Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[tarheelhockey]

You say that defenseman scoring peaked in the 80s and 90s, but it is higher post-lockout than it was prior to 1992-93. In fact, 2006-07 was the highwater season.

Am I misunderstanding your comment?

 

[plusandminus]

You say that defenseman scoring peaked in the 80s and 90s, but it is higher post-lockout than it was prior to 1992-93. In fact, 2006-07 was the highwater season.

Am I misunderstanding your comment?

That comment (mentioning scoring) refered to the third column, the one showing scored points.
The other comments (mentioning percentage) refer to the percentage column.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So as a percentage of total offense, it would appear that defensemen have been pretty constant since the Orr years.

 

[plusandminus]

So as a percentage of total offense, it would appear that defensemen have been pretty constant since the Orr years.

Yes, it seems so. But the 1980s had fewer teams than today. I need to base the stats on how many teams the league contained. If I for a 21 team league focus on defencemen 6th-15th, I might for a 30 team league do better to focus on defencemen 11th-20th. I think I can do that, if there is interest (it requires quite a lot of typing).

If I was to guess, I would guess that it "was easier" in the 1980s than during recent years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, it seems so. But the 1980s had fewer teams than today. I need to base the stats on how many teams the league contained. If I for a 21 team league focus on defencemen 6th-15th, I might for a 30 team league do better to focus on defencemen 11th-20th. I think I can do that, if there is interest (it requires quite a lot of typing).

If I was to guess, I would guess that it "was easier" in the 1980s than during recent years.

Good point. To adjust for this, maybe it would be best to do percentage of total points of all players were scored by all defensemen? Is there an easy way to do that?

 

[habsjunkie2*]

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.

I have a hard time ignoring the 6 or 7 years they played at the same time prior to 1997 when Leetch is clearly better offensively, both from a statistical point of view and most definitely from the eye test, there is no comparison. I'm not knocking Lids, he's clearly the better overall dman, but imo, offensively alone, leetch was in another league. I don't buy the argument that Lids became a force later on offensively and only was held back by difference in era.

When they played together, both at relatively the same age. Leetch was clearly ahead offensively AINEC. I stand by that. At no time did Lidstrom show the offensive capability of Leetch, to be one of the best ever, you don't have to be the best in every single category. Leetch is one of the best offensive dman of all time, it's not really a knock.

 

[plusandminus]

Good point. To adjust for this, maybe it would be best to do percentage of total points of all players were scored by all defensemen? Is there an easy way to do that?

Yes, relatively easy (but not tonight).

If doing what you suggest, I'm not sure it will tell what you may want to find out. I think you may be more interested in how the top-1 or top-2 scoring defencemen on each team scored, as Bourque, Lidstrom, Leetch are such guys. ? Such players likely play a lot more PP than the other defencemen on teams. Isolating the "rushing defenceman" effect might be difficult. ?

If someone else can do this, please do.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have a hard time ignoring the 6 or 7 years they played at the same time prior to 1997 when Leetch is clearly better offensively, both from a statistical point of view and most definitely from the eye test, there is no comparison. I'm not knocking Lids, he's clearly the better overall dman, but imo, offensively alone, leetch was in another league. I don't buy the argument that Lids became a force later on offensively and only was held back by difference in era.

I agree that Leetch was better offensively. I disagree with comparing prime Leetch with pre-prime Lidstrom which is what the pre-1997 comparison does.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I agree that Leetch was better offensively. I disagree with comparing prime Leetch with pre-prime Lidstrom which is what the pre-1997 comparison does.

I can agree to that, but it goes back to the point when debating the best ever, Bourque didn't take 6 or 7 years to hit his prime.

 

[danincanada]

I can agree to that, but it goes back to the point when debating the best ever, Bourque didn't take 6 or 7 years to hit his prime.

Doug Harvey wasn't an all-star until his 5th NHL season at the age of 27 and he apparently ranks higher than both of them.

Personally, I think all 3 of those defenseman truly hit their primes around the age of 27. That's the age when Bourque won his first Norris and the age when Lidstrom won his first Cup. Bourque's statistics look fairly consistent throughout but no one should actually believe his game didn't grow over the years. The NHL got better and so did Bourque.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Doug Harvey wasn't an all-star until his 5th NHL season at the age of 27 and he apparently ranks higher than both of them.

