Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Rhiessan71]

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.

But I'm not just talking about forwards. You like the what if game as in what if Lidstrom does this or that, will we give him more credit in regards to Bourque.

Well hey, what if...that Karlsson kid in Ottawa gets 80-90 points a season over the next 5 seasons?
What does that do to Lidstrom's offensive standing?
And Karlsson is not a defensive liability, he was a little rough last season but he's turning into a real solid defender this year as well.

And who's offense do you think they will compare it to? Bourque's or Lidstrom's?
I think we all know the answer to that one

 

[hcdt]

But I'm not just talking about forwards. You like the what if game as in what if Lidstrom does this or that, will we give him more credit in regards to Bourque.

Well hey, what if...that Karlsson kid in Ottawa gets 80-90 points a season over the next 5 seasons?
What does that do to Lidstrom's offensive standing?
And Karlsson is not a defensive liability, he was a little rough last season but he's turning into a real solid defender this year as well.

And who's offense do you think they will compare it to? Bourque's or Lidstrom's?
I think we all know the answer to that one

Probably to Bourques offence as its slightly better.

If he can do that next 15 years he dethrone any defender in history

 

[tarheelhockey]

Defensemen who have led their teams in scoring.

Season | Name | Margin (raw points) | Margin (pct) | Team scoring rank
1969-70 | Bobby Orr | 21 | 21% | 1/12
1973-74 | Brad Park | 5 | 6% | 2/16
1973-74 | Denis Potvin | 4 | 8% | 16/16
1974-75 | Bobby Orr | 8 | 6% | 3/18
1974-75 | Denis Potvin | 14 | 23% | 7/18
1975-76 | Denis Potvin | 3 | 3% | 3/18
1976-77 | Denis Potvin | 8 | 11% | 3/18
1984-85 | Raymond Bourque | 10 | 13% | 10/21
1984-85 | Reijo Ruotsalainen | 9 | 14% | 15/21
1986-87 | Raymond Bourque | 23 | 32% | 6/21
1986-87 | Larry Murphy | 8 | 11% | 8/21
1987-88 | Raymond Bourque | 7 | 9% | 7/21
1989-90 | Paul Reinhart | 6 | 12% | 20/21
1990-91 | Raymond Bourque | 2 | 2% | 5/21
1990-91 | Kevin Hatcher | 3 | 4% | 14/21
1990-91 | Phil Housley | 9 | 13% | 13/21
1990-91 | Brian Leetch | 15 | 21% | 6/21
1991-92 | Raymond Bourque | 6 | 8% | 13/22
1991-92 | Phil Housley | 21 | 32% | 18/22
1992-93 | Norm MacIver | 15 | 31% | 24/24
1993-94 | Scott Stevens | 6 | 8% | 2/26
1993-94 | Sergei Zubov | 5 | 6% | 4/26
1994-95 | Paul Coffey | 8 | 16% | 3/26
2000-01 | Brian Leetch | 1 | 1% | 7/30
2003-04 | Dick Tarnstrom | 2 | 4% | 22/30
2005-06 | Lubomir Visnovsky | 1 | 2% | 17/30
2008-09 | Mark Streit | 17 | 44% | 29/30

Comments

There are a few players -- Ruotsalainen, Reinhart, MacIver, Tarnstrom -- who simply defaulted to the top of their team's scoring list because somebody had to be there. Strip away those fluke seasons and the above is a pretty good tour of the highest offensive peaks since expansion. I suspect everyone has the same first thoughts I did about the lack of Coffey and perhaps MacInnis. It's a reminder that those guys' biggest seasons involved a lot of team support and probably couldn't have been replicated as a solo act.

Only five players are on the list multiple times. Bourque (5), Potvin (4), Housley (2), Leetch (2), Orr (2). That is, proportionally, a pretty accurate suggestion of their peak and consistency.

The most impressive season on this list is Orr's 1969-70, when he won the Art Ross with a 21-point lead over his nearest teammate (Esposito) on the top offense in the league. It's very hard to imagine anybody ever topping that, or for that matter how it even could be topped. Second on the list is Bourque's 1986-87, when he scored nearly a 3rd more than his nearest teammate (Neely) on a respectable top-third offense.

At first glance it looks like Dead Puck put an end to team-leading offensive defensemen. But the more I study the chart, the more it strikes me that Dead Puck is pretty much the same as any other time with the exception of that 1990-95 window. It would seem that the 1970s, 1980s and 2000s are actually pretty consistently devoid of team-leaders, except that the 2000s didn't have a Potvin or Bourque to shatter the curve.

 

[seventieslord]

nice work, tarheel. impressive for Bourque for sure.

noticed Housley is listed twice as a team leader but he's not among the list of guys who did it twice.

