Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[thehangover]

Does anyone got a diagram like the one Rhiessan linked without pro-rated seasons?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Does anyone got a diagram like the one Rhiessan linked without pro-rated seasons?

What do you honestly hope to gain out of it?
We're talking about a guy that averaged 75-76 games a year and a guy that averages 79-80 games a year.
Not pro-rating the years is not going to leave Lidstrom as is either. He'll lose '95 and this year, so it will be 3 years he can't even account for.
As I've said before in this thread, pick your poison.

And As I said before, I'm already using Adjusted stats at par which greatly favours Lidstrom as it.

I'm sorry but tweeking a few years is not going to do much against a 4-7 head to head gap and 2 years Lidstrom can't even account for on top of that.

If I get some time later, I'll do it up as you request but I can tell you right now after dealing with the numbers extensively, that while you're thinking it will gain Lidstrom 3-4 columns, the reality is he might gain 1 and loses an entire year to boot so we're still sitting at a subjective 4-7 gap and 3 years instead of just 2.

And seriously, what will that actually prove? That Lidstrom is a better compiler than Bourque?
That's the reality right, that a guy has to play more games to make up the offensive gap?
Think about that for second.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Never said he wasn't but how much of that durability comes from the use of much better equipment, playing on better ice, having many times better medical knowledge and treatments and from just plain old luck?
I pro-rated it all because that's what adjusted stats does for the '95 season as it is.
Look, I already used adjusted stats at par which already favours Lidstrom greatly and is unfair to Bourque and he still came out far ahead.
I then left a subjective gap at 4-7 years.
On top of it all, we were talking about offense and even in the years that Bourque missed 13 games or 17 games or even 20 games, he STILL produced more points in those reduced seasons than 1/2 to 2/3's of Lidstrom's 80 games seasons.

Either way, we're talking about production or PpG and that's what the chart shows.

Whine about it, ***** about, scream about it for all I care, it is what it is and no amount of spinning is going to reduce the gap to a level that doesn't still leave Bourque dominating.
That's a fact!

Man that's really weak.

Bourque comes out ahead of Lidstrom adjusted in peak and career, maybe not as much as you'd like but to make up stats (yes giving him actual credit for games he missed is extremely weak) and from you of all people.

This is part of the problem when one already has the answer when comparing two players, one must continue to grasp at weak straws like this attempt.

It works easier if you actually have an open mind and look at all the evidence in the same manner.

But instead the closed mind which is already made up here is prone to try and get tricky and disingenuous with stats to try and back up that predetermined point of view.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I agree that points, rather than points per game, are relevant. Players shouldn't get credit for being injured. I've used the adjusted stats per hockey-reference.com but have made no effort to verify their calculation.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

Personally I would rather have Stevens.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I agree that points, rather than points per game, are relevant. Players shouldn't get credit for being injured. I've used the adjusted stats per hockey-reference.com but have made no effort to verify their calculation.

Good work.

Not that it makes much of a difference in the overall graph but if you take the year before and after the lockout and average it for the lost season (if one wishes to do that) it comes out to 60 points.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Good work.

Not that it makes much of a difference in the overall graph but if you take the year before and after the lockout and average it for the lost season (if one wishes to do that) it comes out to 60 points.

Wait, so it's ok to give Lidstrom credit for an entire season but giving Bourque credit for a few games here and there is wrong?

As usual Hardy, your logic has once again made my day


Oh and for the record, that 48 on Overpass's chart in year 17 is pro-rated for for a full season this year.
So it should read 55, 45, 44 and 33 from year 16-19 and years 20, 21 and 22 should be completely uncontested.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Wait, so it's ok to give Lidstrom credit for an entire season but giving Bourque credit for a few games here and there is wrong?

As usual Hardy, your logic has once again made my day


Oh and for the record, that 48 on Overpass's chart in year 17 is pro-rated for for a full season this year.
So it should read 55, 45, 44 and 33 from year 16-19 and years 20, 21 and 22 should be completely uncontested.

I believe in giving pro-rated stats for games lost to lockout than games lost to injury.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I believe in giving pro-rated stats for games lost to lockout than games lost to injury.

Of course you do.
Never mind that there's a real possibility that without that year off to re-charge, Lidstrom plays closer to 03/04 right through and is already retired.

