Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Steelhead16]

Bourque gets the edge from me for his physical play. Not really known as a physical guy but he could deliver punishing checks when need be.

 

[Rhiessan71]

1) Lidstrom's PPG is higher than Zubov's.
2) I don't think the comparison with Leetch works very well - Leetch peaked offensively before the dead puck era, while Lidstrom peaked during the dead puck era. So Leetch's raw PPG will be much higher. I do think Leetch was probably a bit better offensively than Lidstrom, but not as much as their raw PPG would show.

Wait what?
Are you actually trying to dismiss Leetch's points despite the fact that he only entered the league 3 years previous to and at a younger age than Lidstrom did and you are trying to punish Leetch for peaking at an earlier age than Lidstrom.

I mean arguing for era between two players like Bourque and Lidstrom is one thing but Leetch and Lidstrom are in the exact same era.

Sorry Devil but that's just lame man.


Leetch's 79 points in '01, right in the middle of the DPE speaks volumes and if I'm not mistaken, it's also the highest point season by a D-men during the DPE.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wait what?
Are you actually trying to dismiss Leetch's points despite the fact that he only entered the league 2 years previous to Lidstrom and you are trying to punish him for peaking at an earlier age than Lidstrom.

Sorry Devil but that's just lame man.

Simple example:

Take a 10 year period. First 5 years is very high scoring. Second 5 years is very low scoring.

Both players play the full 10 years. Player X peaks early and leads the first 5 years in points. Player Y peaks late and leads the second 5 years in points. Both players lead their peers by a similar margin.

Player X will have the higher PPG, despite being exactly as good offensive as player Y, because he peaked during a higher scoring time.

Anyway, I agree that Leetch peaked at a higher level offensively, but the difference isn't as great as their raw PPG would show.

 

[canucks4ever]

Leetch's peak impresses me more than Coffey's. He scored 102 points without gretz or mario and his defensive game was clearly better during thier peaks. His 1994 playoff run is also better than any of coffey's playoff runs, he just doesnt have the longevity to rank higher.

I actually think Leetch had the best playoff run for a d-man since 1980, some people will try and argue potvin or chelios had better playoff runs, but leetch in 1994 was phenominal offensively and defensively and he did it when scoring went down quiet a bit.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Leetch's peak impresses me more than Coffey's. He scored 102 points without gretz or mario and his defensive game was clearly better during thier peaks. His 1994 playoff run is also better than any of coffey's playoff runs, he just doesnt have the longevity to rank higher.

I actually think Leetch had the best playoff run for a d-man since 1980, some people will try and argue potvin or chelios had better playoff runs, but leetch in 1994 was phenominal offensively and defensively and he did it when scoring went down quiet a bit.

That makes at least two of us. Leetch is one of those players who's career gets undervalued a bit because of the rough last several seasons he and his teams had.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Simple example:

Take a 10 year period. First 5 years is very high scoring. Second 5 years is very low scoring.

Both players play the full 10 years. Player X peaks early and leads the first 5 years in points. Player Y peaks late and leads the second 5 years in points. Both players lead their peers by a similar margin.

Player X will have the higher PPG, despite being exactly as good offensive as player Y, because he peaked during a higher scoring time.

Anyway, I agree that Leetch peaked at a higher level offensively, but the difference isn't as great as their raw PPG would show.

You're still trying to punish Leetch and/or make excuses for Lidstrom not only coming to the league a year later than Leetch but also for Lidstrom taking much longer to peak.


No big deal though, it's a recurring theme around here to "forget" or make excuses for Lidstrom's first 5 or so seasons compared to other greats.
Hell, I'm still waiting for someone to counter my Bourque pre-26 vs Lidstrom pre-26 arguments from earlier heh.
Usually the subject just gets changed

 

[Zil]

Anyone trying to say Lidstrom is close to the same league as Leetch offensively is kidding his or herself. Leetch did things offensively routinely that Lidstrom just plain never does.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're still trying to punish Leetch and/or make excuses for Lidstrom not only coming to the league a year later than Leetch but also for Lidstrom taking much longer to peak.


