Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[hcdt]

I answered your question pages ago.

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

I dont think you answered to the question anything else than that you dont count cups or awards and then we discussed about that..

Problem with you, rheissan and this 3rd one is that no one should never be so stubborn that things cant change.. that one is not ready to change opinion. Especially as this is ongoing event.

The reliability and crediability is at danger of a person who stands in ongoing event on one side and openly stats that his/her opinion cannot be changed regardless of changed to topic discussed.

I hope everyone with dynamic and open mind will agree to this.

As i said before i think Bourque is still a notch above but its close.. and especially after some time have glorified things there will be more people thinking that the guy who i saw ages ago.. the one who didnt make ANY mistakes in 23 years of playing and and and Samekind of stubborn people like you 3 will be defending Lidstrom against a new legend and will never stand aside of that point even if he would do ANYTHING

But i do agree that it might well be that Lidstrom will not surpass Bourque but my gut feeling is that he will if he plays 2-3 years more.. Lidstrom will only continue at elite level anyway.

 

[SChan*]

Lidstrom is a large part of their success, but let's not pretend he is the only part.

Neither was Bourque in Boston considering he couldnt lead his team to a cup in 20 years.

Lidstrom on the other hand broke the ice for Europeans in several ways, first he became the first euro to win a conn smythe (which bourque lacks) and then also the first euro to captain a team to the cup. I consider his achievements higher than bourques.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I dont think you answered to the question anything else than that you dont count cups or awards and then we discussed about that..

Problem with you, rheissan and this 3rd one is that no one should never be so stubborn that things cant change.. that one is not ready to change opinion. Especially as this is ongoing event.

The reliability and crediability is at danger of a person who stands in ongoing event on one side and openly stats that his/her opinion cannot be changed regardless of changed to topic discussed.

I hope everyone with dynamic and open mind will agree to this.

As i said before i think Bourque is still a notch above but its close.. and especially after some time have glorified things there will be more people thinking that the guy who i saw ages ago.. the one who didnt make ANY mistakes in 23 years of playing and and and Samekind of stubborn people like you 3 will be defending Lidstrom against a new legend and will never stand aside of that point even if he would do ANYTHING

But i do agree that it might well be that Lidstrom will not surpass Bourque but my gut feeling is that he will if he plays 2-3 years more.. Lidstrom will only continue at elite level anyway.

So are you just going to go on insulting my intelligence or what?

This is, I believe, my 79th post in the thread. My position is completely clear. If you can't "agree to disagree", that's your problem.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Offense

Bourque scored 1,579 points in 1,612 games (0.98 ppg). Lidstrom scored 1,108 points in 1,494 games (0.74 ppg). I am excluding the current season (which works to Lidstrom’s advantage, as this would drag down his per game average). Clearly, Bourque played during a higher-scoring era and this needs to be taken into account, or else we’re being biased in favour of Bourque.

Bourque played from 1980 to 2001. According to hockey-reference.com, there was an average of 6.66 goals per game during those seasons. (I’m using a simple, rather than weighted average, as the difference can’t be material). Lidstrom played from 1992 to 2011 (again, excluding 2012). According to hockey-reference.com, there was an average of 5.57 goals per game during those seasons. Thus, Bourque played during an era that featured 19.52% more offense per game.

Adjusted for era, Bourque scored 0.98 ppg / 1.1952 = 0.82 ppg. Thus, after taking era into account, Bourque outscored Lidstrom by 10.5% on a per-game basis.

Defense

In those 1,612 games, Bourque was on the ice for 2,144 total goals against and 687 PP goals against. Thus he was on the ice for 1,457 even-strength goals against. I’m assuming for both players that the number of SH goals against (i.e. number of goals against they allowed while their team was on the powerplay) is minimal. Thus, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 ES goals against per game.

In his 1,494 games, Lidstrom was on the ice for 1,658 total goals against and 520 PP goals against. Thus he was on the ice for 1,138 even-strength goals against. Thus, Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.76 ES goals against per game. Clearly, Lidstrom played during a lower-scoring era and this needs to be taken into account, or else we’re being biased in favour of Lidstrom.

Adjusted for era, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 esga/g / 1.1952 = 0.76 even-strength goals against per game. Thus, after taking era into account, Bourque was on the ice for 0.7% fewer ES goals against per game.

