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

[Dark Shadows]

nothing.

lids didnt have to 'buy' his cup(s).

yes, i said it.

Neither did Bourque. He merely needed to get traded to a team that was close to equal to the team Lidstrom was fortunate enough to have around him most of his career.

 

[njdevils1982]

Neither did Bourque. He merely needed to get traded to a team that was close to equal to the team Lidstrom was fortunate enough to have around him most of his career.

most of career sure.

im looking at late 80s early 90s.....they went far without sealing it.

if you bring up the point of surrounding cast then this topic of discussion seems moot. no?

 

[canucks4ever]

I think lidstrom is slowly closing the gap between them. In 1996 and 1997 he was clearly good enough to get an all star team selection. In 1992, 1994 and 2004 he wasnt elite, but he was still seen as a top 6-10 defensemen in the nhl. The gap between them is not that big at all. If lidstrom cracks the top 20 this year and has another great playoff run, he's in the top 15 all times.

 

[MXD]

most of career sure.

im looking at late 80s early 90s.....they went far without sealing it.

if you bring up the point of surrounding cast then this topic of discussion seems moot. no?

Oh my...
The best centers on the Bruins best teams, the key cogs...
Would have had a roster spot on the Wings. Except maybe Kasper in a checking role.

 

[jcbio11]

Bourque adjusted has a line of 368-1058-1426 in 22 seasons
Lidstrom adjusted has a line of 279-905-1184 in 19 seasons

Lidstrom's totals include an assumption that he will score at his current pace this year and would be for the end of 11.

Bourque also took over 6200 shots in his career while Lidstrom has taken 3600 so far and is unlikely to reach 4000.

Bourque was obviously the better offensive guy of the guy but IMO it's not as big of a gap as some make it out to be IMO.

aslo Lidstrom's Defensive ability gap over Bourque is slightly larger than Bourque's offensive gap IMO.

Not to mention Bourque took WAY more penalties during his career than Lidstrom. He has 0,7 PIM per game, while Lidstrom has 0,32 PIM per game. Over the course of their long career that means A LOT of shorthanded goals against Bourque's Bruins.

 

[jcbio11]

Oh my...
The best centers on the Bruins best teams, the key cogs...
Would have had a roster spot on the Wings. Except maybe Kasper in a checking role.

Look at those rosters. They had Neely, among many others good players. Mentioning their centers over and over again won't draw attention from the fact that those Bruins teams were far from horrible, like some of you'd like to believe. They made they playoffs EVERY year for Bourque's first 17 years in the NHL and even after that missed just 2 out of 4 times he was still with them. That's 19 playoffs out of 21 possible, 17 in a row. They weren't bottom dwellers by any means. They could just never take it to the next level and get the job done.

Now of course Wings had better teams, but should that really take away from Lidstrom's 4 Cups, his Conn Smythe and him captaining a team to the Cup?

Facts are facts, and Bourque has never captained his team to the Cup, has only won one and never won a Conn Smythe.

I've seen Olympic golds mentioned in this thread as well (Bourque has none) but this is kind of unfair to Borque, who unless I am mistaken only had only one shot at it during the 1998 Olympics.

I don't like how team success argument works for some players, but doesn't work at all for others, like Bourque.

 

[Stray Wasp]

No one has addressed the fact that Bourque was a +528 in his career during the season and only +5 in his career during the playoffs. +/- isn't everything but those numbers kind of stand out

Unfortunately we don't have career playoff +/- stats for Bourque, since they aren't provided for the first four years of his career.

 

[danincanada]

Show me a single quote from Bowman where he actually places anyone above Orr.

As I said earlier in this thread, every time Bowman is asked about the best d-men, he always makes a point of saying how Orr changed the game and THEN starts listing others like Lidstrom, Bourque and Robinson.
If he only did it once I wouldn't read more into it but that he does it constantly indicates to me that he too holds Orr above the rest.

Lidstrom may get some votes for best D-man ever but Orr gets many more votes for best player ever.
This IS a fact!

I didn't even mention Orr in my post so I don't know why you are focusing on him in your response instead of Bourque. If this is a strawman argument it's the worst I've ever seen, lol. I'll assume it was getting late last night when you posted this.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Look at those rosters. They had Neely, among many others good players. Mentioning their centers over and over again won't draw attention from the fact that those Bruins teams were far from horrible, like some of you'd like to believe. They made they playoffs EVERY year for Bourque's first 17 years in the NHL and even after that missed just 2 out of 4 times he was still with them. That's 19 playoffs out of 21 possible, 17 in a row. They weren't bottom dwellers by any means. They could just never take it to the next level and get the job done.