No big deal though, it's a recurring theme around here to "forget" or make excuses for Lidstrom's first 5 or so seasons compared to other greats.
Hell, I'm still waiting for someone to counter my Bourque pre-26 vs Lidstrom pre-26 arguments from earlier heh.
Usually the subject just gets changed

I'm just going to assume that you could understand my basic explanation of math, but you choose not to, because doing so would force you to give Lidstrom a little credit.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That makes at least two of us. Leetch is one of those players who's career gets undervalued a bit because of the rough last several seasons he and his teams had.

Agreed about Leetch in general. There is no doubt in my mind that if MacInnis, Stevens, and Leetch all retired after 1997, Leetch would be the most highly regarded.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm just going to assume that you could understand my basic explanation of math, but you choose not to, because doing so would force you to give Lidstrom a little credit.

Naw, I get the math man, believe me, I always get the math.

You're still trying to punish Leetch for peaking at a younger age than Lidstrom.
Lidstrom, only 2 years younger than Leetch, could of peaked sooner, like Leetch and could of also taken advantage of the higher scoring seasons to narrow the gap but he didn't and that's Lidstrom's fault, not Leetch's.


I'm not saying that Lidstrom didn't make up for his late peak in regards to Leetch overall later on but he was never as talented offensively as Leetch. Stats and the eye tell us as much.

This is also the difference with Bourque. With Leetch, Lidstrom was able to eventually overcome his late peak vs Leetch.
He does not come close to accomplishing that vs Bourque, a guy who peaked even sooner than Leetch did and played at an elite level longer imo than any other D-man in history.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I buy the argument about peak timing, though it leaves us in a tricky spot with regard to stats.

If I have it right, we are now asking: how did these players' peaks fare compared to their peer cohort's peaks, adjusted for scoring rate? And, ultimately, whose ajusted-peak-compared-to-cohort's-adjusted-peak shows more favorably in relation to the rest of the pack... with a dash of consideration for defense thrown in.

No way I have time to break this down the way I'd like, but here's a thumbnail. Adjusted points per season during each player's scoring peak:

Coffey - 77-100-96-108 (100, 94, 86, 82)
Bourque - 84-72-66-82-75-79 (76, 80)
MacInnis - 69-61-75-92-68-43-74 (71, 76)
Housley - 68-68-76-79-20-75
Murphy - 68-79-66-65-58
Chelios - 57-49-59-54-66-69

Leetch - 78-91-29-72-70-81-81 (85)
Lidstrom - 79-76-67-69-44-77 (75)
Zubov - 81-62-64-44-65
Gonchar - 67-74-67-56-68-70
Niedermayer - 62-61-70-27-61
Pronger - 67-51-50-4-62

(outlier seasons of note in parentheses)

In absolute terms, Bourque is closer to Leetch than to Lidstrom... which is to say, he had a much higher peak. In relative terms, he's positioned slightly farther ahead of his peers than Lidstrom (excluding one Coffey/Leetch in each set). Both elements are equally important to the argument IMO.

Conclusion: Bourque was better offensively, period.

I hope it doesn't get much more complicated than this, I'm posting on my mobile

 

[Rhiessan71]

Just continuing on the Leetch thing a bit more.

I think the reality of it is that you have no choice but to take Leetch's first 9 seasons well over Lidstrom's first 9.
Like is it really even that close, Leetch was a year younger throughout to boot.

Leetch
GP-649 P-650 PpG-1.00
PO GP-82 P-89 PpG-1.09
Calder
2 Norris
Conn Smythe
Cup
2 1rst AS nos
3 2nd AS nods

Lidstrom
GP-693 P-496 PpG-0.72
PO GP-123 P-83 PpG-0.67
2 Cups
3 1rst AS nods


Lidstrom definitely turned into the better overall player eventually and his next 11 years were, for the most part well above Leetch's.
He was able to catch and then pass Leetch overall but it took both a combination of Leetch declining through injuries and bad teams along with Lidstrom and his Wings getting better to do it.