Pretty sure Overpass's point was that he would prefer to only deal with what a player actually did do with no what if's and I have no issue with that as long as it goes both ways.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Of course you do.
Never mind that there's a real possibility that without that year off to re-charge, Lidstrom plays closer to 03/04 right through and is already retired.

Pretty sure Overpass's point was that he would prefer to only deal with what a player actually did do with no what if's and I have no issue with that as long as it goes both ways.

Lidstrom should have been a 2nd Team All-Star in '04, down year or not. It's more likely he wins another Norris than repeats his '04 year (retire? Come on) in '05.

Norris, Norris, Norris, down year, lockout, Norris, Norris, Norris... Smart money says he has another great year in '05.

Games missed to injury are fact, and unique to that individual. Games lost to lockout effect all players league-wide.

 

[shao01]

Didn't have to think very long on this one...Bourque

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom should have been a 2nd Team All-Star in '04, down year or not. It's more likely he wins another Norris than repeats his '04 year (retire? Come on) in '05.

Norris, Norris, Norris, down year, lockout, Norris, Norris, Norris... Smart money says he has another great year in '05.

Games missed to injury are fact, and unique to that individual. Games lost to lockout effect all players league-wide.

...and games not played are games not played no matter the circumstance.

If Lidstrom doesn't have that year off, does he come back as strong as he did? Is he still playing now or does he retire after last year or the year before that maybe?


Lets sum up though.

Despite using adjusted stats which greatly disadvantages Bourque.
Despite Bourque playing less games on average.
Despite Bourque having less talent around him.
Despite all this, Bourque still comes out on top in every single year.

And despite Bourque having 3 years that Lidstrom can't even account for at all, there are still people arguing that Lidstrom should be ranked ahead?

Oh wait, the poll is 2 to 1 in favour of Bourque, I guess most people do understand.
Funny how Gretzky vs Orr, Yzerman vs Sakic or Roy vs Hasek are all closer polls than this one eh

 

[Hardyvan123]

...and games not played are games not played no matter the circumstance.

If Lidstrom doesn't have that year off, does he come back as strong as he did? Is he still playing now or does he retire after last year or the year before that maybe?


Lets sum up though.

Despite using adjusted stats which greatly disadvantages Bourque.
Despite Bourque playing less games on average.
Despite Bourque having less talent around him.
Despite all this, Bourque still comes out on top in every single year.

And despite Bourque having 3 years that Lidstrom can't even account for at all, there are still people arguing that Lidstrom should be ranked ahead?

Oh wait, the poll is 2 to 1 in favour of Bourque, I guess most people do understand.
Funny how Gretzky vs Orr, Yzerman vs Sakic or Roy vs Hasek are all closer polls than this one eh

Adjusted stats are neither an advantage or disadvantage but you don't seem to get that. they give a more accurate comparison (or conversion rate if you like) of players from different seasons much like the currency example that was brought up in another thread.

Also your points and graphs account for Bourque being better offensively, something I think most people are in agreement about.

Most people are also in agreement that Lidstrom was slightly better defensively.

Where one ranks these two guys is based on one's opinion of which area trumps the other and other aspects like playoffs and intangibles.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

...and games not played are games not played no matter the circumstance.

If Lidstrom doesn't have that year off, does he come back as strong as he did? Is he still playing now or does he retire after last year or the year before that maybe?


Lets sum up though.

Despite using adjusted stats which greatly disadvantages Bourque.
Despite Bourque playing less games on average.
Despite Bourque having less talent around him.
Despite all this, Bourque still comes out on top in every single year.

And despite Bourque having 3 years that Lidstrom can't even account for at all, there are still people arguing that Lidstrom should be ranked ahead?

Oh wait, the poll is 2 to 1 in favour of Bourque, I guess most people do understand.
Funny how Gretzky vs Orr, Yzerman vs Sakic or Roy vs Hasek are all closer polls than this one eh

To sum up my thinking...

Bourque is better offensively, by about 10-15%. Lidstrom is better defensively, by about 10%.

But I weigh actual defense from a defenseman higher than I weigh offense. That makes them even closer. And then I believe Lidstrom is indisputably better in the playoffs, narrowing the gap even further.

I just find the difference to be razor thin at this point, and find fault with any "easily Bourque/Lidstrom" view point. I think both are better than Shore, and right there with Harvey.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Dion Phaneuf is clearly the better player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Adjusted stats are neither an advantage or disadvantage but you don't seem to get that. they give a more accurate comparison (or conversion rate if you like) of players from different seasons much like the currency example that was brought up in another thread.