We can do the same analysis for the penalty kill. Using the numbers from above, Bourque was on the ice for 0.43 PP goals against per game. Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.35 PP goals against per game. Adjusting for era in the same way done before, Bourque is on the ice for 0.36 PP goals against per game. Thus, after taking era into account, Lidstrom is on the ice for 2.4% fewer PP goals against per game.

If we assume that two-thirds of all goals against are at even-strength and one-third are on the penalty kill, then Lidstrom is on the ice for approximately 0.3% fewer goals against per game.

Overall

Bourque is approximately 10.5% better offensively, and Lidstrom is approximately 0.3% better defensively. Therefore I’m comfortable saying that, on a per-game basis, Bourque was about 10% better than Lidstrom. Also, Bourque maintained his strong level of play over a longer period of time.

Playoffs – somebody calculated that, adjusted for era, Lidstrom was equal to Bourque in playoff scoring (I don’t have the link, but it sounds reasonable to me). Assuming that their relative level of defensive play stayed about the same, they were probably even on a per-game basis in the playoffs. Lidstrom should get credit for maintaining this high level of play over a longer period of time.

Taking everything into account, on a per-game basis Bourque is superior in the regular season, by a small but clear margin. On a per-game basis they’re virtually even in the playoffs. It’s close, but Bourque is the better player.

 

[hcdt]

So are you just going to go on insulting my intelligence or what?

This is, I believe, my 79th post in the thread. My position is completely clear. If you can't "agree to disagree", that's your problem.

Nooo.. not insulting. Just considering you narrowminded

I guess i can draw the conclusion that you dont consider Lidstrom and Bourque close. Just didnt really first know if you really thought so.

Now we can agree to disagree on the above.

 

[hcdt]

Offense

Bourque scored 1,579 points in 1,612 games (0.98 ppg). Lidstrom scored 1,108 points in 1,494 games (0.74 ppg). I am excluding the current season (which works to Lidstrom’s advantage, as this would drag down his per game average). Clearly, Bourque played during a higher-scoring era and this needs to be taken into account, or else we’re being biased in favour of Bourque.

Bourque played from 1980 to 2001. According to hockey-reference.com, there was an average of 6.66 goals per game during those seasons. (I’m using a simple, rather than weighted average, as the difference can’t be material). Lidstrom played from 1992 to 2011 (again, excluding 2012). According to hockey-reference.com, there was an average of 5.57 goals per game during those seasons. Thus, Bourque played during an era that featured 19.52% more offense per game.

Adjusted for era, Bourque scored 0.98 ppg / 1.1952 = 0.82 ppg. Thus, after taking era into account, Bourque outscored Lidstrom by 10.5% on a per-game basis.

Defense

In those 1,612 games, Bourque was on the ice for 2,144 total goals against and 687 PP goals against. Thus he was on the ice for 1,457 even-strength goals against. I’m assuming for both players that the number of SH goals against (i.e. number of goals against they allowed while their team was on the powerplay) is minimal. Thus, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 ES goals against per game.

In his 1,494 games, Lidstrom was on the ice for 1,658 total goals against and 520 PP goals against. Thus he was on the ice for 1,138 even-strength goals against. Thus, Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.76 ES goals against per game. Clearly, Lidstrom played during a lower-scoring era and this needs to be taken into account, or else we’re being biased in favour of Lidstrom.

Adjusted for era, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 esga/g / 1.1952 = 0.76 even-strength goals against per game. Thus, after taking era into account, Bourque was on the ice for 0.7% fewer ES goals against per game.

We can do the same analysis for the penalty kill. Using the numbers from above, Bourque was on the ice for 0.43 PP goals against per game. Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.35 PP goals against per game. Adjusting for era in the same way done before, Bourque is on the ice for 0.36 PP goals against per game. Thus, after taking era into account, Lidstrom is on the ice for 2.4% fewer PP goals against per game.

If we assume that two-thirds of all goals against are at even-strength and one-third are on the penalty kill, then Lidstrom is on the ice for approximately 0.3% fewer goals against per game.