Bourque on the other hand didn't give Lidstrom the same opportunity to make ground up on him, not even close.
The way I see it, at the least, Bourque has 3-4 more elite seasons on Lidstrom, at most 6-7.
Either way, it's a lot.

 

[seventieslord]

Just continuing on the Leetch thing a bit more.

I think the reality of it is that you have no choice but to take Leetch's first 9 seasons well over Lidstrom's first 9.
Like is it really even that close, Leetch was a year younger throughout to boot.

Leetch
GP-649 P-650 PpG-1.00
PO GP-82 P-89 PpG-1.09
Calder
2 Norris
Conn Smythe
Cup
2 1rst AS nos
3 2nd AS nods

Lidstrom
GP-693 P-496 PpG-0.72
PO GP-123 P-83 PpG-0.67
2 Cups
3 1rst AS nods


Lidstrom definitely turned into the better overall player eventually and his next 11 years were, for the most part well above Leetch's.
He was able to catch and then pass Leetch overall but it took both a combination of Leetch declining through injuries and bad teams along with Lidstrom and his Wings getting better to do it.

Bourque on the other hand didn't give Lidstrom the same opportunity to make ground up on him, not even close.
The way I see it, at the least, Bourque has 3-4 more elite seasons on Lidstrom, at most 6-7.
Either way, it's a lot.

I bet if you were to look at Lidstrom's ESGA/GP and his PK record compared to Leetch, as well as each player's adjusted +/- (their GF:GA ratio in relation to their teams) over their first nine years, Leetch is so far back that he can't eat Lidstrom's dust.

I'm not doing the work there, but that's my suspicion.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I bet if you were to look at Lidstrom's ESGA/GP and his PK record compared to Leetch, as well as each player's adjusted +/- (their GF:GA ratio in relation to their teams) over their first nine years, Leetch is so far back that he can't eat Lidstrom's dust.

I'm not doing the work there, but that's my suspicion.

Hmmm...would be interesting to see *cough*Overpass*cough*

I have a feeling though that Leetch doesn't end up nearly as far back as you think though.
We're not talking about a Housley or Green here after all and either way, offensively, Leetch has a more than slight superiority.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I bet if you were to look at Lidstrom's ESGA/GP and his PK record compared to Leetch, as well as each player's adjusted +/- (their GF:GA ratio in relation to their teams) over their first nine years, Leetch is so far back that he can't eat Lidstrom's dust.

I'm not doing the work there, but that's my suspicion.

My guess is that it won't be the bloodbath you think it is. Lidstrom did play with Coffey quite a bit, which has to hurt the ESGA/GP.

And Lidstrom's off-ice comparibles were probably a lot better than Leetch's off-ice comparibles, which would affect the adjusted plus/minus quite a bit.

 

[Fredrik_71]

The poll so far is 84/35 in Bourques favor. My reflection of that is wow. That is actually a great compliment to Lids

 

[skywarp75]

personally i think borque was MUCH worse devesnisvely, while slightly better offensively.

 

[Corto]

Naw, I get the math man, believe me, I always get the math.

You're still trying to punish Leetch for peaking at a younger age than Lidstrom.
Lidstrom, only 2 years younger than Leetch, could of peaked sooner, like Leetch and could of also taken advantage of the higher scoring seasons to narrow the gap but he didn't and that's Lidstrom's fault, not Leetch's.

It's "could have".

And really, you should just quit comparing Leetch to Lidstrom in any way, it's completely ridiculous.

Yes, Leetch was a great player. Not even close to Lidstrom though.

...

Also, for all the adjusted point stats etc. we have Bourque vs Lidstrom, anyone know if there's a place we can compare GA/ES and GA/SH per minutes played for these guys?

 

[Pear Juice]

Just continuing on the Leetch thing a bit more.

I think the reality of it is that you have no choice but to take Leetch's first 9 seasons well over Lidstrom's first 9.
Like is it really even that close, Leetch was a year younger throughout to boot.