From 80 through to 2001 I don't see too many teams that won the Stanley Cup whilst lacking depth at center.

 

[danincanada]

Unfortunately we don't have career playoff +/- stats for Bourque, since they aren't provided for the first four years of his career.

I didn't notice they were missing his first 4 playoff appearances here:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bourqra01.html

They have them included here though:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8445621

They didn't total them up but it appears that would bring him up to a +22. Still low when compared to his regular season stats but more respectable at least.

 

[Padan]

I guess +/- isn't everything. Joe Sakic is known as one of the greatest clutch players, but he is -2 in 172 playoff games.

 

[danincanada]

Scotty Bowman also seems to think Larry Robinson is the next best in Longevity after Lidstrom among defensemen(Which is just plain wrong). Clearly he thinks highly of players he has coached.

It's very possible that Bowman favours the players he coached. I still think when Lidstrom's career is done many will list him above Bourque because I hear people like Bob McKenzie, who is very respected, already doing it.

+/- is highly irrelevant unless taken in context with the team you have on the ice with you. The other 5 players matter just as much to +/-. Lidstrom's +/- was certainly not hurt by having several of the best offensively + defensively gifted two way Selke players in the league on the ice with him at almost all times.

Like I said, +/- is what it is, but if Bourque can garner that ridiculous rating during the season with the same teammates he should be able to do the same during the playoffs. It's not like he was playing with a different team come playoff time. To me it would show he got exposed in the playoffs - either because he didn't elevate his game enough or because he couldn't carry his team the same way anymore because the playoffs are tougher with better teams and more matchups.

* Bourque was actually a +22 during his playoff career so it wasn't quite as bad as I first expected. Still drops off a lot from his regular season play though.

I would say they were close to equal in performance come playoff time. Lidstrom certainly has a better resume, but Bourque was excellent in the playoffs and was certainly the leading Candidate for the Conn Smythe in both Bruins trips to the finals where his team had the misfortune to face the Dynasty Oilers. Particularly in the 1990 finals.

Bourque was tallied a goal or assist on 5 of Boston's 8 goals(1PP, 4 ES) in the entire series and made another goal happen with his legendary outlet pass, although he was not credited with an assist. Pretty horrendous offense from the Bruins outside of Captain Ray Bourque. Neely and Janney both held goalless for the series. When your top line scorers are being held off the sheet and the opposing team is scoring at will when you are on the bench, no matter who you are, you cannot force a win.

A grand total of 5 ES points while Bourque was on the ice, and yet despite the fact that the Oilers outscored the Bruins 20-8 in the series, 17-7 at ES, Bourque was only -1, despite playing 30+ minutes a game. As another member already said, the majority of the time when a series is going this lopsided, the guy who logs the most icetime against the opposing teams top forwards almost always has the worse +/-. In this case, it proves he was stellar defensively, and that while he was on the ice was virtually the only time his team was scoring and keeping pucks out of the net. All of the while, the Oilers primary strategy was to shut down Bourque above all other players.

His other performances were equally stunning. Particularly in his team carrying 1987-88 playoff performance(Once again running into the Dynasty Oilers),

Or in the 91 Conference finals, in which he was amazing. 2 games up on the Penguins, and then several problems struck the team at once. First being obviously Neely getting kneed by Samuelsson and thus making him ineffectual for the rest of the series(Losing a guy who has a goal per game on a team with low scoring depth hurts). Second, the fact that several members of the team caught the flu, including Moog. Third, losing Poulin to a groin pull(best forward Pker). Fourth. Stupid Coaching. Milbury decided to insert 3 goons into the lineup to get even, and in doing so, the bruins gameplan was shattered.

Bourque was a phenomenal, Conn Smythe Caliber playoff performer (Many many times)who had the misfortune to be on a far weaker, worse coached team that lacked depth. Lidstrom is a phenomenal Conn Smythe worthy player who had the fortune of playing on a team loaded with Hall of famers, Selke winners and extreme Depth, coached by some of the greatest of all time. His playoff resume may look better for it, but make no mistake at how invaluable Bourque was to the Bruins.