Overall

Bourque is approximately 10.5% better offensively, and Lidstrom is approximately 0.3% better defensively. Therefore I’m comfortable saying that, on a per-game basis, Bourque was about 10% better than Lidstrom. Also, Bourque maintained his strong level of play over a longer period of time.

Playoffs – somebody calculated that, adjusted for era, Lidstrom was equal to Bourque in playoff scoring (I don’t have the link, but it sounds reasonable to me). Assuming that their relative level of defensive play stayed about the same, they were probably even on a per-game basis in the playoffs. Lidstrom should get credit for maintaining this high level of play over a longer period of time.

Taking everything into account, on a per-game basis Bourque is superior in the regular season, by a small but clear margin. On a per-game basis they’re virtually even in the playoffs. It’s close, but Bourque is the better player.

That is a very mathematical approach. But it can be quite close to the truth even tho this is subjective and there is no clear truth out there

I think if Lidstrom can be REALLY good upto really old age and lets say play about as much games on elite level as Mr. Hockey played his career value is number one in my head and i would choose him as my franchise defender. Its quite a "legendary" thing to do if he can do that..

 

[Hobnobs]

Offense

Bourque scored 1,579 points in 1,612 games (0.98 ppg). Lidstrom scored 1,108 points in 1,494 games (0.74 ppg). I am excluding the current season (which works to Lidstrom’s advantage, as this would drag down his per game average). Clearly, Bourque played during a higher-scoring era and this needs to be taken into account, or else we’re being biased in favour of Bourque.

Bourque played from 1980 to 2001. According to hockey-reference.com, there was an average of 6.66 goals per game during those seasons. (I’m using a simple, rather than weighted average, as the difference can’t be material). Lidstrom played from 1992 to 2011 (again, excluding 2012). According to hockey-reference.com, there was an average of 5.57 goals per game during those seasons. Thus, Bourque played during an era that featured 19.52% more offense per game.

Adjusted for era, Bourque scored 0.98 ppg / 1.1952 = 0.82 ppg. Thus, after taking era into account, Bourque outscored Lidstrom by 10.5% on a per-game basis.

Defense

In those 1,612 games, Bourque was on the ice for 2,144 total goals against and 687 PP goals against. Thus he was on the ice for 1,457 even-strength goals against. I’m assuming for both players that the number of SH goals against (i.e. number of goals against they allowed while their team was on the powerplay) is minimal. Thus, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 ES goals against per game.

In his 1,494 games, Lidstrom was on the ice for 1,658 total goals against and 520 PP goals against. Thus he was on the ice for 1,138 even-strength goals against. Thus, Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.76 ES goals against per game. Clearly, Lidstrom played during a lower-scoring era and this needs to be taken into account, or else we’re being biased in favour of Lidstrom.

Adjusted for era, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 esga/g / 1.1952 = 0.76 even-strength goals against per game. Thus, after taking era into account, Bourque was on the ice for 0.7% fewer ES goals against per game.

We can do the same analysis for the penalty kill. Using the numbers from above, Bourque was on the ice for 0.43 PP goals against per game. Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.35 PP goals against per game. Adjusting for era in the same way done before, Bourque is on the ice for 0.36 PP goals against per game. Thus, after taking era into account, Lidstrom is on the ice for 2.4% fewer PP goals against per game.

If we assume that two-thirds of all goals against are at even-strength and one-third are on the penalty kill, then Lidstrom is on the ice for approximately 0.3% fewer goals against per game.

Overall

Bourque is approximately 10.5% better offensively, and Lidstrom is approximately 0.3% better defensively. Therefore I’m comfortable saying that, on a per-game basis, Bourque was about 10% better than Lidstrom. Also, Bourque maintained his strong level of play over a longer period of time.

Playoffs – somebody calculated that, adjusted for era, Lidstrom was equal to Bourque in playoff scoring (I don’t have the link, but it sounds reasonable to me). Assuming that their relative level of defensive play stayed about the same, they were probably even on a per-game basis in the playoffs. Lidstrom should get credit for maintaining this high level of play over a longer period of time.

Taking everything into account, on a per-game basis Bourque is superior in the regular season, by a small but clear margin. On a per-game basis they’re virtually even in the playoffs. It’s close, but Bourque is the better player.