Leetch
GP-649 P-650 PpG-1.00
PO GP-82 P-89 PpG-1.09
Calder
2 Norris
Conn Smythe
Cup
2 1rst AS nos
3 2nd AS nods

Lidstrom
GP-693 P-496 PpG-0.72
PO GP-123 P-83 PpG-0.67
2 Cups
3 1rst AS nods


Lidstrom definitely turned into the better overall player eventually and his next 11 years were, for the most part well above Leetch's.
He was able to catch and then pass Leetch overall but it took both a combination of Leetch declining through injuries and bad teams along with Lidstrom and his Wings getting better to do it.

Bourque on the other hand didn't give Lidstrom the same opportunity to make ground up on him, not even close.
The way I see it, at the least, Bourque has 3-4 more elite seasons on Lidstrom, at most 6-7.
Either way, it's a lot.

Is there anyone who doubts that Leetch was better offensively than Lidström at the beginning of their respective careers? TDMM's argument was that Lidström at least lowered that difference as they progressed into their 30s, which doesn't reflect very well in PPG statistics.

I don't see why that is such an unreasonable point.

 

[Rhiessan71]

And really, you should just quit comparing Leetch to Lidstrom in any way, it's completely ridiculous.

Yes, Leetch was a great player. Not even close to Lidstrom though.

For career no, Lidstrom really starts walking away with it in the 2000's when injuries and some pretty brutal teams did him in.
Previous to that though, in their respective first 9 years as I listed (not exactly a small sample size either), it's not only close but Leetch is the clear cut superior in both the regular season and the playoffs.

Also, for all the adjusted point stats etc. we have Bourque vs Lidstrom, anyone know if there's a place we can compare GA/ES and GA/SH per minutes played for these guys?

Overpass did some pretty extensive compiling here...
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

(bookmark that, trust me.)

 

[tarheelhockey]

And really, you should just quit comparing Leetch to Lidstrom in any way, it's completely ridiculous.

It's not just Rhiessan71 who's making the comparison. The Leetch comparisons began when it was noted that Leetch's PPG is much better than Lidstrom's. That jogged some memories as to how dominant a defenseman could be durin the exact same time period.

Leetch had a higher PPG, a better peak in adjusted terms, a Conn Smythe, and two Norrises... all accomplished during overlap with Lidstrom. It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. It just doesn't flatter Lidstrom.

Also, noteworthy that Leetch's career adjusted PPG is considerably higher than Lidstrom's, 0.86 to .079. And it's not like Leetch was a Paul Coffey, playing rover and ignoring defense on a high-scoring dynasty. He was simply a greater offensive force to be reckoned with. The numbers have him at Bourque's level (0.88), not Lidstrom's, and that's without accounting for team factors.

 

[plusandminus]

Also, for all the adjusted point stats etc. we have Bourque vs Lidstrom, anyone know if there's a place we can compare GA/ES and GA/SH per minutes played for these guys?

I have assembled, corrected and compiled such stats. The same with adjusted scoring stats, where I think I have listed the best adjusted seasons (since 1968) for defencemen too.
I suppose hockeyreference makes it possible to list the best adjusted scoring seasons by defencemen (according to their way of adjusting).

The problem with "GA/SH" (if you mean GA_when_playing_SH divided by SHTOI) is that it is very much affected by the strength of the goalie, so in order to compare players on different teams, one may need to "adjust for goalie influence".
Within teams is easier, but here there are arguments about "hard" vs "easy" SH minutes, i.e. playing SH against the opponent's best PP unit or the 2nd best. Some assume that the players with most SH time are the ones on the 1st SH unit, and that they thus would usually play the opponent's 1st PP unit, which seems logical to at least some extent.

Regarding SH play overall, a major weakness it that GF (goals for) is usually not accounted for. Some say it doesn't matter, but it definitely does matter, because there are being scored a significant amount of SH goals each season. When looking at SH stats, one should thus look at the net result (for example GA_when_playing_SH minus GF_when_playing_SH).

