Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[pluppe]

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 table that Rhiessen posted by overpass has the % of the team’s power play goals for that the player was on the ice for.
it would of course be influenced by how much PP each team played but it´s something.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

for example it has:
Lidström at 72%
Leetch at 87%
Bourque at 88%

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

Not buying it.

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

And what we find is that the difference is them offensively is also quite marginal - about 5 points a season on average. Which is actually pretty flattering to a defense first guy like Lidstrom.

Not even mentioning in the fact that Lidstrom has now played 300 more games.. or roughly 25% of Leetch's career more.

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.

I watched his whole career. In comparison to Lidstrom he was a rover.

The Coffey/Leetch type defensemen don't exist today outside a couple of seasons by Mike Green that were almost universally derided (mostly because he was even worse defensively than them while taking the same kinds of risks they did).

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

How was Bourque better when Leetch was collecting his Norris trophies that we're somehow supposed to hold against Lidstrom?

 

[Redwingsfan84]

LOL@ people thinking Leetch is even in the same BALLPARK as LIDS...wow.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not buying it.

Not buying what?

And what we find is that the difference is them offensively is also quite marginal - about 5 points a season on average. Which is actually pretty flattering to a defense first guy like Lidstrom.

Flattering in a Leetch/Lidstrom comparison, maybe. In the larger picture I'm not sure how it's flattering for him to be only slightly behind a guy we just voted #23 all-time, considering the main comparison is to the guy who is #3 on the same list and just narrowly missed #2. The entire point of this branch of the discussion is that Lidstrom's generational competition was considerably weaker and yet he's closer to them than you'd expect.

I watched his whole career. In comparison to Lidstrom he was a rover.

Leetch was not a rover like Coffey or Green. I don't understand why this term is being interjected, other than to imply he couldn't play defense at all... which he certainly could.

How was Bourque better when Leetch was collecting his Norris trophies that we're somehow supposed to hold against Lidstrom?

This branch of discussion concerned offensive production, not Norris voting.

During the timeframe in which Bourque and Leetch were in the league, bearing in mind that this cuts off some of Bourque's most dominant seasons as well as Leetch's entire decline, Bourque had a 0.91 adjusted PPG to Leetch's 0.89.


If you look at the 10-year timeframe in which all three players were in the league at the same time, here are the numbers:

Bourque 0.87 gross, 0.90 adjusted
Leetch 0.90 gross, 0.90 adjusted
Lidstrom 0.73 gross, 0.76 adjusted

If you find the gross numbers suspicious, use the adjusted. If you find the adjusted numbers suspicious, use the gross. It doesn't matter.

Understand that at this point we are basically rigging the game to make Bourque look bad and he still blows Lidstrom away, as does Lidstrom's direct contemporary Leetch, during a period in which the playing field was completely equal except that Lidstrom was playing on a Cup contender the entire time.

 

[plusandminus]

this table that Rhiessen posted by overpass has the % of the team’s power play goals for that the player was on the ice for.
it would of course be influenced by how much PP each team played but it´s something.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

for example it has:
Lidström at 72%
Leetch at 87%
Bourque at 88%

I may be wrong, but I think Overpass is using a calculation method for the percentages that may mislead. I think the best is to divide players_GA_playing_SH by teams_GA_playing_SH. If team has allowed 100 goals while playing SH, and player was on the ice for 60 of them, he gets 60 %.

If I have understood Overpass correct, when a player have missed games during a season, he makes a projection to make up for that. Let's say player X played games 1-41 and was on the ice for 40 out of 50 goals. That's 80 %. Then he misses the rest of the season, and the team stat for those games are 30 goals. Then, for the whole season, the player have been on the ice for 40 out of 80 goals, which is 50 %. I think Overpass instead sort of assume the player would have been on the ice for another 40 goals (in this case 40 out of 30), making his total become 80 out of 80 goals, which is 100 %. By not playing, the player increased his percentage from 80 % to 100 %. Sometimes, players end up having a percentage higher than 100 %. I may be wrong.
I rather just list one column telling how much the player played (player_GP / team_GP) during the season, in this case 41/82 = .500. Then another showing how many goals he was on the ice for, using the factual stats as they are, i.e. 40/80 = .500.
One may divide .500 by .500 and get 1.000 or 100 %, and I think that's the number he shows. But I think it would be better to either show two .500 columns, or to (if/when possible) show the player's share of goals when he played, in this case 40 / 50 = .800.