 

[seventieslord]

Most times leading the team in scoring when the team is in the top half of the league for offense:

Bourque 4
Potvin 3
Leetch 2
Orr 2
Park 1
Murphy 1
Stevens 1
Zubov 1
Coffey 1

 

[Dark Shadows]

Defensemen who have led their teams in scoring.

Season | Name | Margin (raw points) | Margin (pct) | Team scoring rank
1969-70 | Bobby Orr | 21 | 21% | 1/12
1973-74 | Brad Park | 5 | 6% | 2/16
1973-74 | Denis Potvin | 4 | 8% | 16/16
1974-75 | Bobby Orr | 8 | 6% | 3/18
1974-75 | Denis Potvin | 14 | 23% | 7/18
1975-76 | Denis Potvin | 3 | 3% | 3/18
1976-77 | Denis Potvin | 8 | 11% | 3/18
1984-85 | Raymond Bourque | 10 | 13% | 10/21
1984-85 | Reijo Ruotsalainen | 9 | 14% | 15/21
1986-87 | Raymond Bourque | 23 | 32% | 6/21
1986-87 | Larry Murphy | 8 | 11% | 8/21
1987-88 | Raymond Bourque | 7 | 9% | 7/21
1989-90 | Paul Reinhart | 6 | 12% | 20/21
1990-91 | Raymond Bourque | 2 | 2% | 5/21
1990-91 | Kevin Hatcher | 3 | 4% | 14/21
1990-91 | Phil Housley | 9 | 13% | 13/21
1990-91 | Brian Leetch | 15 | 21% | 6/21
1991-92 | Raymond Bourque | 6 | 8% | 13/22
1991-92 | Phil Housley | 21 | 32% | 18/22
1992-93 | Norm MacIver | 15 | 31% | 24/24
1993-94 | Scott Stevens | 6 | 8% | 2/26
1993-94 | Sergei Zubov | 5 | 6% | 4/26
1994-95 | Paul Coffey | 8 | 16% | 3/26
2000-01 | Brian Leetch | 1 | 1% | 7/30
2003-04 | Dick Tarnstrom | 2 | 4% | 22/30
2005-06 | Lubomir Visnovsky | 1 | 2% | 17/30

Comments

There are a few players -- Ruotsalainen, Reinhart, MacIver, Tarnstrom -- who simply defaulted to the top of their team's scoring list because somebody had to be there. Strip away those fluke seasons and the above is a pretty good tour of the highest offensive peaks since expansion. I suspect everyone has the same first thoughts I did about the lack of Coffey and perhaps MacInnis. It's a reminder that those guys' biggest seasons involved a lot of team support and probably couldn't have been replicated as a solo act.

Only four players are on the list multiple times. Bourque (5), Potvin (4), Leetch (2), Orr (2). That is, proportionally, a pretty accurate suggestion of their peak and consistency.

The most impressive season on this list is Orr's 1969-70, when he won the Art Ross with a 21-point lead over his nearest teammate (Esposito) on the top offense in the league. It's very hard to imagine anybody ever topping that, or for that matter how it even could be topped. Second on the list is Bourque's 1986-87, when he scored nearly a 3rd more than his nearest teammate (Neely) on a respectable top-third offense.

At first glance it looks like Dead Puck put an end to team-leading offensive defensemen. But the more I study the chart, the more it strikes me that Dead Puck is pretty much the same as any other time with the exception of that 1990-95 window. It would seem that the 1970s, 1980s and 2000s are actually pretty consistently devoid of team-leaders, except that the 2000s didn't have a Potvin or Bourque to shatter the curve.

Add Mark Streit 2008-09 NYI. Lead team in scoring with 56 points over nearest teammate Okposo 39 points.

 

[tarheelhockey]

noticed Housley is listed twice as a team leader but he's not among the list of guys who did it twice.

Add Mark Streit 2008-09 NYI. Lead team in scoring with 56 points over nearest teammate Okposo 39 points.

on both accounts. Thanks guys.

Streit is a fine player, but damn did the Isles have a bad 2009. Not only did they have a weak roster to begin with, Streit and Richard Park were the only players with over 70GP. That accounts for his 44% lead over 20-year-old Kyle Okposo's whopping 39 points.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

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.

Adjusted stat are most likely entirely inaccurate, especially with dealing with the outliers like Lemieux and Gretzky. Everybody talks as if everybody was scoring 155-200 points, they weren't. What actually happened will always carry more weight than some way too simplistic math formula.

