Lidstrom's rank amongst all-time defensemen

[goblue9280 33]

I would probably rank Bourque ahead because he could (and did) do everything Llidstrom did

Except win 4 cups, a Conn Smythe, and a gold medal.

[Chadd 916]

Absolutely irrelevant to the discussion of on ice abilities. Those are the result of better team building, something neither player had control over.

[goblue9280 33]

I know, Chadd. Thus the smiley face to convey my facetiousness.

However, while championships aren't necessarily relevant to the nuts and bolts of playing ability, they are certainly relevant in a discussion about a players legacy and place in history. Lidstrom was a major piece of 4 Stanley Cup championship teams (and played in 2 other finals)... captaining one and winning the Conn Smythe in another.

[Stewie 721]

Lidstrom and Bourque is a tough one, i think Lidstrom was better defensively, whereas Bourque was a better offensive player. Ultimately i will give the nod to Lidstrom for his leadership skills.

[chippa13 1844]

I know, Chadd. Thus the smiley face to convey my facetiousness.

However, while championships aren't necessarily relevant to the nuts and bolts of playing ability, they are certainly relevant in a discussion about a players legacy and place in history. Lidstrom was a major piece of 4 Stanley Cup championship teams (and played in 2 other finals)... captaining one and winning the Conn Smythe in another.

Let's be fair, Lidstrom had the benefit of a stronger supporting cast than Bourque did with probably the exception of his little stint with the Avs and his two Cup runs in Boston where they faced the Oilers in the finals.

[Jason Harris 31]

Lidstrom and Bourque is a tough one, i think Lidstrom was better defensively, whereas Bourque was a better offensive player. Ultimately i will give the nod to Lidstrom for his leadership skills.

What's interesting is Harry Sinden would often be asked which of his babies was better: Bourque or Orr. While I think his answer in some ways diminished both players, it was the right answer politically. He said, "If I'm down a goal with a minute left, I want Orr on the ice. If I'm up a goal with a minute left, I want Bourque on the ice."

I don't watch other teams' games, so I only occasionally see other players and have no idea how good Lidstrom was defensively, but what I will say is Bourque was an excellent defensive player.

Maybe the best of all of them defensively, however, is Chara. Last year he was voted by other NHL players as the toughest defenseman to play against. When you consider that he always is playing against the other team's top offensive players, it's quite impressive how consistently stingy he is on the ice.

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

What's interesting is Harry Sinden would often be asked which of his babies was better: Bourque or Orr. While I think his answer in some ways diminished both players, it was the right answer politically. He said, "If I'm down a goal with a minute left, I want Orr on the ice. If I'm up a goal with a minute left, I want Bourque on the ice."

I don't watch other teams' games, so I only occasionally see other players and have no idea how good Lidstrom was defensively, but what I will say is Bourque was an excellent defensive player.

Maybe the best of all of them defensively, however, is Chara. Last year he was voted by other NHL players as the toughest defenseman to play against. When you consider that he always is playing against the other team's top offensive players, it's quite impressive how consistently stingy he is on the ice.

It sounds like you should've paid attention to Lidstrom, because that whole post reeked of homerism.

[bruins89 1]

orr is arguably the greatest player to ever play the game. he was like +120 one year. if it wasnt for injuries it would have been amazing to see what he could have done.

[Jason Harris 31]

It sounds like you should've paid attention to Lidstrom, because that whole post reeked of homerism.

How can I have homerism about a player that is easily considered Top 5, and probably considered Top 3 if put to a vote?

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

I don't watch other teams' games, so I only occasionally see other players and have no idea how good Lidstrom was defensively, but what I will say is Bourque was an excellent defensive player.

So, how else could your angle be construed as? You claim ignorance on the other part of the equation but regardless of that, have no problem pumping your guys' (yes, plural) tires.

[Jason Harris 31]

You're right, because I readily conceded that I do not know enough to compare the two players' defense side-by-side. But, because it seemed that Stewie was almost making a fallacy -- that because Bourque's the all-time scoring leader for defense then it means he's not quite as strong defensively -- I thought it relevant to express that he was considered the best defensive defenseman among his Norris caliber peers.

Lidstrom may be better defensively. I don't know because I don't watch enough other games. But just because Bourque scored a lot more, partially due to longevity, it's wrong to assume he wasn't as strong on defense.