For players missing none or few games during a season, his percentages are good. But the more games the player have missed, the more "biased" they may become, at least as I have understood things. Average players may not be much affected. But players performing much above or below average may be. (That's why I think GP or GPshare is important to look at.)

I don't think Overpass' stats needs to consider how much PP or SH a team played compared to other teams. I think he sort of estimates how much icetime players had on the team they played. Sort of how "important" they seem to have been for their team during different situations. I think he tries to list one number that will tell "as much as possible" about the players role on the team. The advantage is in simplicity for the reader, while the disadvantage occur during the cases mentioned above.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Flattering in a Leetch/Lidstrom comparison, maybe. In the larger picture I'm not sure how it's flattering for him to be only slightly behind a guy we just voted #23 all-time, considering the main comparison is to the guy who is #3 on the same list and just narrowly missed #2. The entire point of this branch of the discussion is that Lidstrom's generational competition was considerably weaker and yet he's closer to them than you'd expect.

We aren't talking about the bigger picture here. We are talking about offense. Leetch is much higher than 23 all time for offense from the blueline.

Leetch was not a rover like Coffey or Green. I don't understand why this term is being interjected, other than to imply he couldn't play defense at all... which he certainly could.

Leetch was very similar in playing style to Coffey. And both of them could certainly play defense too. Green the jury is still out on.

This branch of discussion concerned offensive production, not Norris voting.

Then why did it seem to matter that he accomplished those things when Lidstrom was in the league? Does it matter or not?

During the timeframe in which Bourque and Leetch were in the league, bearing in mind that this cuts off some of Bourque's most dominant seasons as well as Leetch's entire decline, Bourque had a 0.91 adjusted PPG to Leetch's 0.89.


If you look at the 10-year timeframe in which all three players were in the league at the same time, here are the numbers:

Bourque 0.87 gross, 0.90 adjusted
Leetch 0.90 gross, 0.90 adjusted
Lidstrom 0.73 gross, 0.76 adjusted

If you find the gross numbers suspicious, use the adjusted. If you find the adjusted numbers suspicious, use the gross. It doesn't matter.

Understand that at this point we are basically rigging the game to make Bourque look bad and he still blows Lidstrom away, as does Lidstrom's direct contemporary Leetch, during a period in which the playing field was completely equal except that Lidstrom was playing on a Cup contender the entire time.

I'm not sure what the 10 year overlap is supposed to prove when all these players were at different points in their career during that time.

Going by your adjusted career numbers, Lidstrom is within around 5 pts a season of Leetch - who is one of the better offensive defensemen of all time - while playing much better defense.

And I'm not even going to go into the team argument again. All these players won Cups during that overlapping time.

 

[Epsilon]

Does any player on here get the fact that his team was always good while he was playing on it used as a negative more than Lidstrom? Certainly no dynasty players from the Habs (50s or 70s) or Islanders get that sort of treatment, at least to anywhere near the same degree.

 

[plusandminus]

Lidström at 72%
Leetch at 87%
Bourque at 88%

Just a few more words...
Some day ago, I looked at the real, factual icetimes for every defenceman in every situation, during each of the last 8 seasons.
It was rare to see one player leading his team in both ES time, PP time and SH time, but there were some cases. I think there were 15 cases in 8 seasons. 3-4 players did it twice, and a few did it once.
Only one player managed to do it 3 times. He played for the perhaps best team of them all, and his name is Lidstrom. If I remember right, he was sometimes the league leader in different situations, when counting percentage of his team's total time in those situations.