Like was previously mentioned, the difference between top tier scoring in 1985-2012 amongst the elite point getters is marginal. They aren't the ones affected by decreased scoring, the 2nd and 3rd liners are. Mario Lemieux proved this at age 35, with a broken back. It's time you wake up and acknowledge this. Adjusted stats might hold more value to 2nd liners ect ect, but when talking about the outliers they mean absolutely nothing. Simply put, they are not accurate.

Why would we apply a formula based on increased scoring and use that formula assuming everything was equal, when it's quite obvious everything wasn't equal. Gretzky nearly doubled his next closest opponent on a few occasions. The formula punishes his production on a basis that all players are equal and their production would suffer equally, which is outlandish, because they never had anything resembling equal production in the first place. It's obvious to me, that math isn't someone's strong suit if they take these numbers as meaning much. They don't.

 

[SChan*]

Lidstrom's trophy case >>>> Bourques trophy case with 1 bought cup.

and people say that Lidstrom isnt important to his team. Look at last nights game, he misses his first game since 2009 and Red Wings get thrashed.

 

[overpass]

on both accounts. Thanks guys.

Streit is a fine player, but damn did the Isles have a bad 2009. Not only did they have a weak roster to begin with, Streit and Richard Park were the only players with over 70GP. That accounts for his 44% lead over 20-year-old Kyle Okposo's whopping 39 points.

Yeah, I remember there was a thread discussing Streit at the time, and wondering if Streit would set the record for biggest lead in team points by a d-man.

 

[Hobnobs]

But I'm not just talking about forwards. You like the what if game as in what if Lidstrom does this or that, will we give him more credit in regards to Bourque.

Well hey, what if...that Karlsson kid in Ottawa gets 80-90 points a season over the next 5 seasons?
What does that do to Lidstrom's offensive standing?
And Karlsson is not a defensive liability, he was a little rough last season but he's turning into a real solid defender this year as well.

And who's offense do you think they will compare it to? Bourque's or Lidstrom's?
I think we all know the answer to that one

Yeah, that eye of yours is not bad at all.

 

[Hobnobs]

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?

Ok, I dont understand what you are talking about now. Are you saying that stars produced just as much in the 80's as they do now or in the dead puck era?

If you are then, no, they dont.

PPG leaders

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom's trophy case >>>> Bourques trophy case with 1 bought cup.

and people say that Lidstrom isnt important to his team. Look at last nights game, he misses his first game since 2009 and Red Wings get thrashed.

Seriously, mentioning bought Cups? You have got to be kidding me.
You may wanna check out Boston's record when Bourque didn't play while you're looking up Detroit's free agent signings over the last 20 years

Yeah, that eye of yours is not bad at all.

Not sure if you're implying that Karlsson is abd defensively or you just didn't understand that the "as well" I used there referred to "as well as improving offensively this year".

Ok, I dont understand what you are talking about now. Are you saying that stars produced just as much in the 80's as they do now or in the dead puck era?

If you are then, no, they dont.

PPG leaders

Here's an example so you and Hardy can understand completely.

In 1984 scoring was 7.89 GpG
In 2004 it was 5.14 GpG
That is a 35% drop in scoring overall

The top 10 scorers from 1984 averaged 124 points and that's counting Gretzky, who horribly inflates that average by 10% by himself heh.
The top 10 scorers in 2004 averaged 91 points, that's only a 27% drop off, only a 20% drop off without counting Gretzky.

Either way, that is a far cry from the 35% overall drop off and if you took a bigger sample size, say like the top 25 scorers from those years and compared, that % drops even further.

The point isn't that scoring hasn't dropped overall, it has and that's a fact. The point is that isn't hasn't dropped equally for every manner and tier of player.
The top tier players may not be scoring at the same pace as they did in 1984 but their pace has not dropped as substantially as the lower tier players' paces have.

I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be.

 

[SChan*]

Seriously, mentioning bought Cups? You have got to be kidding me.
You may wanna check out Boston's record when Bourque didn't play while you're looking up Detroit's free agent signings over the last 20 years

biased canadians vote for bourque end of story. it wouldnt matter if lidstrom had 20 norris trophies, bourque would still win on this board.

 

[Rhiessan71]

biased canadians vote for bourque end of story. it wouldnt matter if lidstrom had 20 norris trophies, bourque would still win on this board.

Yeah, yeah just like Canadian bias cost him the Calder right?

OR maybe, just maybe Bourque was the better, longer playing and longer playing at an elite level player but Lidstrom had the better teams, just a thought.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Ok, I dont understand what you are talking about now. Are you saying that stars produced just as much in the 80's as they do now or in the dead puck era?

If you are then, no, they dont.