I can agree with most of this. Those Bruins teams were simply not good enough to beat the Oilers or Penguins and it's hard to blame Bourque for that. In the end it is about results though so I think we need to give Lidstrom a small edge because he and his teams did get it done 4 times. Would Bourque have lead better teams to more Cups? We'll never know for sure.

Ahh, the simple Norris counting begins again. He won more Norris trophies due to weaker competition at the position. Simple as that. For all the times people harp on how Lidstrom was robbed of a trophy here and there, there are an equal amount of times(if not more) one could say the same of Bourque getting a strange decision.

Take one of Lidstrom's best seasons and transplant it to 1983-84. At this point, the voters were voting a purely defensive genius with next to no offense to the Norris in Rod Langway, and giving the runner up to a purely offensive wizard in Paul Coffey(Although Bourque edged Coffey in All star nomination). I do not see Lidstrom in any season he ever had winning on this year. Just a few years ago, many were losing their minds over Green placing higher in voting than Lidstrom because they felt that all around play was more important.

We all know about the 1990 Fiasco where Bourque was left off 6 Ballots for the Hart. Him and Messier tied in 1st place votes for the Hart, Bourque had more second place votes. But those 6 voters who left him off even the third place vote cost him the Hart.

Or look at 1992-93, a year in which Bourque placed runner up to Chelios, despite scoring 9 more points in 6 less games and Chelios had nearly 300 minutes of Penalties(And since you like the stat, a far better +/-).

Or another Chelios Norris win in 1995-96, in which Bourque actually had more 1st place Norris votes, but lost by a teeny margin due to a few less later votes. Mind you, I think Chelios played phenomenally and deserved his Norris trophy over Bourque this season. But it shows just how close the vote was. thinking of how Chelios came extremely close to the Norris over Lidstrom in 01-02 while being less of a player than he used to be. Well, that speaks volumes.

Well, in my opinion Lidstrom should have won Blake and Chara's Norris'. He was simply better than both of them in those seasons but in '98 he was still seen as too soft and when Chara won the media already decided they wanted to see someone else win it that year. Chara had a strong start to the season while Lidstrom didn't and the Bruins, playing behind the Vezina winner, had a great season so the media picked someone else. They also picked Mike Green ahead of Lidstrom which was a complete joke.

Personally I think the competition argument has gone a little overboard. I agree the late 80s early 90s had some great all-time dmen but people also have to ask why so few were produced after that. These types of things are cyclical at times but maybe it also just got more difficult to play the position and be consistently great. Look at Doughty and Keith this year...it's not so easy for them right now. That, to me, is a testament to how great and consistent Lidstrom has been.

Regarding who was better defensively? Yes most would give the edge to Lidstrom. But it is Razor close. Bourque was a wizard defensively and very close to Lidstrom in that regard. Closer than the offensive Edge Bourque possesses. A defenseman who holds the record for most times leading a team in scoring mind you. Something Lidstrom has never ever done.

I think Lidstrom has a bigger edge defensively on Bourque than you do obviously. Bourque wasn't Coffey or Green and could play both ways but Lidstrom is just on another level when it comes to shutting down the opposition and protecting his goalie. Even last night he tied up a forwards stick in front of the net to save a goal. I've never seen anyone consistently play that kind of game and dominate.

The last is irrelevant. Even After the Russians and several other countries started a stronger presence in the NHL, Bourque was still at the top of the defenseman list. His decline in top 3 Norris voting at age 37 had more to do with the absolutely terrible team around him than any other factor. Losing teams do not often get Candidates for trophies. Most telling was his sudden jump back to Norris runner up in his final season once he was on a team as good as Lidstrom's, despite Bourque being less of a player then as he was in his prime.

How can adding all those great Russian players to the NHL be irrelevant? That, in itself, increased the competition level of the league a ton. Just imagine Bourque having to compete with Fetisov and Kasatonov for the Norris like Lidstrom had to with Zubov, Gonchar and A. Markov. Not only that but Bourque didn't have to face prime KLM players while Lidstrom had to try to stop the Russian stars throughout his career and even lost the Calder to Bure. Every superstar or star player added to the league would make another player a little less dominant.

 

[Stray Wasp]

I didn't notice they were missing his first 4 playoff appearances here:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bourqra01.html

They have them included here though:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8445621

They didn't total them up but it appears that would bring him up to a +22. Still low when compared to his regular season stats but more respectable at least.

Thanks for the link.