(This does not say much in comparison to Bourque. But in itself, it says that facts are that Lidstrom got very much ice time in all situations despite(?) being surrounded by good teammates.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

Does any player on here get the fact that his team was always good while he was playing on it used as a negative more than Lidstrom? Certainly no dynasty players from the Habs (50s or 70s) or Islanders get that sort of treatment, at least to anywhere near the same degree.

Honestly, I don't think so.. with Lidstrom it is always the competition and the team.

Usually I say at this point I could flip a coin between Lidstrom and Bourque.

I think Bourque is better offensively and Lidstrom better defensively. However, I think that is the case more because they are both products of their time than because of their potential ability. When Bourque came up rushing the puck and contributing a bigger portion of the offense was expected from a star #1 defenseman. When Lidstrom came up that role for defensemen was starting to transition.

If people held a gun to my head I would probably pick Bourque over Lidstrom marginally just because of his amazing longevity that I don't believe Lidstrom will quite match, but I think the arguments against Lidstrom are getting very weak.

 

[Epsilon]

Honestly, I don't think so.. with Lidstrom it is always the competition and the team.

Usually I say at this point I could flip a coin between Lidstrom and Bourque.

I think Bourque is better offensively and Lidstrom better defensively. However, I think that is the case more because they are both products of their time than because of their potential ability. When Bourque came up rushing the puck and contributing a bigger portion of the offense was expected from a star #1 defenseman. When Lidstrom came up that role for defensemen was starting to transition.

If people held a gun to my head I would probably pick Bourque over Lidstrom marginally just because of his amazing longevity that I don't believe Lidstrom will quite match, but I think the arguments against Lidstrom are getting very weak.

This is kind of how I see it as well. Removing all the statistical minutia, trophy counting, etc. and condensing it down to soundbites, I see it as roughly:

Bourque was elite for longer, superior offensively, had a higher peak and more elite seasons, was a more "spectacular" player, and was more of an "MVP-type player" who deserves credit for carrying good (but not really great teams) with a lot of roster turnover.

Lidstrom was superior defensively, "good" for along as long but not top-end for as long, more durable, and a better overall performer in the playoffs who deserves credit for playing his entire career for one franchise that has been consistently great while he has been there and for whom he has been one of the major stabilizing forces/"glue guys".

I had Bourque a little bit above Lidstrom in both my Top 80 master list, and my first round vote, and feel comfortable with that ranking.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

LOL@ people thinking Leetch is even in the same BALLPARK as LIDS...wow.

From a strictly offensive standpoint, it isn't laughable, is it? The adjusted PPG tends to confirm what my eyes said: Leetch was slightly better offensively than Lidstrom. It's no question that overall play is in Lidstrom's favor.

 

[Redwingsfan84]

I can agree with that Devil. As a D-man you don't get 100 pts or win a conn smyth by sucking but it really isn't close and the Lidstrom haters need to give it a serious rest.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Then why did it seem to matter that he accomplished those things when Lidstrom was in the league? Does it matter or not?

At this point, I can no longer understand your line of questioning.

My original statement: Leetch had a higher PPG and offensive peak than Lidstrom while both were in the league at the same time.

Your reply: He did this during an overlap with Bourque too.

My reply: Bourque was even better than Leetch during their overlap.

Your reply: How was Bourque better?

My reply: Bourque scored even more than Leetch during their overlap. Furthermore, during their common overlap, Bourque and Leetch were in a dead heat with Lidstrom far behind.

Your reply: Then why does it matter what Leetch accomplished during his overlap with Lidstrom?


Unless I'm missing something, we're about to go in a circle. The bottom line is that Bourque > Leetch > Lidstrom in an offensive analysis, and that is consistent no matter how much we twist and flip the data.

I'm not sure what the 10 year overlap is supposed to prove when all these players were at different points in their career during that time.

And if you want to go the route of "Lidstrom peaked later", understand first that this 10-year data set includes only 4 of Bourque's top 10 adjusted seasons, and 5 of Lidstrom's top 10. It includes 4 of Bourque's and 5 of Lidstrom's worst 10 seasons. It evens out almost perfectly.

10 years of evenly-matched data in which Bourque ranks markedly above Lidstrom does in fact prove something.