This was possibly the simplistic measurement of defense Ive ever seen. First of all, you can't assume that they were on the ice on minimal of GA when on the PP. Second, GA while on the ice might be a good variable when trying to find out how good a guy were on the ice but taking those totals is only showing how many goals were scored when tehy were on the ice together with teammates. It doesnt come close to proving anything for anyone. We could possibly look at hundreds of these goals and conclude that they were scored because of someone elses mistake.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That is a very mathematical approach. But it can be quite close to the truth even tho this is subjective and there is no clear truth out there

I think if Lidstrom can be REALLY good upto really old age and lets say play about as much games on elite level as Mr. Hockey played his career value is number one in my head and i would choose him as my franchise defender. Its quite a "legendary" thing to do if he can do that..

Absolutely agree that it's subjective, but I also think it's valuable to quantify what we can.

I think it's possible, though unlikely, for Lidstrom to pass Bourque. I agree that keeping an open mind is key. Let's see how it plays out.

This was possibly the simplistic measurement of defense Ive ever seen. First of all, you can't assume that they were on the ice on minimal of GA when on the PP.

The total number of goals that each player was on the ice for is not in dispute - if you assume some of the goals against occurred on the powerplay, there's no impact on the number of goals against per game because that number is fixed.

Second, GA while on the ice might be a good variable when trying to find out how good a guy were on the ice but taking those totals is only showing how many goals were scored when tehy were on the ice together with teammates. It doesnt come close to proving anything for anyone. We could possibly look at hundreds of these goals and conclude that they were scored because of someone elses mistake.

You're new here. There is an enormous amount of data that has been posted by Overpass and other great posters based on goals against data. The data consistently shows that elite defensive players like Lidstrom, Bourque, Stevens, Pronger, Chelios, etc., allow few goals against per minute of ice time, play more on the penalty kill, and have a large positive goal differential (goals for less goals against while they're on the ice).

I mean, are you disputing that great defensive players are on the ice for fewer goals against (per unit of time) than weaker defensive players? That's why they're great defensively - when they're on the ice, the opposition has a harder time scoring.

Obviously this doesn't take the quality of their teammates into account, but based on what we know about the relative quality of their teammates, it would be difficult to argue that Lidstrom has been the victim of more of his teammate's mistakes.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That is a very mathematical approach. But it can be quite close to the truth even tho this is subjective and there is no clear truth out there

I think if Lidstrom can be REALLY good upto really old age and lets say play about as much games on elite level as Mr. Hockey played his career value is number one in my head and i would choose him as my franchise defender. Its quite a "legendary" thing to do if he can do that..

The difference though that you're missing is that the "elite level" that Lidstrom is playing at is only in relation to his current competition and league.
He is not elite compared to Lidstrom from 10 years ago, nor is he elite compared to Bourque 20 years ago.

Lidstrom's days of putting up elite seasons that can compete with and match up to Bourque's elite seasons are over.
Lidstrom is forever stuck at having 11-13 truly elite seasons to Bourque's 17-19 truly elite seasons.
Lidstrom is not going to get that step back that he lost at this point.
No to mention, Bourque has 3-5 seasons out of those 17-19 that were above any of Lidstrom's 12-13.

It would be like counting Bourque's 00/01 season as elite and that's not going to happen either.

Lidstrom's late arrival to the NHL and even later peak compared to Bourque will forever hold him back in this conversation and a 41 year old Lidstrom is not going to make that back, I'm sorry.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Nooo.. not insulting. Just considering you narrowminded

Wow. Really?

 

[seventieslord]

the other point about offense is that Bourque was often his team's top offensive player including forwards. Lidstrom rarely was, if ever.

if all other things are equal - 80 points when other top forwards on the team have 65-75 points is much better than 80 points when there are three forwards with 80-95 points on the team. I shouldn't have to explain why.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

the other point about offense is that Bourque was often his team's top offensive player including forwards. Lidstrom rarely was, if ever.

if all other things are equal - 80 points when other top forwards on the team have 65-75 points is much better than 80 points when there are three forwards with 80-95 points on the team. I shouldn't have to explain why.

From 1997-2003 (between Shanahan's first and Fedorov's last), Lidstrom is 2nd in points for Detroit, behind only Shanahan.... ahead of Yzerman and Fedorov.

Despite the names, there are a good amount of years where the top scorers in Detroit were not over 70 or 80 pts.