Personally, I think all 3 of those defenseman truly hit their primes around the age of 27. That's the age when Bourque won his first Norris and the age when Lidstrom won his first Cup. Bourque's statistics look fairly consistent throughout but no one should actually believe his game didn't grow over the years. The NHL got better and so did Bourque.

Well no kidding. I don't think I ever implied that Bourque was at his best ever in his rookie year and gradually got worse throughout his career.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Age that each player turned during the season he first made the All-Star Team:

Bourque - 19
Orr - 19
Coffey - 20
Park - 21
Kelly - 22
Laperriere
Potvin - 22
Brewer - 23
Leetch - 23
MacInnis - 23
Pronger - 23
Salming - 23
Seibert - 23
Stevens - 23
Niedermayer - 24
Gadsby - 25
Langway - 25
Lapointe - 25
Quackenbush - 25
Robinson - 25
Stewart - 25
Murphy - 26
Chara - 27
Chelios - 27
Harvey - 27
Lidstrom - 27
Pronovost - 27
Blake - 28
Pilote - 28
Savard - 33

I cut off the "season" at May.

In the process of doing this, I uncovered something intriguing and possibly unique in history: the 1997-98 postseason All Star teams featured 4 defensemen (Lidstrom, Blake, Pronger, Niedermayer) who were all making their first appearance. A quick glance at the scoring numbers that year shows career-lows from the "Big Five" of Bourque (37), Chelios (36), Stevens (33), MacInnis (34) and Leetch (29) whose ages you can see in parentheses.

It's an interesting bit of context for the somewhat later "primes" of the 1990s/2000s cohort. You can really see in 1998 how Lidstrom's generation basically had to wait for Bourque's generation to age-out of contention before they won postseason recognition.

I can think of a few different theories to explain that phenomenon:
- Lidstrom's generation was simply inferior from the get-go, which would be validated by our all-time rankings.
- Bourque's generation received a lot of reputation votes... though it should be noted that Ozolinsh made the first team in 1997.
- 1998 was the first year of Dead Puck, which caused an abrupt generational shift.

Probably a combination of the three IMO. Only Bourque and MacInnis rebounded to receive consistent All Star recognition after 1998.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree that Leetch was better offensively. I disagree with comparing prime Leetch with pre-prime Lidstrom which is what the pre-1997 comparison does.

I think what you're saying is valid, however, it's Lidstrom's fault that he peaked much later than other great d-men. Not Leetch's fault or Bourque's or anyone elses.
That is what I'm pointing out and holding against Lidstrom in these comparisons.
Basically you want to ignore Lidstrom's first 6-7 years in the league because it wasn't his prime.

I mean it's no problem to hold Pronger's long development against him but try that with Lidstrom and there's an uproar or at the very least we have people retroactively trying to make Lidstrom out as a better player pre-'97/98 than he was.

It's quite clear that Lidstrom made up for his late peak, should and is given ample credit for that when being compared to other d-men.
Only until we get to Bourque though. That's when the wheels fall off for Lidstrom and those 6-7 years come back to haunt him.
Not only did Bourque peak much, much sooner but he also peaked higher and much longer.

Back to Leetch, the 9 year stretch I showed earlier is not only on par with but also much better offensively, adjusted or not, regular season and playoffs, than any 9 year stretch from Lidstrom.

Either way, Leetch loses to Lidstrom overall because Lidstrom is as good or better for much longer and in turn Lidstrom loses to Bourque for the same reasons.


If Lidstrom peaks 4-5 years sooner like Bourque or Leetch then I am most likely on the Lidstrom bandwagon right now but he didn't so I'm not and Lidstrom being a shadow of his former self, he is not going to make that up at this point.

 

[canucks4ever]

I think what you're saying is valid, however, it's Lidstrom's fault that he peaked much later than other great d-men. Not Leetch's fault or Bourque's or anyone elses.
That is what I'm pointing out and holding against Lidstrom in these comparisons.
Basically you want to ignore Lidstrom's first 6-7 years in the league because it wasn't his prime.

I mean it's no problem to hold Pronger's long development against him but try that with Lidstrom and there's an uproar or at the very least we have people retroactively trying to make Lidstrom out as a better player pre-'97/98 than he was.