And I'm not even going to go into the team argument again. All these players won Cups during that overlapping time.

Team scoring finishes during that 10-year overlap:
Detroit: 4, 1, 1, 3, 3, 6, 2, 3, 1, 5
Boston: 13, 8, 8, 9, 4, 15, 12, 13, 23/11*, 4
New York Rangers: 3, 15, 4, 12, 9, 4, 22, 11, 17, 7

* The 11 is Colorado, for whom Bourque scored 14 points in 14 games.


So Bourque and Leetch not only scored significantly more, they did it on significantly lower-scoring teams every single year except for Leetch's '92 and '97.

The timing isn't unfair, the team situations favored Lidstrom, and the data is completely clear with a nice sizable gap.

And for that matter, it's not like they were 1, 2, 3. MacInnis, Coffey, Housley and Zubov all scored more than Lidstrom while playing that entire timeframe.

Lidstrom was offensively the lesser player by a significant margin, period. You can make an argument about defense, but trying to spin him into a top-tier offensive player during the 1990s is just banging your head against a hard wall of reality.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I can agree with that Devil. As a D-man you don't get 100 pts or win a conn smyth by sucking but it really isn't close and the Lidstrom haters need to give it a serious rest.

Who's a "Lidstrom hater" here?

Having an opinion that Bourque is more accomplished than Lidstrom does not make someone a "Lidstrom hater".

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Lidstrom not names to the 2012 ASG - Bourque made it in every season.

 

[overpass]

Here are some adjusted and situational stats for Bourque and Lidstrom over their careers.

Player | Start year | End year | GP | EV% | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 1995 | 291 | 39% | 100 | 68 | 1.46 | 1.27 | 29 | 21 | 56% | 1.19 | 32% | 0.83
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1996 | 1998 | 240 | 38% | 89 | 63 | 1.42 | 1.34 | 31 | 37 | 73% | 1.24 | 49% | 0.70
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1999 | 2008 | 721 | 42% | 100 | 71 | 1.41 | 1.19 | 37 | 38 | 79% | 1.27 | 64% | 0.77
Nicklas Lidstrom | 2009 | 2011 | 242 | 38% | 91 | 70 | 1.30 | 0.92 | 30 | 37 | 74% | 1.28 | 48% | 1.01

Player | Start year | End year | GP | EV% | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Raymond Bourque | 1980 | 1981 | 147 | 38% | 92 | 52 | 1.77 | 1.08 | 34 | 30 | 75% | 1.16 | 46% | 0.85
Raymond Bourque | 1982 | 1986 | 355 | 43% | 96 | 63 | 1.53 | 1.00 | 41 | 36 | 88% | 1.07 | 51% | 0.85
Raymond Bourque | 1987 | 1996 | 726 | 43% | 101 | 71 | 1.42 | 0.90 | 45 | 41 | 89% | 1.10 | 61% | 0.84
Raymond Bourque | 1997 | 2001 | 384 | 40% | 84 | 80 | 1.06 | 0.98 | 27 | 42 | 87% | 1.15 | 63% | 1.01

And here's Brian Leetch, for the offensive comparison

Player | Start year | End year | GP | EV% | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP | $PPP | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Brian Leetch | 1988 | 1990 | 157 | 44% | 85 | 80 | 1.05 | 0.96 | 32 | 28 | 77% | 1.00 | 30% | 1.08
Brian Leetch | 1991 | 1993 | 196 | 44% | 101 | 80 | 1.26 | 1.12 | 44 | 46 | 97% | 1.10 | 40% | 0.88
Brian Leetch | 1994 | 1997 | 296 | 46% | 95 | 77 | 1.23 | 1.05 | 41 | 44 | 92% | 1.31 | 65% | 0.94
Brian Leetch | 1998 | 2001 | 290 | 49% | 94 | 115 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 35 | 39 | 90% | 1.13 | 55% | 1.08
Brian Leetch | 2002 | 2006 | 266 | 40% | 89 | 83 | 1.07 | 0.93 | 31 | 34 | 75% | 0.92 | 43% | 1.20

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

$ESGF/S: On-ice even strength goals for per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$ESGA/S: On-ice even strength goals against per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice, on a per-game level.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice, on a per-game level.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.