 

[seventieslord]

From 1997-2003 (between Shanahan's first and Fedorov's last), Lidstrom is 2nd in points for Detroit, behind only Shanahan.... ahead of Yzerman and Fedorov.

Despite the names, there are a good amount of years where the top scorers in Detroit were not over 70 or 80 pts.

...and Lidstrom was a 57-73-point scorer those years, so.....

well naturally if you use large blocks of seasons where Lidstrom was present, healthy and productive every year you will find he was 2nd in points on the Wings. I imagine if you did the same for Bourque in Boston, in any 7-year period except perhaps centering on 1992-93, he'd be 1st, too.

Shanny, Yzerman, Fedorov, they all had "off years" here and there, holdouts, injuries, etc, so when you add up 7-year periods they appear behind, but there was always someone putting up more points than Lidstrom. He was not "the key" to the offense. And in the Zetterberg/Datsyuk years it's been the same thing.

 

[seventieslord]

number of times led team in scoring:

Bourque: 5
Lidstrom: 0

Number of times 2nd in team scoring:

Bourque: 5
Lidstrom: 3

Total number of times top-2 in team scoring:

Bourque: 10
Lidstrom: 3

career line:

Bourque: 4 4 4 5 3 1 3 1 1 5 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 6
Lidstrom: 6 9 8 8 5 3 2 6 3 2 4 4 9 4 3 3 6 3 2

This is a HUGE difference, and far too often ignored when determining the difference between the offensive abilities of these two players.

And if you were to go by points per game instead, Bourque would rise a couple spots a few times and Lidstrom would drop a few times. This is relevant because if Lidstrom had 62 points in 80 games and another forward had 61 in 60, it's not entirely right to say Lidstrom "outscored" him because he really didn't, when both players were in the lineup together.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Neither was Bourque in Boston considering he couldnt lead his team to a cup in 20 years.

Lidstrom on the other hand broke the ice for Europeans in several ways, first he became the first euro to win a conn smythe (which bourque lacks) and then also the first euro to captain a team to the cup. I consider his achievements higher than bourques.

I agree.

But Bourque was a better player.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

You really don't understand how they work do you?

Wayne Gretzky already scores at a much higher pace than chris nilan did.

Sure the conversion rate might not ever be exact, because never will the 82 Gretzky play in the 00 Bourque season, but they actually convert everyone to a standard.

But we have already seen that with your mind made up about certain players that you will only use numbers that support your argument the most and not use the whole picture thus making your arguments weaker.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You really don't understand how they work do you?

Wayne Gretzky already scores at a much higher pace than chris nilan did.

Sure the conversion rate might not ever be exact, because never will the 82 Gretzky play in the 00 Bourque season, but they actually convert everyone to a standard.

But we have already seen that with your mind made up about certain players that you will only use numbers that support your argument the most and not use the whole picture thus making your arguments weaker.

Don't talk to me about the math involved Hardy, it's obviously above your head.

Maybe someone with more patience can explain it to you.


Look, between 1990 and 2010, first line production through the entire league hasn't gone down that much, certainly no where close to the % that adjusted stats says.
Where scoring is down, is through secondary scoring. It was not uncommon in the 80's to have entire second lines around a point per game in production.
That is unheard of today.

While the top players are not producing at the same rate they did in the 80's, their drop off is not even remotely close to the drop off in scoring from the second, third and forth lines.

Adjusted stats attempts to set the same rate across all players and that is QUITE obviously not what happened.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can spell this out for you.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

...and Lidstrom was a 57-73-point scorer those years, so.....

well naturally if you use large blocks of seasons where Lidstrom was present, healthy and productive every year you will find he was 2nd in points on the Wings. I imagine if you did the same for Bourque in Boston, in any 7-year period except perhaps centering on 1992-93, he'd be 1st, too.

Shanny, Yzerman, Fedorov, they all had "off years" here and there, holdouts, injuries, etc, so when you add up 7-year periods they appear behind, but there was always someone putting up more points than Lidstrom. He was not "the key" to the offense. And in the Zetterberg/Datsyuk years it's been the same thing.