Yeah, a conversion rate that punishes players the more they are further ahead of the average and rewards the players closer to the average more going the other way.

It's based on normalization and assumes all players are the same and are affected equally no matter how good or how bad those players are.
It assumes that Wayne Gretzky is just as equally affected by scoring changes as Chris Nilan is.

The closer to the average you are, the more accurate it is. The further away from average the less accurate it becomes.

If you're going to swear by them on par, then it would prolly be good if you actually knew how they work and what weaknesses they have.

 

[hcdt]

Question

Lidstrom was definitely a very good player or even Elite by Devil's definition of the word in the context of his competition and the league last year but his play from last year would of only been considered good and definitely not elite in relation to 2001 or 1991.
Elite in the context of last year, not elite in context of all-time.
a 2011 Lidstrom can't even shine a 2001 Lidstrom's shoes...ok maybe a little exaggeration there but you get the point.
Just like a 2001 Bourque was still a good player but he (using the same exaggeration) couldn't shine a 1991 Bourque's shoes either.

This is probably so, but i do think that Lidstrom is relatively better in his last years than Bourque in his last years. Lidstrom is still 2 years down against Bourque anyway and i probably would still put Bourque ahead of Lidstrom at this point, but i have a gut feeling that Lidstrom will overtake Bourque before everything is said and done.

My question was that do you consider Bourque so much better that 2-3 great years by Lidstrom wont change your point of view ?

I find people who sticks to one opinion even if facts change a bit challenging discussion partners

 

[hcdt]

Avoiding the point

So, you interpret "agree to disagree" as writing a 3-paragraph retort containing the phrase "pure bulls**t".

This is me, discontinuing the conversation.

You still avoid the question; Is Bourque so much better that more great years from Lidstrom is irrelevant to the evaluation process here?

I do consider Norris contenders to have great years. You also avoided to answer to this point of view.

If your going to stubborningly keep your point of view regardless of what happens in the future then just say so. Then we all know it and we dont need to think about this more.

 

[pluppe]

Never said he wasn't but how much of that durability comes from the use of much better equipment, playing on better ice, having many times better medical knowledge and treatments and from just plain old luck?
I pro-rated it all because that's what adjusted stats does for the '95 season as it is.
Look, I already used adjusted stats at par which already favours Lidstrom greatly and is unfair to Bourque and he still came out far ahead.
I then left a subjective gap at 4-7 years.
On top of it all, we were talking about offense and even in the years that Bourque missed 13 games or 17 games or even 20 games, he STILL produced more points in those reduced seasons than 1/2 to 2/3's of Lidstrom's 80 games seasons.

Either way, we're talking about production or PpG and that's what the chart shows.

Whine about it, ***** about, scream about it for all I care, it is what it is and no amount of spinning is going to reduce the gap to a level that doesn't still leave Bourque dominating.
That's a fact!

unless you use the huge time advantage you have Bourque at (over 25% more time to produce in your opinion ) and adjust to point per minute. but I guess you don´t want to do that.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Look guys, at the end of the day it's about more than just the numbers or more specifically, what adjusted stats tell you.

Would anyone here disagree that Bourque is the noticeably better PP QB than Lidstrom?

Next question, would anyone confuse Bourque offensively with Chara at even strength?
So when I then tell you that Chara is currently outscoring Lidstrom on even strength points over the last 4 years....

See where I'm going here?

At what point does what your eyes tell you and common sense prevail?

So what we really have here is player 1 that is a little better defensively than player 2.
Player 2 that is quite a bit better offensively on the PP and especially at even strength than player 1.
We have player 2 who has 22 seasons and 19 AS nominations.
Player 1 with 19 1/2 seasons and 12 AS nominations.
We have player 2 who comes out on top year to year by any metric against player 1.
We have player 1 who won 4 Cups and a Conn Smythe on a team that was a predominantly high spending, top team/contender for pretty much his entire career there.
Vs player 2 who only has 1 Cup but played for an average to good cheap ass team for pretty much his entire career. Not to mention facing 3 Dynasty teams straight through a 13 year period.
You have player 1 who has 7 Norris of which most of them were won vs competition, that by all time standards is either inconsistent, mediocre or both.
Vs player 2 who only won 5 Norris but did so at a time that was the highest and most consistent competition level in league history.

That's the way I see things. Maybe you don't but hey, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion.

Peace folks.