Lidstrom played a smaller role in his first few seasons than Bourque ever did. He spent a lot of time on the second unit of the PP and the PK.

It's also clear that Lidstrom didn't score as much as Bourque or Leetch at their peaks. Even after adjusting for scoring level both were ahead both at even strength and on the power play. Lidstrom didn't play as many minutes as Bourque or Leetch on the PP (both were on the ice for around 90% of their team's goals), which would have lowered his points a little, but maybe the reason he didn't play as much is that he wasn't as good.

 

[Epsilon]

Lidstrom not names to the 2012 ASG - Bourque made it in every season.

No one on here cares about the all-star game in the slightest. And as far as this year goes, Lidstrom probably asked not to get picked.

 

[danincanada]

No one on here cares about the all-star game in the slightest. And as far as this year goes, Lidstrom probably asked not to get picked.

That's what it sounds like. This morning he said he wanted the weekend off to rest up for the stretch run. He is almost 42 afterall.

 

[tarheelhockey]

overpass, are there any other players who have an R-on/off difference of 0.50+ for an extended period?

 

[overpass]

overpass, are there any other players who have an R-on/off difference of 0.50+ for an extended period?

Going from memory - Bobby Orr, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier, Mike Bossy, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Howe, Eric Lindros, Peter Forsberg. Maybe Salming, Jagr, Dionne, Dave Taylor, Robinson - I'd have to run the numbers, but they had stretches that were up there.

Keep in mind that it was almost certainly easier to have a big R-on/off difference in the 1970s because of a lack of parity. This may apply to the 80s to some degree as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is kind of how I see it as well. Removing all the statistical minutia, trophy counting, etc. and condensing it down to soundbites, I see it as roughly:

Bourque was elite for longer, superior offensively, had a higher peak and more elite seasons, was a more "spectacular" player, and was more of an "MVP-type player" who deserves credit for carrying good (but not really great teams) with a lot of roster turnover.

Lidstrom was superior defensively, "good" for along as long but not top-end for as long, more durable, and a better overall performer in the playoffs who deserves credit for playing his entire career for one franchise that has been consistently great while he has been there and for whom he has been one of the major stabilizing forces/"glue guys".

I had Bourque a little bit above Lidstrom in both my Top 80 master list, and my first round vote, and feel comfortable with that ranking.

Exactly how I have it albeit I have him ahead by by more than just a little bit but it's definitely not by a lot more.

Lidstrom was/is a great player.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

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.

To me, Offensively Leetch is well ahead of Lidstrom, like it's not even close ahead.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To me, Offensively Leetch is well ahead of Lidstrom, like it's not even close ahead.

It depends on how you want to look at it. If you're talking an absolute sense, then yes. If you're talking relative to the style and expectations of defensemen between the two eras (and yes, there was an enormous change in the style of the game that affected defensemen much more than forwards around 1997*), then I don't think the gap is that big.

*To expound on this, from the late 70s-early 90s, it was part of the job of a defenseman (or at least a #1 defenseman) to rush up the ice with the puck. You had your stay at home guys, but basically every team had multiple defensemen who would rush up ice with the puck and look to create offense. Around the start of the dead puck era, the role of a defenseman changed back to "defense-first while providing supporting offense." There were still some guys like Gonchar who were so bad in their own zone but so good with the puck that they were allowed to play like a rusher. But for most defensemen, the days of going end to end with the puck were over.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It depends on how you want to look at it. If you're talking an absolute sense, then yes. If you're talking relative to the style and expectations of defensemen between the two eras (and yes, there was an enormous change in the style of the game that affected defensemen much more than forwards around 1997*), then I don't think the gap is that big.

*To expound on this, from the late 70s-early 90s, it was part of the job of a defenseman (or at least a #1 defenseman) to rush up the ice with the puck. You had your stay at home guys, but basically every team had multiple defensemen who would rush up ice with the puck and look to create offense. Around the start of the dead puck era, the role of a defenseman changed back to "defense-first while providing supporting offense." There were still some guys like Gonchar who were so bad in their own zone but so good with the puck that they were allowed to play like a rusher. But for most defensemen, the days of going end to end with the puck were over.