ESGA per minute played is something I have studied relatively much. It has weaknesses too. It is affected by the goaltending of ones team, so one may want to adjust for that (which may be difficult). It is also affected by style of play; for example Edmonton of the 1980s were a bit more offensive minded than New Jersey during some years of the "dead puck era". It is also being affected by quality of teammates one shares icetime with, and quality of opponents, etc.
To me, it is better to just treat ESGF and ESGA together, instead of separating them. That is, focus on the ES +/- (+/- during only the time one plays ES). It is the net result that matters. If one wants to, one can include consideration to the amount of scoring (for example, ESpoints_of_player divided by ESGF_for_his_team).

 

[BraveCanadian]

It's not just Rhiessan71 who's making the comparison. The Leetch comparisons began when it was noted that Leetch's PPG is much better than Lidstrom's. That jogged some memories as to how dominant a defenseman could be durin the exact same time period.

Leetch had a higher PPG, a better peak in adjusted terms, a Conn Smythe, and two Norrises... all accomplished during overlap with Lidstrom. It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. It just doesn't flatter Lidstrom.

JHC, I'm not picking sides here because this debate has been done to absolute death several times, but is there anything you guys can't twist into a some form of knock down of Lidstrom? (While still completely avoiding TDMM's point which I do think is valid)

Leetch certainly gets a bit of a boost up by peaking before the waterskiing started and before defensemen got reined in. No matter if you think it was "the exact same time period" they peaked offensively at different times!

Furthermore, it doesn't even matter what their respective PPG's were in this debate because Lidstrom was much better defensively even if you try to downplay how much of a rover Leetch was..

Secondly, all those things Leetch accomplished were in overlap with Bourque too!

 

[plusandminus]

It's not just Rhiessan71 who's making the comparison. The Leetch comparisons began when it was noted that Leetch's PPG is much better than Lidstrom's. That jogged some memories as to how dominant a defenseman could be durin the exact same time period.

Leetch had a higher PPG, a better peak in adjusted terms, a Conn Smythe, and two Norrises... all accomplished during overlap with Lidstrom. It's not a ridiculous comparison at all. It just doesn't flatter Lidstrom.

Also, noteworthy that Leetch's career adjusted PPG is considerably higher than Lidstrom's, 0.86 to .079. And it's not like Leetch was a Paul Coffey, playing rover and ignoring defense on a high-scoring dynasty. He was simply a greater offensive force to be reckoned with. The numbers have him at Bourque's level (0.88), not Lidstrom's, and that's without accounting for team factors.

To me the difference looks relatively small. ?

Anyway, defenceman scoring very much depends on PP time, since there is where high scoring defencemen tend to score a lot of their points. PP time overall has gone down (on a league wide basis) during the last seasons. I don't know how it was before 1998 (the data I have don't list that stat prior to 1998).

 

[tarheelhockey]

JHC, I'm not picking sides here because this debate has been done to absolute death several times, but is there anything you guys can't twist into a some form of knock down of Lidstrom?

Posting stats isn't a knock down of anyone. The numbers are what they are, and I almost always complie them AFTER I decide to post. In several cases I've actually been surprised at the results, as I was with Murphy and Leetch.

Leetch certainly gets a bit of a boost up by peaking before the waterskiing started and before defensemen got reined in. No matter if you think it was "the exact same time period" they peaked offensively at different times!

Which is why I posted adjusted numbers. Any remaining era bias is likely to be quite marginal.

Furthermore, it doesn't even matter what their respective PPG's were in this debate because Lidstrom was much better defensively even if you try to downplay how much of a rover Leetch was..

I doubt you'd find a single person to disagree that Lidstrom was better defensively, but calling Leetch a "rover" doesn't help your argument.

Secondly, all those things Leetch accomplished were in overlap with Bourque too!

And Bourque was better, even in the decline phase of his career.

To me the difference looks relatively small. ?

Anyway, defenceman scoring very much depends on PP time, since there is where high scoring defencemen tend to score a lot of their points. PP time overall has gone down (on a league wide basis) during the last seasons. I don't know how it was before 1998 (the data I have don't list that stat prior to 1998).

This would be an interesting adjustment if we could get the data together with a good formula.

We should consider that simply adding a PP adjustment to the standard adjustment would double-count against older players.

I'd like to see something like: ESP adjusted for era + PPP adjusted for era (SHP are irrelevant in my opinion)