Don't lie... You were surprised

I'm not challenging that Lidstrom had better teams, but just the idea he has always had multiple elite scoring forwards on his team. By the time Lidstrom's prime started, Yzerman's and Fedorov's big point years were over.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The difference though that you're missing is that the "elite level" that Lidstrom is playing at is only in relation to his current competition and league.
He is not elite compared to Lidstrom from 10 years ago, nor is he elite compared to Bourque 20 years ago.

Lidstrom's days of putting up elite seasons that can compete with and match up to Bourque's elite seasons are over.
Lidstrom is forever stuck at having 11-13 truly elite seasons to Bourque's 17-19 truly elite seasons.
Lidstrom is not going to get that step back that he lost at this point.
No to mention, Bourque has 3-5 seasons out of those 17-19 that were above any of Lidstrom's 12-13.

It would be like counting Bourque's 00/01 season as elite and that's not going to happen either.

Lidstrom's late arrival to the NHL and even later peak compared to Bourque will forever hold him back in this conversation and a 41 year old Lidstrom is not going to make that back, I'm sorry.

Your interpretation of elite is probably a bit different than what everyone else is going by here and is probably stat driven but 3-5 seasons is a huge stretch.

Bourque's 01 season has been nothing like Lidstrom's the last couple of years either.

But then again you think the compete level of the opposition that Lidstrom is playing in post lockout is no different or perhaps worse than the high flying 80s-early 90's right?

 

[Hardyvan123]

the other point about offense is that Bourque was often his team's top offensive player including forwards. Lidstrom rarely was, if ever.

if all other things are equal - 80 points when other top forwards on the team have 65-75 points is much better than 80 points when there are three forwards with 80-95 points on the team. I shouldn't have to explain why.

The other things are never equal and there sis till only 1 puck and some teams with really good 1-2 combinations like Gretzky/Kurri, Tottier/Bossy, St. Louis/Stamkos doesn't always result in the 3rd point on any given goal being spread around the same way.

This is a minor point anyways as Bourque was the better offensive player and more dynamic and if anyone really thought otherwise they would just be an opposite R71.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Don't talk to me about the math involved Hardy, it's obviously above your head.

Maybe someone with more patience can explain it to you.


Look, between 1990 and 2010, first line production through the entire league hasn't gone down that much, certainly no where close to the % that adjusted stats says.
Where scoring is down, is through secondary scoring. It was not uncommon in the 80's to have entire second lines around a point per game in production.
That is unheard of today.

While the top players are not producing at the same rate they did in the 80's, their drop off is not even remotely close to the drop off in scoring from the second, third and forth lines.

Adjusted stats attempts to set the same rate across all players and that is QUITE obviously not what happened.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can spell this out for you.

No it's quite clear that you don't understand how they work the adjusted stats.

Why would they use a different rate for two players in the same season as they already scored to their actual rate or ability to that season?

Do you want adjusted stats to award bonus points for certain players?

It's like an American asking for more than the exchange rate because he's American or something.

and we are talking about two guys here at teh same elvel for all intensive purposes in Ray and Nik, not Wayne and Chris.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No it's quite clear that you don't understand how they work the adjusted stats.

Why would they use a different rate for two players in the same season as they already scored to their actual rate or ability to that season?

Do you want adjusted stats to award bonus points for certain players?

It's like an American asking for more than the exchange rate because he's American or something.

and we are talking about two guys here at teh same elvel for all intensive purposes in Ray and Nik, not Wayne and Chris.

Just stop for a second and really and I mean truly think about what I'm trying to say to you.

If the top end players haven't been as affected by the scoring decline as the mid and lower end players, then why are we deducting the same % across the board and calling that fair?

The average top tier player today is not losing 20% compared to the average top tier player in 1985.
The average tier 2 and 3 players today are losing 20% and much more than the average tier 2 and 3 players in 1985 though.

The improved goaltending and more elaborate systems are reducing the number of overall goals but most of those eliminated goals are coming out of the pockets of the lesser tier players.
The top tier players are still getting it done and their pockets are not nearly as empty as the lower tier players' pockets.

Honestly, if you don't get what I'm saying by now, you never will.
The logistics of it is actually pretty simple.


Joe Sakic produced the same amount of points in '96 that he produced in '01 yet his team scored 50 goals less. Obviously those lost 50 goals didn't come out of Joe's pocket now did they?