With regards to Bourque's lack of a Cup with Boston, I don't think there are many examples of a player in any position carrying his team to the Cup and I can't recall any defenseman doing so. I don't look at Bourque's Bruins and see many golden opportunities for a cup squandered. As has been noted, Harry Sinden was a master at building teams that had a vital component missing.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Plus/minus is subjective.

Here are Bourque's postseason stats:

Career playoff numbers -- 214 gp 41g-139a-180p -- 0.84 PPG +5

From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3. He won one Norris in 1987, was 1st All-NHL in three of those seasons, and a 2nd All-NHL in the other

In 45 playoff games between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a -28... in 45 games. Keep in mind that in that period Bourque won a Norris in 1994 and 1996.

From 84-87 I am not sure why you omit 83. The year he was a key player in getting the Bruins to game 6 of the conference finals against the Dynasty Isles. Between the ages of 23-27, over 5 playoffs 9 goals, 23 assists, 32 points and +12 in 32 games.

Or look at 1988-1991 where Bourque scored 15 goals, 52 assists, 67 points and was +22 over 69 games, and was the reason they made 2 finals and a conference final game 6.

Over 1992-98 was a time period in which the Bruins were at their weakest after their run to the conference finals. The team just had zero depth outside of Oates/Bourque and the few times Neely could actually play. His +/- takes the largest hit over this time period because of the team.

P.S Bourque did not win a Norris in 1996.

Bourque adjusted has a line of 368-1058-1426 in 22 seasons
Lidstrom adjusted has a line of 279-905-1184 in 19 seasons

Lidstrom's totals include an assumption that he will score at his current pace this year and would be for the end of 11.

Bourque also took over 6200 shots in his career while Lidstrom has taken 3600 so far and is unlikely to reach 4000.

Bourque was obviously the better offensive guy of the guy but IMO it's not as big of a gap as some make it out to be IMO.

aslo Lidstrom's Defensive ability gap over Bourque is slightly larger than Bourque's offensive gap IMO.

The Bruins coaches were completely inept. But even they recognized that Bourque's vast array of shots from the blueline was what they had to build their team around due to lack of other options. Which is largely why he has so many more shots.

Defensively, well, we are just going to disagree. Bourque is thought of in most hockey circles as one of the greatest defensive defensemen of all time.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Oh my...
The best centers on the Bruins best teams, the key cogs...
Would have had a roster spot on the Wings. Except maybe Kasper in a checking role.

Yes, Kasper might have made the 4th line behind Yzerman, Fedorov and Draper. The few years Oates was there he might have cracked in under Yzerman/Fedorov too. Janney would have been chased off Bowman's team lol.

 

[lextune]

Not to mention Bourque took WAY more penalties during his career than Lidstrom. He has 0,7 PIM per game, while Lidstrom has 0,32 PIM per game. Over the course of their long career that means A LOT of shorthanded goals against Bourque's Bruins.

Myopic.

It also means a physical presence.

One that led countless wingers to shy away from Ray's corner, preventing God only knows how many goals.

 

[lextune]

aslo Lidstrom's Defensive ability gap over Bourque is slightly larger than Bourque's offensive gap IMO.

Bourque was a defensive monster.

Here I'll help you out now: This is where you claim that all of us in the 'over-40' crowd that actually saw Bourque's entire career; can't possible remember Ray's defensive prowess because it is lost in foggy nostalgia that clouds our aging minds.....

I hope HFBoards is still around when you hit your 40's so when people are talking about how you can't accurately remember Crosby's heyday you can fully realize how ridiculous you look to us now.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Not to mention Bourque took WAY more penalties during his career than Lidstrom. He has 0,7 PIM per game, while Lidstrom has 0,32 PIM per game. Over the course of their long career that means A LOT of shorthanded goals against Bourque's Bruins.

Uh, Bourque was among the least penalized top defensemen of his era. Adjusting to era's is not exclusive to points. It was a rougher game and a different sort of game.

Look at those rosters. They had Neely, among many others good players. Mentioning their centers over and over again won't draw attention from the fact that those Bruins teams were far from horrible, like some of you'd like to believe. They made they playoffs EVERY year for Bourque's first 17 years in the NHL and even after that missed just 2 out of 4 times he was still with them. That's 19 playoffs out of 21 possible, 17 in a row. They weren't bottom dwellers by any means. They could just never take it to the next level and get the job done.

Oh good lord......
Look at those Rosters and compare them to the red wings, and then compare those rosters to the Dynasty Isles, Dynasty Oilers and 2 time cup winning Pens.