It's quite clear that Lidstrom made up for his late peak, should and is given ample credit for that when being compared to other d-men.
Only until we get to Bourque though. That's when the wheels fall off for Lidstrom and those 6-7 years come back to haunt him.
Not only did Bourque peak much, much sooner but he also peaked higher and much longer.

Back to Leetch, the 9 year stretch I showed earlier is not only on par with but also much better offensively, adjusted or not, regular season and playoffs, than any 9 year stretch from Lidstrom.

Either way, Leetch loses to Lidstrom overall because Lidstrom is as good or better for much longer and in turn Lidstrom loses to Bourque for the same reasons.


If Lidstrom peaks 4-5 years sooner like Bourque or Leetch then I am most likely on the Lidstrom bandwagon right now but he didn't so I'm not and Lidstrom being a shadow of his former self, he is not going to make that up at this point.

Well realistically it took him 4 years to finally hit his prime, lidstrom was an elite defensemman in 1996 and 1997, he just didnt get the recognition becuase his own teammate vlad konstantinov had a more crowd pleasing style. Lidstrom was easily better than coffey in 1996 and ozolinsh in 1997.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well realistically it took him 4 years to finally hit his prime, lidstrom was an elite defensemman in 1996 and 1997, he just didnt get the recognition becuase his own teammate vlad konstantinov had a more crowd pleasing style. Lidstrom was easily better than coffey in 1996 and ozolinsh in 1997.

Again, that's doing exactly what I said, trying to make him out to be better than he was.
He was NOT an elite d-man in '96 or for most of '97. In the other thread there were multiple articles presented written by the Wings' own reporters, most of whom still cover the team today and none of them came close to presenting Lids as elite, far from it.
Some of them even lumping him in with Coffey. Now while I said there and repeat here that I think that was a bit over the top, there still had to be some basis for those comments.

Late '97 and even more so '98 was Lidstrom's coming out party. Don't try and retroactively change history to suit the Lidstrom you saw later on.
The stats show this, the articles show this and my very own eyes show this.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think what you're saying is valid, however, it's Lidstrom's fault that he peaked much later than other great d-men. Not Leetch's fault or Bourque's or anyone elses.
That is what I'm pointing out and holding against Lidstrom in these comparisons.
Basically you want to ignore Lidstrom's first 6-7 years in the league because it wasn't his prime.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying it's wrong to compare a player who is not in his prime with one who is. Would you agree?

I mean it's no problem to hold Pronger's long development against him but try that with Lidstrom and there's an uproar or at the very least we have people retroactively trying to make Lidstrom out as a better player pre-'97/98 than he was.

I don't remember the last time I've seen someone hold Pronger's long development against him. I see it with Lidstrom all the time.

It's quite clear that Lidstrom made up for his late peak, should and is given ample credit for that when being compared to other d-men.
Only until we get to Bourque though. That's when the wheels fall off for Lidstrom and those 6-7 years come back to haunt him.
Not only did Bourque peak much, much sooner but he also peaked higher and much longer.

Bourque didn't peak "much longer" though he did peak longer.

Back to Leetch, the 9 year stretch I showed earlier is not only on par with but also much better offensively, adjusted or not, regular season and playoffs, than any 9 year stretch from Lidstrom.

It's better, but not "much better."

Either way, Leetch loses to Lidstrom overall because Lidstrom is as good or better for much longer and in turn Lidstrom loses to Bourque for the same reasons.

Lidstrom "as good or better" than Leetch? as good or better?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again, that's doing exactly what I said, trying to make him out to be better than he was.
He was NOT an elite d-man in '96 or for most of '97. In the other thread there were multiple articles presented written by the Wings' own reporters, most of whom still cover the team today and none of them came close to presenting Lids as elite, far from it.
Some of them even lumping him in with Coffey. Now while I said there and repeat here that I think that was a bit over the top, there still had to be some basis for those comments.

Late '97 and even more so '98 was Lidstrom's coming out party. Don't try and retroactively change history to suit the Lidstrom you saw later on.
The stats show this, the articles show this and my very own eyes show this.

Looks like we are all in agreement that Lidstrom wasn't at his peak yet before 1997. So we probably shouldnt' use his pre-1997 years in a comparison, right?