But of course we should give extra credit for guys who thrived at both ends during both eras, right?

 

[plusandminus]

As often/usual no feedback when I write about statistics. Discussions just continue as if they are invisible.

I try with a more simple and basic statistical listing.

Below is a listing of how many points defenceman ranked 6-15 in the defencemen scoring during a season scored. The column after it lists how large share of player's team's total goals scored that the player had a point in (player_points divided by team_gf).
For those not liking adjustments, this is totally unadjusted.
Example: In 1942-43, the defencemen placed 6th-15th scored 169 points, average among them being 16.9. They scored a point on 9.2 % of their team's total goals for.

With defenceman, I in this case mean a player listed as a defenceman on hockeydb.

(I wish there was a way to hide the table behind a button that expands/hides it.)

Seas|Seas2|Pts|PtsShare
1942|1943|169|0.092
1943|1944|233|0.106
1944|1945|184|0.097
1945|1946|144|0.084
1946|1947|168|0.088
1947|1948|176|0.100
1948|1949|144|0.086
1949|1950|172|0.093
1950|1951|166|0.088
1951|1952|163|0.090
1952|1953|178|0.109
1953|1954|184|0.111
1954|1955|188|0.109
1955|1956|179|0.106
1956|1957|182|0.100
1957|1958|214|0.105
1958|1959|218|0.106
1959|1960|239|0.112
1960|1961|218|0.105
1961|1962|219|0.104
1962|1963|218|0.100
1963|1964|226|0.117
1964|1965|213|0.103
1965|1966|216|0.107
1966|1967|237|0.106
1967|1968|307|0.139
1968|1969|336|0.138
1969|1970|324|0.141
1970|1971|355|0.139
1971|1972|397|0.165
1972|1973|392|0.153
1973|1974|389|0.151
1974|1975|510|0.167
1975|1976|513|0.171
1976|1977|512|0.182
1977|1978|429|0.200
1978|1979|533|0.179
1979|1980|548|0.191
1980|1981|563|0.199
1981|1982|628|0.187
1982|1983|637|0.196
1983|1984|581|0.186
1984|1985|625|0.194
1985|1986|645|0.204
1986|1987|571|0.192
1987|1988|594|0.197
1988|1989|632|0.215
1989|1990|604|0.205
1990|1991|597|0.201
1991|1992|605|0.207
1992|1993|688|0.226
1993|1994|651|0.226
1994|1995|334|0.220
1995|1996|607|0.223
1996|1997|473|0.192
1997|1998|485|0.215
1998|1999|485|0.210
1999|2000|472|0.204
2000|2001|499|0.203
2001|2002|451|0.203
2002|2003|463|0.201
2003|2004|457|0.200
2005|2006|538|0.204
2006|2007|558|0.232
2007|2008|502|0.217
2008|2009|517|0.210
2009|2010|478|0.209
2010|2011|484|0.209

No one may find anything at all out of interest, but I make a few comments anyway.
Scoring among these defencemen peaked during 1980s to mid 1990s.
Percentages were relatively stable before the expansion. Then they started increasing. The increase is logical, as it corresponds well to the number of teams in the league.
Be aware of that outlier(?) seasons by Bobby Orr and Paul Coffey are basically not included above, as I chose the 6th-15th best defenceman scorers in the league.
Percentages have since the 1980s been relatively fairly stable, with a few exceptions including a small peak in the mid-1990s. Notice that there in the 1980s were 21 teams, compared to 30 nowadays, so one might expect the 1980s percentages to be lower than the 200s percentages.

Finally, when comparing Bourque and Lidstrom, be aware of that Lidstrom missed a whole season (2004-05) during his peak when Bourque was retired. It's up to everyone to think whether that was beneficial to Lidstrom (perhaps good to rest, longer career) or not (playing in 2004-05 would not negatively affect his play today).