Again, he'd likely be considered Top 3 in a vote. It's not a stretch to assume he was pretty good at a few aspects of his game.

EDIT: By the way, and I admit this is blasphemous -- particularly for this thread and particularly since I don't watch enough -- but I've sometimes felt people have upped their opinion of Lidstrom in the historical rankings because of his seven Norrises. The one flaw I see in this line of thinking is I don't think he had any competition since Bourque and Coffey retired. Other than Chara the last few years, and maybe Niedermayer or Pronger for a couple of seasons, who would even be worthy candidates for the Norris?

Orr had Park, Robinson and Langway.

Bourque had Coffey, Potvin, Murphy and Howe.

All those guys are Hall of Famers. Who were Lidstrom's HOF competition in the second half of his career? This is not at all to denigrate Lidstrom, but only to suggest it's possible he's being pushed higher into the historical rankings because of an abundance of hardware.

[wrangler 157]

I wouldn't really consider the Norris trophies; they're awarded based on opinions. Since we're discussing our own opinions here, it seems to me that we should base them on play, not the opinions of others.

[Empieee 0]

what ranks lidstrom above bourque for me is the less amount of physical play he used. Ofcourse hockey is a contact game, played hard especially defence. But I really respect the way Lidstrom played it and used enough physical play if needed, but due to positional play and stick work etc. physical play was not always needed for him.

in my opinion it would be: 1 Orr, 2 Doug Harvey, 3 Lidstrom, 4 Bourque

[Jason Harris 31]

I don't think I've ever seen clips of Doug Harvey. Has anyone here seen him play? What made him so great?

[chippa13 1844]

So missing an element actually ranks a guy higher? I'm not sure that follows logically. Bourque did everything that Lidstrom did and he had the strength and ability to punish a guy if need be.

[Jason Harris 31]

Since we're discussing our own opinions here, it seems to me that we should base them on play, not the opinions of others.

You're right, but even in those sports that allow players and coaches to vote for All Star teams or Player Of The Year polls, it's apparent that even players and coaches can sometimes vote off of reputation. It's just very difficult for anyone to watch enough of everyone. Maybe Red Zone watchers on Sunday Ticket -- although they often are doing so with a receding brain count throughout the afternoon.... -- or those Center Ice and League Pass subscribers who will watch every night, versus someone like me who only watches my team's games plus highlight shows.

MLB only lets two ten-year sportswriters from each city vote for Hall of Fame candidates, but if you're a Baltimore writer, watching all the Orioles games and filing your articles after those games, how many games of Barry Larkin's career did you really watch?

[Empieee 0]

Well, let me clarify it a little. For me playing physical is an element you can consider someone needs to have. Lidstrom didnt need to play physical because his other abbilities, why is there a need to punish when that is not your game? Lidstrom was never a punisher nor was he a hitter did it harm him during his career? no that I am aware of. Not saying it harmed bourque he could play physical. But a player that is that good while missing an element as you say is doing something good and it earns my respect a defence doesnt result to play the body first. Because besides the physical play there is also the technical play within hockey.

[goblue9280 33]

So missing an element actually ranks a guy higher? I'm not sure that follows logically. Bourque did everything that Lidstrom did and he had the strength and ability to punish a guy if need be.

This is such a fallacy. Lidstrom was not limited in his ability to play the body, he was just extremely smart at when to utilize it. Blow-up hits are great for highlight reels, but 90% of the time it takes the puck carrier AND the defender out of the play. Lidstrom used his body in such a way that allowed him to also play the puck. Frankly, he might have been the best in league history in that respect. This also allowed him to rarely put his body in a vulnerable position (another thing he may have been the best ever at)... which led to him playing 20 healthy years where he rarely missed a game. I love watching Kronwall through a big hit, but he rarely plays the puck after the hit... I much prefer seeing Lidstrom pinch a guy off along the boards and immediately play the puck up to an open forward for a possible odd man rush.

[goblue9280 33]

When comparing Bourque and Lidstrom, there are a few intangibles that need to be pointed out that certainly work in Bourque's favor.