 

[hcdt]

Elite in 2011 is Elite.

The difference though that you're missing is that the "elite level" that Lidstrom is playing at is only in relation to his current competition and league.
He is not elite compared to Lidstrom from 10 years ago, nor is he elite compared to Bourque 20 years ago.

Lidstrom's days of putting up elite seasons that can compete with and match up to Bourque's elite seasons are over.
Lidstrom is forever stuck at having 11-13 truly elite seasons to Bourque's 17-19 truly elite seasons.
Lidstrom is not going to get that step back that he lost at this point.
No to mention, Bourque has 3-5 seasons out of those 17-19 that were above any of Lidstrom's 12-13.

It would be like counting Bourque's 00/01 season as elite and that's not going to happen either.

Lidstrom's late arrival to the NHL and even later peak compared to Bourque will forever hold him back in this conversation and a 41 year old Lidstrom is not going to make that back, I'm sorry.

Future will show the real depth of this generation and the 2010-2020 generation. I dont think its quite as shallow as you think.
The amount of teams, the amount of players etc all supports quite stiff and hard competition. I do think its harder to really stand out and get that "legendary" aura as a defender nowadays when the game is even more "regulated" and players have less freedom especially defenders. (Atleast if you want to be considered a defender and not a defensive liability)

But thats also something that can be changed in time... time usually glorifies things.

Its also very even.. the league nowadays. Alot of good teams.. alot of good attackers and defenders. Its not that easy to really dominate. This kind of an aspects tend to cause less "legends" to be born...

Anyway i think Lidstrom is a step behind from Lidstrom 2001 but NOT that much.. slower yes which causes a bit more mistakes, but generally he is still doing most of the things he has always done quietly on a extremely high but boring standard.

I am strong beliver that 2011-2012 is not a bad time for NHL hockey. Elite on this level means elite on the world scale. That means the top hockey defender in the world or atleast top 5... that is elite... how ever you want to twist it its always elite...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Future will show the real depth of this generation and the 2010-2020 generation. I dont think its quite as shallow as you think.
The amount of teams, the amount of players etc all supports quite stiff and hard competition. I do think its harder to really stand out and get that "legendary" aura as a defender nowadays when the game is even more "regulated" and players have less freedom especially defenders. (Atleast if you want to be considered a defender and not a defensive liability)

But thats also something that can be changed in time... time usually glorifies things.

Its also very even.. the league nowadays. Alot of good teams.. alot of good attackers and defenders. Its not that easy to really dominate. This kind of an aspects tend to cause less "legends" to be born...

Anyway i think Lidstrom is a step behind from Lidstrom 2001 but NOT that much.. slower yes which causes a bit more mistakes, but generally he is still doing most of the things he has always done quietly on a extremely high but boring standard.

I am strong beliver that 2011-2012 is not a bad time for NHL hockey. Elite on this level means elite on the world scale. That means the top hockey defender in the world or atleast top 5... that is elite... how ever you want to twist it its always elite...

It will only take 1 outlier to take everything you just said and flush right down the toilet.
Take Crosby from last season before he got hurt. Look at the awe he inspired. He showed everyone that there is indeed another level. A level to which this generation simply hasn't gotten to yet.
A level that people like myself are starting to realise we took for granted from previous generations.
Just like a lot of people in this thread are taking for granted just how great Bourque truly was.

 

[hcdt]

It will only take 1 outlier to take everything you just said and flush right down the toilet.
Take Crosby from last season before he got hurt. Look at the awe he inspired. He showed everyone that there is indeed another level. A level to which this generation simply hasn't gotten to yet.
A level that people like myself are starting to realise we took for granted from previous generations.
Just like a lot of people in this thread are taking for granted just how great Bourque truly was.

really stand out and get that "legendary" aura as a defender nowadays when the game is even more "regulated" and players have less freedom especially defenders. (Atleast if you want to be considered a defender and not a defensive liability)
Try to atleast read what i did type with my bad english before you reply.

I agree that as a forward you can stand out easyer as you dont have such a heavy responcibilities as a top defender who plays against best lines.

I do agree that Cosby is phenomenal player and would have been relatively better than Lidstrom last season even tho i think its stupid to compare forwards and defenders.