 

[canucks4ever]

Again, that's doing exactly what I said, trying to make him out to be better than he was.
He was NOT an elite d-man in '96 or for most of '97. In the other thread there were multiple articles presented written by the Wings' own reporters, most of whom still cover the team today and none of them came close to presenting Lids as elite, far from it.
Some of them even lumping him in with Coffey. Now while I said there and repeat here that I think that was a bit over the top, there still had to be some basis for those comments.

Late '97 and even more so '98 was Lidstrom's coming out party. Don't try and retroactively change history to suit the Lidstrom you saw later on.
The stats show this, the articles show this and my very own eyes show this.

Im not changing things to make him look better, plenty of people on this site agree that he should have been given a 2nd team nod in both of those years, your just a lidstrom hater. Bowman clearly thought lidstrom was better, thats why he kept him and gave coffey the boot. Ozolinsh was the phil housley was of the deadpuck era, his first team all star in 1997 was simply a stat award.

 

[danincanada]

Well realistically it took him 4 years to finally hit his prime, lidstrom was an elite defensemman in 1996 and 1997, he just didnt get the recognition becuase his own teammate vlad konstantinov had a more crowd pleasing style. Lidstrom was easily better than coffey in 1996 and ozolinsh in 1997.

Yup, and let's be honest here...the early 80's NHL was pretty horrible. Go watch a game from back then between any two team and you will see it's not high quality hockey when compared to today or even later in the decade. Drop Lidstrom in that era with his skillset and he would look a lot better, too. No one wants to talk about that but to me I don't know how someone can ignore it.

 

[canucks4ever]

Yup, and let's be honest here...the early 80's NHL was pretty horrible. Go watch a game from back then between any two team and you will see it's not high quality hockey when compared to today or even later in the decade. Drop Lidstrom in that era with his skillset and he would look a lot better, too. No one wants to talk about that but to me I don't know how someone can ignore it.

Oh I defintely agree, people think it was some golden age of defenseman when in reality the quality of defenseman play in that era was quite bad, everyone went all offense all the time. Thats why many d-man are made to look better than they actually were.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying it's wrong to compare a player who is not in his prime with one who is. Would you agree?

I do but when you have 2 players only 2 years apart and the first player peaks at 22 while the second player doesn't peak until he's 27. It's not fair to hold that against the first player.

I don't remember the last time I've seen someone hold Pronger's long development against him. I see it with Lidstrom all the time.

I hold that against Pronger all the time. I mention his Hartford days and what an idiot he was early in his career whenever there's a conversation about him.

Bourque didn't peak "much longer" though he did peak longer.

80-97 = 18
98-09 = 11
That's MUCH longer in my book, more than 50% longer in fact.

It's better, but not "much better."

The context was offensively not overall and I stand by that context.

Lidstrom "as good or better" than Leetch? as good or better?

Yeah, if you had a choice of either player for their best 8-9 years only, it's a toss up. It all depends on whether your team needs offensive or defensive help.

 

[Epsilon]

I still fail to see the relevance of going on about how early a player became elite, other than the fact that this site, being devoted to prospects and young players, is naturally going to attract that sort of bias.

It doesn't impress me more if a player is great from the ages of 20-33 than it does if they are from 27-40.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I do but when you have 2 players only 2 years apart and the first player peaks at 22 while the second player doesn't peak until he's 27. It's not fair to hold that against the first player.

But why even bring it up when the second player is still an elite player after the age of 40 when the first was basically done as an elite player by his 30th birthday?

I hold that against Pronger all the time. I mention his Hartford days and what an idiot he was early in his career whenever there's a conversation about him.

okay

80-97 = 18
98-09 = 12
That's MUCH longer in my book, 50% longer in fact.

That would be the case if Lidstrom was actually finished as an elite player in 2009. Considering he won the 2011 Norris, I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

Yeah, if you had a choice of either player for their best 8-9 years only, it's a toss up. It all depends on whether your team needs offensive or defensive help.

No, it really isn't a tossup. While I think prime Leetch's defense is sometimes underrated, the defensive gap between them is much bigger than the offensive gap.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Looks like we are all in agreement that Lidstrom wasn't at his peak yet before 1997. So we probably shouldnt' use his pre-1997 years in a comparison, right?

That's fine then as long as his longer and sometimes much longer time than most getting to his peak is stipulated.

 

[Epsilon]

That's fine then as long as his longer and sometimes much longer time than most getting to his peak is stipulated.

Again, what relevance does this have in evaluating the sum-total of a player's career?