And then look at their scoring depth and depth on defense. Bourque is a guy who willed those team to high finishes. Leading his team in scoring 5 times, while being 2nd in team scoring 5 more times(Where is Lidstrom in that regard?). And then look at the teams goals for and against while he was on and off the ice. The wings were an excellent team with extreme depth and their goals for/Against while Lidstrom was on and off the ice does not take the hit the Bruins do when Bourque was off the ice.

Now of course Wings had better teams, but should that really take away from Lidstrom's 4 Cups, his Conn Smythe and him captaining a team to the Cup?

Facts are facts, and Bourque has never captained his team to the Cup, has only won one and never won a Conn Smythe.

I've seen Olympic golds mentioned in this thread as well (Bourque has none) but this is kind of unfair to Borque, who unless I am mistaken only had only one shot at it during the 1998 Olympics.

I don't like how team success argument works for some players, but doesn't work at all for others, like Bourque.

And apparently you simply ignored all the evidence of his superhuman play already posted. Nobody could have lead those Bruins teams to a cup. Lidstrom certainly would not have done any better winning a cup and Conn smythe were he playing for the Bruins simply due to the fact that the Bruins were getting shredded by other teams in the half a game Bourque was not on the ice.

If Lidstrom played his usual brilliant game, and his team was only scoring and keeping pucks out of the net when he was on the ice, but allowing twice as many and not scoring at all for the 30 minutes he was on the bench, would you consider him a lesser player?

 

[matnor]

I agree completely that Bourque should not be penalized for his lack of Stanley Cups. He played great in the playoffs and it's not his fault he had much worse teammates than Lidström. It's strange though that players like Hasek and Jagr (the Lafleur-Jagr comparison has similarities to Lidström-Bourque) get much more criticized for their lack of playoff success than Bourque does.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree completely that Bourque should not be penalized for his lack of Stanley Cups. He played great in the playoffs and it's not his fault he had much worse teammates than Lidström. It's strange though that players like Hasek and Jagr (the Lafleur-Jagr comparison has similarities to Lidström-Bourque) get much more criticized for their lack of playoff success than Bourque does.

I don't know of anyone who thinks Hasek was a choker. He practically dragged the Sabres to the Cup Finals on his shoulders. He got the job done in Detroit. What is there to criticize?

 

[overg]

So, getting back to the OP, what does Lidstrom have to do to catch Bourque? So far the answers have been mainly either "he already has" or "he never can." Do the people who hold Bourque in higher esteem really have nothing in mind that could push Lidstrom ahead?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bourque was a defensive monster.

Here I'll help you out now: This is where you claim that all of us in the 'over-40' crowd that actually saw Bourque's entire career; can't possible remember Ray's defensive prowess because it is lost in foggy nostalgia that clouds our aging minds.....

I hope HFBoards is still around when you hit your 40's so when people are talking about how you can't accurately remember Crosby's heyday you can fully realize how ridiculous you look to us now.

So true.

And he had little help defensively. His defensive partners were either rookies, old washouts, stiffs or Don Sweeney (mediocre at best). And he had to play way more minutes than anyone else just to keep the Bruins going.

 

[matnor]

I don't know of anyone who thinks Hasek was a choker. He practically dragged the Sabres to the Cup Finals on his shoulders. He got the job done in Detroit. What is there to criticize?

Well, I guess it's more in comparison to Roy. Now, don't get me wrong, Roy's playoff legacy is greater than Hasek's but neither the '86 nor the '93 Canadien teams were as poor as the Sabres in the late 90s. Anyway, I've heard the argument that Hasek is not the top goalie because of lack of playoff success which I think is wrong. But this is off-topic so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Dark Shadows]

It's very possible that Bowman favours the players he coached. I still think when Lidstrom's career is done many will list him above Bourque because I hear people like Bob McKenzie, who is very respected, already doing it.

And for years, we heard the same of Bourque.

Once Lidstrom retires, people will be able to look at both of their careers in full, rather than focusing on one retired and one still playing.

Like I said, +/- is what it is, but if Bourque can garner that ridiculous rating during the season with the same teammates he should be able to do the same during the playoffs. It's not like he was playing with a different team come playoff time. To me it would show he got exposed in the playoffs - either because he didn't elevate his game enough or because he couldn't carry his team the same way anymore because the playoffs are tougher with better teams and more matchups.