1. Bourque is Candian, Lidstrom is European... sorry, this will ALWAYS be a factor.

2. Bourque was the man in Boston, and the 2nd coming of Orr. The red wings on the other hand were Yzermans team for 75% of Lidstrom's career. Furthermore, Lidstrom was overshadowed by Konstantinov and his physical style of play for the first third of his career. It was Konstantinov who was the Norris trophy candidate from the wings during the mid 90's. Bourque was a rockstar in Boston while Lidstrom had the quiet, go about your business personality.

These two things certainly should have no bearing on who was the better player or who had the greater career... but in most hockey fans minds, I believe these two things do heavily influence their opinions.

[Jason Harris 31]

Rock star is too far, because the Celts and Sox were bigger at the time, but I agree about Bourque being a star in Boston.

On the other hand, in some ways I feel you just argued my point that most of us really only know the players on the teams we follow. Bourque was not Scott Stevens; he was the guy you just described two posts above.

[chippa13 1844]

Hold on a second. Bourque was a star in Boston but hardly a "rock star". Bourque had every bit the quiet personality that you attribute to Lidstrom. And while I said Bourque had a physical side and punished guys, he wasn't the type to go for the Kronwall hit, instead, he would play a guy into the part of the ice where he would finish him off in the boards or the corner and leave with the puck to lead the breakout while the opponent got up wondering what just happened.

[Stewie 721]

You're right, because I readily conceded that I do not know enough to compare the two players' defense side-by-side. But, because it seemed that Stewie was almost making a fallacy -- that because Bourque's the all-time scoring leader for defense then it means he's not quite as strong defensively -- I thought it relevant to express that he was considered the best defensive defenseman among his Norris caliber peers.

Lidstrom may be better defensively. I don't know because I don't watch enough other games. But just because Bourque scored a lot more, partially due to longevity, it's wrong to assume he wasn't as strong on defense.

Again, he'd likely be considered Top 3 in a vote. It's not a stretch to assume he was pretty good at a few aspects of his game.

EDIT: By the way, and I admit this is blasphemous -- particularly for this thread and particularly since I don't watch enough -- but I've sometimes felt people have upped their opinion of Lidstrom in the historical rankings because of his seven Norrises. The one flaw I see in this line of thinking is I don't think he had any competition since Bourque and Coffey retired. Other than Chara the last few years, and maybe Niedermayer or Pronger for a couple of seasons, who would even be worthy candidates for the Norris?

Orr had Park, Robinson and Langway.

Bourque had Coffey, Potvin, Murphy and Howe.

All those guys are Hall of Famers. Who were Lidstrom's HOF competition in the second half of his career? This is not at all to denigrate Lidstrom, but only to suggest it's possible he's being pushed higher into the historical rankings because of an abundance of hardware.

how am i making a fallacy based on the fact that i watched both play, and thought that lidstrom was a better pure defender? For goodness sakes he made Ian freakin White look like a top line defender this year, his 20th in the NHL. In terms of playing angles, keeping guys to the outside, etc, I FEEL lidstrom was better, it has nothing to do with his statistics, plus minus, etc, its just my eye test. Yes Bourque was the more physical of the two, but Lidstrom didnt have to be, he was always in position to make the play, and physical play hurts both parties. I think that towards the twilight of their careers, Lidstrom was still a top 5 defenseman and could have been for a few more years, whereas bourque tailed off a little near the end. By no means am i some defensive expert, Its just my opinion based on growing up a hockey fan. I did benefit from watching Lidstrom more, but I also caught a lot of Bruins games as well

All in all, they are both great defenders, and good on offence as well. I would just personally rate them a little differently in their talents, not based on any trophy count etc, in fact i feel lidstrom could have won MORE norris trophies had guys realized just how good he was before, his play is just so understated, bourque, guys like him are more flashy and played more during a time when scoring was more frequent, so his offensive numbers could stand out more.

[chippa13 1844]

The same Ray Bourque that led the Avalanche in average time on ice in his last season had tailed off a bit? The guy who was 4th among defensemen in scoring in his last season? That guy?

[Stewie 721]

the one who was minus 18 the four seasons previous.

and shot by far the lowest percentage of his career

[Stewie 721]

he had a great last season, i wont deny that at all, but i think his previous 4 years in boston were a step off his usual dominant self, moreso than Lidstroms fall off. again thats my opinion, but i feel that Lidstrom could have had a longer career than borque. Both retired too early IMO