 

[SChan*]

Lidstorm because Bourque had to change to a starstruck team in order to win a cup, he couldnt lead Boston to anything.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You still avoid the question; Is Bourque so much better that more great years from Lidstrom is irrelevant to the evaluation process here?

I do consider Norris contenders to have great years. You also avoided to answer to this point of view.

If your going to stubborningly keep your point of view regardless of what happens in the future then just say so. Then we all know it and we dont need to think about this more.

I answered your question pages ago.

At this point I wonder whether you know what it means to "agree to disagree".

 

[Dark Shadows]

You still avoid the question; Is Bourque so much better that more great years from Lidstrom is irrelevant to the evaluation process here?

I do consider Norris contenders to have great years. You also avoided to answer to this point of view.

If your going to stubborningly keep your point of view regardless of what happens in the future then just say so. Then we all know it and we dont need to think about this more.

I have only participated in this thread sparingly mostly because like "Sakic vs Yzerman" it has been done so many times most people here are just repeating themselves.

However, I like Rhiessan feel Lidstrom cannot overtake Bourque and since I do not know you from previous posts on this topic, I will explain why. You may disagree. Many will and have, but here is my reasoning.

In terms of Longevity/Consistency, Lidstrom is well ahead of the pack with the exception of Bourque. Bourque is the one player who is even better than Lidstrom in terms of longevity and consistency. Like many, I remember Lidstrom's early years and strongly disagree with this revisionism that Lidstrom was great defensively from the start. It took him years to perfect his craft and he did not deserve to be in the conversation for the Norris until at least 1996 and even then, he was not top 3. Nobody is going to change my mind on what I saw with my own eyes and I had my eye on Lidstrom from the moment he was in the running for the Calder on. Lidstrom himself along with his coaches and GM talk about how much extra responsibility and icetime he took on and how he came of age and took his game to another level right after Konstantinov's accident.

In terms of Peak(Best year) and Prime (Best 5 years), I consider Bourque's best 5 years to be better than Lidstrom in his absolute best year. Again, people tried to argue this to death with me, but what I saw with my own eyes is not going to be changed. This is where the gap really exists for me.

And then we get into the whole competition argument.

Lidstorm because Bourque had to change to a starstruck team in order to win a cup, he couldnt lead Boston to anything.

I.E when Bourque went to a team that was finally as strong as the team Lidstrom had been with his entire career. Lidstrom would not have won a cup in Boston either

 

[SChan*]

I.E when Bourque went to a team that was finally as strong as the team Lidstrom had been with his entire career. Lidstrom would not have won a cup in Boston either

And you know that how? fun fact, ever since lidstrom came to the club they have never missed the playoffs. Prior to that, they missed the playoffs 5 times out of 10 seasons.

 

[Dark Shadows]

And you know that how? fun fact, ever since lidstrom came to the club they have never missed the playoffs. Prior to that, they missed the playoffs 5 times out of 10 seasons.

Common sense. Other than Orr I cannot see a single defenseman being able to make the difference against those star studded Oilers and Penguins squads they faced with the little they had.

Your fun fact should also mention the changes to the organization in 1990-91. After missing the playoffs in 1989-90(The only year they missed the playoffs in the 5 years before Lidstrom arrived), Bryan Murray took over as head coach. The wings acquired McCrimmon to shore up defense and more importantly, Fedorov and made the playoffs a year before Lidstrom got there. They then picked up Konstantinov the same year they picked up Lidstrom and made further acquisitions through the years. The best drafting team, training system and management in the NHL. Lidstrom is a large part of their success, but let's not pretend he is the only part. A little credit needs to be given to other superstars who were a big part of why the team is great over the years.

Fun fact, the first time the bruins missed the playoffs in Bourque's tenure was the season he missed 20 games due to injury in 96-97. A season in which he was getting injured all year and was not playing anywhere near his capacity due to the team rushing him back from injury before he was ready. Sadly you can see why, given that his 62 games played was the most among defensemen on the Bruins other than Don Sweeney.

Rookie Steve Staios. 19 Year old Kyle Mclaren then hmmmm. A star studded bunch of guys like Bob Beers, Dean Chynoweth, Dean Malkoc, Barry Richter, Jon Rohloff, Mattias Timander......

Perhaps superstar 76 point -22 center Josef Stumple or 51 point -9 LW prodigy Ted Donato should have stepped up to the plate and converted to defense.