* Bourque was actually a +22 during his playoff career so it wasn't quite as bad as I first expected. Still drops off a lot from his regular season play though.

+/- for a defenseman rests largely on the ability of the players he is making those outlet passes to and leading the rush for converting on the opportunities he generates.

The quality of his teammates is what the difference is in the +/- discussion.

I can agree with most of this. Those Bruins teams were simply not good enough to beat the Oilers or Penguins and it's hard to blame Bourque for that. In the end it is about results though so I think we need to give Lidstrom a small edge because he and his teams did get it done 4 times. Would Bourque have lead better teams to more Cups? We'll never know for sure.

I think the fact that he went to a similar strength team in the end of his career and won a cup speaks volumes about how much a team matters.

His play in boston carrying those Bruins team was nothing short of superhuman.

Well, in my opinion Lidstrom should have won Blake and Chara's Norris'. He was simply better than both of them in those seasons but in '98 he was still seen as too soft and when Chara won the media already decided they wanted to see someone else win it that year. Chara had a strong start to the season while Lidstrom didn't and the Bruins, playing behind the Vezina winner, had a great season so the media picked someone else. They also picked Mike Green ahead of Lidstrom which was a complete joke.

There is a strong argument for Lidstrom against Blake. I would disagree with Chara's norris, which I think he deserved. Being ranked behind Green was akin to all the times Bourque was ranked behind Coffey.

And what do you think of Bourque being ranked behind Langway/Coffey several times? Or Chelios the season he had 300 penalty minutes and was outscored by Bourque? Or the Hart fiasco in 1990?

One could easily say that is Pronger had not broken his foot, Lidstrom would be short another Norris trophy.

Personally I think the competition argument has gone a little overboard. I agree the late 80s early 90s had some great all-time dmen but people also have to ask why so few were produced after that. These types of things are cyclical at times but maybe it also just got more difficult to play the position and be consistently great. Look at Doughty and Keith this year...it's not so easy for them right now. That, to me, is a testament to how great and consistent Lidstrom has been.

And I disagree. The fact that Bourque and Chelios at age 40 were able to be runner up's while being far less than they used to be as players speaks volumes over the level of competition that had not filled the gaps they left. I would bring up Macinnis as well, but we already had that discussion.

Doughty and Keith falling back a step is not uncommon. It is not like Chelios was contending for the trophy every season. Or Mark Howe. Or Leetch. or Coffey, Or Stevens, Or Macinnis etc etc

Lidstrom and Bourque were rare players who were threats to the Norris just about every season they played.

I think Lidstrom has a bigger edge defensively on Bourque than you do obviously. Bourque wasn't Coffey or Green and could play both ways but Lidstrom is just on another level when it comes to shutting down the opposition and protecting his goalie. Even last night he tied up a forwards stick in front of the net to save a goal. I've never seen anyone consistently play that kind of game and dominate.

This is going to be a continual point of disagreement then. Bourque was outstanding defensively, very close to Lidstrom level, and I feel his team carrying offense was a larger gap. Again, how many times has Lidstrom lead his team in scoring?

How can adding all those great Russian players to the NHL be irrelevant? That, in itself, increased the competition level of the league a ton. Just imagine Bourque having to compete with Fetisov and Kasatonov for the Norris like Lidstrom had to with Zubov, Gonchar and A. Markov. Not only that but Bourque didn't have to face prime KLM players while Lidstrom had to try to stop the Russian stars throughout his career and even lost the Calder to Bure. Every superstar or star player added to the league would make another player a little less dominant.

And I disagree. After the surge of international players, Bourque maintained his elite top of the game play for many years before age and a terrible team made it much more difficult.

 

[Dark Shadows]

So, getting back to the OP, what does Lidstrom have to do to catch Bourque? So far the answers have been mainly either "he already has" or "he never can." Do the people who hold Bourque in higher esteem really have nothing in mind that could push Lidstrom ahead?

At this point in his career, I don't see Lidstrom suddenly having a better peak than he already has. Peak is the primary issue for me between them. Bourque has, by my opinion, several seasons already better than Lidstrom's best.

I have explained why I think their playoffs are a wash in detail for the cup counters.

And furthermore, Lidstrom's biggest advantage over guys like Robinson and Potvin is his longevity/consistency. That just does not exist against Bourque, who had even more years as a top player. Lidstrom did not truly hit his elite stride until 1997(Something he and his coaches both agree on)