PPG leaders

Posts like these really show the intellectual dishonesty that many love to debate with. If we remove Lemieux/Gretzky and teammates, the difference between todays superstars and the those superstars is very small, very, very small.

 

[SChan*]

Yeah, yeah just like Canadian bias cost him the Calder right?

OR maybe, just maybe Bourque was the better, longer playing and longer playing at an elite level player but Lidstrom had the better teams, just a thought.

career vise bourque isnt better than lidstrom. Peak, yeah why not. Career, no.

Awards

World Championship gold medal winner (Sweden, 1991).
NHL All-Rookie Team (1992).
4-time Stanley Cup winner (1997, 1998, 2002, and 2008).
7-time Norris Trophy winner (2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2011).
Conn Smythe Trophy winner (2002).
Olympic gold medal winner (Sweden, 2006); Lidström became a member of the Triple Gold Club with this win.
Olympic All-Star Team (2006).
2-time Viking Award winner (2000 and 2006).

vs

awards

Stanley Cup 2001
Calder Memorial Trophy 1980
James Norris Memorial Trophy 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991 och 1994
0 gold medals

lidstrom's trophy case shatters that of bourques. Fact is a fact.

 

[Rhiessan71]

career vise bourque isnt better than lidstrom. Peak, yeah why not. Career, no.

vs
Lidstrom's trophy case shatters that of bourques. Fact is a fact.

...and Niedermayer has 4 Cups, a Norris, a Conn Smythe and 2 Gold medals. He must be better than Bourque as well.

Or hell, Henri Richard has 11 Cup rings, he must be the greatest player ever.

Lets just forget about Bourque's Canada/World Cup wins and all-star nods there.
Or Bourque's 19 NHL All-star nods.

Lidstrom may have more career accolades but Bourque was the better player and for longer, fact is fact!

Either way, I think this thread has run its course, the vote is clear at 2-1 Bourque and we have successfully rehashed everything from the previous 10 "Lidstrom vs Bourque" threads.

Until next month

 

[Hobnobs]

...and Niedermayer has 4 Cups, a Norris, a Conn Smythe and 2 Gold medals. He must be better than Bourque as well.

Or hell, Henri Richard has 11 Cup rings, he must be the greatest player ever.

Lets just forget about Bourque's Canada/World Cup wins and all-star nods there.
Or Bourque's 19 NHL All-star nods.

Lidstrom may have more career accolades but Bourque was the better player and for longer, fact is fact!

How is that better than Bourque? Fact isnt actually fact if its disputed, sorry. You can't dispute facts.

 

[SChan*]

...and Niedermayer has 4 Cups, a Norris, a Conn Smythe and 2 Gold medals. He must be better than Bourque as well.

Or hell, Henri Richard has 11 Cup rings, he must be the greatest player ever.

Lets just forget about Bourque's Canada/World Cup wins and all-star nods there.
Or Bourque's 19 NHL All-star nods.

Lidstrom may have more career accolades but Bourque was the better player and for longer, fact is fact!

niedermeyer has 1 norris, bourque 5 and lidstrom 7

thats the most important award, and lidstrom also has a conn smythe which is arguably the most difficult award to win.

bourque was overated by canadian media because he was a good guy, but he isnt better than lidstrom.

 

[Rhiessan71]

How is that better than Bourque? Fact isnt actually fact if its disputed, sorry. You can't dispute facts.

The fact is that Bourque was a better player by any metric presented and for longer, in peak length, peak height and overall career length.

 

[SChan*]

The fact is that Bourque was a better player by any metric presented and for longer, in peak length, peak height and overall career length.

if bourque has a better overall career, shouldnt that reflect his personal trophy case as well? The fact supports my argument, not yours.

I can admit peak, but career, no sorry lidstrom has that won.

 

[Reds4Life]

The fact is that Bourque was a better player by any metric presented and for longer, in peak length, peak height and overall career length.

That's not a fact. I believe you wish it was a fact though.

 

[Rhiessan71]

thats the most important award, and lidstrom also has a conn smythe which is arguably the most difficult award to win.

You're right, the Conn is one of the hardest to win, especially when you have to count on Yzerman's knee finally giving out in the finals to win it.

And it's definitely a hell of a lot harder to win than the Norris has been this millennium heh.

Anyway, this thread is obviously done now that we're in to the "No, you" posts.

 

[SChan*]

You're right, the Conn is one of the hardest to win, especially when you have to count on Yzerman's knee finally giving out in the finals to win it.

And it's definitely a hell of a lot harder to win than the Norris has been this millennium heh.

Anyway, this thread is obviously done now that we're in to the "No, you" posts.

this thread is obviously done because you got owned by several posters and realize it is better that you quit while you can.