biased.

I'd take Lidstrom over Kelly and Mikita. What makes my opinion universally wrong?

And Morenz at the top of this group is just ridiculous as far as I am concerned.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

Orr's Bruins were not better than Lidstrom's wings - you are completely missing the point! Orr's Bruins were only better than Lidstrom's wings when Orr was on the ice... and they were CONSIDERABLY better.

If a team was able to consistently maintain a 2.16 GF:GA ratio, the pythagorean theorem says they'd have a very high win%: .823. But of course they can't because Orr is only on the ice for half the game. Operating at 1.09, which is what the Bruins were when Orr was on the bench, would only make a team about .543.

On the other hand, Lidstrom's wings were a very respectable 1.25 even when he wasn't on the bench. Maintaining that ratio game in, game out would see them have a win% that regresses to about .610. Lidstrom turns that into .671.

Not player greatness. You were comparing teams. Team's greatness is measured by Cup wins.

We're only comparing teams for the purpose of showing how they did with and without the player on the ice! Cup wins only prove how each team fared with each player playing half the game.

Besides, the Wings, with Lidstrom on the ice for 30 minutes a game, won 4 cups. the Bruins, with Orr on the ice for 30 minutes a game and for half the length of time, won two. I'm not seeing a difference here.

Yes. Bourque has won regular season MVP (almost, should have) and Lidstrom has won playoff MVP.

Again, you are choosing the simple, binary "did he win it or not?" method. Look a little deeper and Bourque's voting record is clearly better.

 

[tarheelhockey]

He did not say that. He has said it is tough to rank players and that he can only say he would not rank anyone ahead.

So why bring it up? It's clearly just a diplomatic, media-friendly cliche.

So if Ray scores 15 more points in a season and Lids prevents 15 more goals against. Ray has had the better season?
(just example)

No, and I haven't said anything like that.

 

[Reds4Life]

Orr's Bruins were not better than Lidstrom's wings - you are completely missing the point! Orr's Bruins were only better than Lidstrom's wings when Orr was on the ice... and they were CONSIDERABLY better.

If a team was able to consistently maintain a 2.16 GF:GA ratio, the pythagorean theorem says they'd have a very high win%: .823. But of course they can't because Orr is only on the ice for half the game. Operating at 1.09, which is what the Bruins were when Orr was on the bench, would only make a team about .543.

On the other hand, Lidstrom's wings were a very respectable 1.25 even when he wasn't on the bench. Maintaining that ratio game in, game out would see them have a win% that regresses to about .610. Lidstrom turns that into .671.

We're only comparing teams for the purpose of showing how they did with and without the player on the ice! Cup wins only prove how each team fared with each player playing half the game.

Besides, the Wings, with Lidstrom on the ice for 30 minutes a game, won 4 cups. the Bruins, with Orr on the ice for 30 minutes a game and for half the length of time, won two. I'm not seeing a difference here.

No you missed the point. I said that Wings PLUS Lidstrom are better team than Bruins PLUS Orr because they won twice as many Cups in a more competitive league.

The numbers you posted are skewed because the game has changed too much between then (Orr) and now (Lidstrom).

Again, you are choosing the simple, binary "did he win it or not?" method. Look a little deeper and Bourque's voting record is clearly better.

Yes, it is. I have already said why that is.

 

[Reds4Life]

So why bring it up? It's clearly just a diplomatic, media-friendly cliche.

I disagree with you.

No, and I haven't said anything like that.

It is much easier to appreciate offense than defense. This, of course, leads to more accolades.

 

[overg]

I'll try to give a real answer to the OP's question. I'm speaking not from my own personal rankings (never saw prime Bourque, and I'm a huge Lidstrom fan, so . . . yeah), but rather what I think it'd take for Lidstrom to gain a consensus of HF votes for a) being better than Bourque, and b) being the best ever.

(a) I think if Lidstrom wins both the Norris and a Conn Smythe this year, the consensus will be "the two are neck and neck, with Bourque just a smidge ahead of Lidstrom." Without the Smythe, I think it takes at least three more Norris trophies (including this year, should he hold on to his front-runner status) to move past Bourque in the History section's eyes. Basically, he's going to have to out-perform Bourque's later years by a significant margin to overcome the following three factors 1) Bourque shot to stardom faster, 2) Bourque had a higher peak, and 3) Bourque had tougher competition.

If I was a betting man, I'd say Lidstrom will end his career behind Bourque in the History Section's eyes.

(b) To beat Orr, Lidstrom's going to have to pull a Gordie Howe. If he's still contending for the Norris 7, 8, 10 years from now, he'll have the insane longevity to start countering Orr's insane peak. Chances are of course astronomically low that he'll keep up this pace for that long, but the chances of him suddenly matching Orr's peak are effectively zero. So if he's going to do it, he's going to have to take the longevity route.

 

[lextune]

So what exactly makes your opinion right?

?.....it is not just "my opinion". It is the consensus of the History section....

Wake up man, that list is never gonna be universally accepted as THE ONE.

Few things in life are universally accepted....

....if you are unhappy with the results and feel you have a persuasive argument you should get involved in the debate/voting next time. Until then....

Welcome to our section, , and enjoy our list....Or don't.

But acting as if it is one poster or anothers singular opinion is fallacious.

 

[arrbez]

No you missed the point. I said that Wings PLUS Lidstrom are better team than Bruins PLUS Orr because they won twice as many Cups in a more competitive league.

I think 70's makes a good point. What's the difference between Orr winning 2 times in 9 years, and Lidstrom winning 4 times in 19 years?

After 9 years, Lidstrom "only" had 2 Cups as well. At the same age as Orr's last healthy season (age 26), Lidstrom had 1 Cup.

 

[seventieslord]

So if Ray scores 15 more points in a season and Lids prevents 15 more goals against. Ray has had the better season?
(just example)

If you mean that he personally and directly prevented those goals, then yes. If you mean he was just on the ice for 15 fewer, that is a responsibility that I'd attribute to the team, whereas player contribution models don't work the opposite way in reverse, there are no points just for "being there".

I'd take Lidstrom over Kelly and Mikita. What makes my opinion universally wrong?

"wrong" is impossible to conclusively prove, but it's certainly questionable because you seem to have a modern/european bias and those two are neither modern nor european.