Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why
- Thread starter Ben Grimm
- Start date
- Status
Interesting list, I'm a sucker for these things.
One thing though is that it's unlikely that Bourque would have more than 1 listing here if not for Barry Pederson's unfortunate illness from which he was never quite right afterwards.
Bourque's 87 does look extremely impressive on the surface but it should come with 2 caveats. First both play making centers Linseman and Gradin were on the downside of their careers and Kasper played a more two way role and Bourgue did lead the team in shots with 334 and the next 2 guys had 209 and 206.
My point is that even if Bourque only showed up 1 time on this list instead of 5, I wouldn't think any less of him.
To make a list like this you have to ahve some element of luck as well as being very to extremely good.
Well we are talking about Bourque and Lidstrom here not Wayne and Mario and here is the listing of the top scoring seasons 85-12 (not sure why you used 85 and not 82 but whatever.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
See if you notice any trends outside of Wayne and Mario.
You have a nice theory but obviously you either don't know or don't like what adjusted stats convert to, the latter is usually the case.
Notice I used the word conversion because that is what it is not some made up number but an actual conversion based on league averages.
Is it a science, no but it's a heck of a lot better way to compare different seasons than anything else presented so far.
Yeah and he only has two of those, Sundin has 4, clearly Sundin is the better player and has the better career
Sundin is very under rated and I'm going to assume that you knew Tar was joking.
Our Swedish friend will tell you how much Sundin is revered for his national team play in Sweden while for Lidstrom it's not the same.
exactly, looks like a troll or just can't think independently of awards.
R71's playground?
Where can I buy my Stanely Cup?
A cup is a cup, don't bring the "bought" bs into it.
I'm still trying to decide if you are actually being serious?
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Seriously man, it's not a freakin theory, it's reality.
Take the top 25 scorers out of any of the high scoring years from the 80's and compare the average to the top 25 from last year.
The difference is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the 35+% that adjusted stats says.
If you take a sample of 25 players from the 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% groups you will see greatly varying differences between then and now with the 100% group seeing by far the least amount of loss.
Adjusted stats punishes the top players for the lower tier players not being able to score nearly as much as they used to.
Do some actual research and run some numbers before saying another freakin word to me about this.
You're wrong and if you can't see how, that's your problem, I can't dumb it down any further for you.
(Sorry Devil, I'm done with it.)
It's a canadian board afterall with like 90% canadian posters. Of course they skew their data in favor of their players.
For example, lidstrom losing to a guy during 1st world war which nobody seen play here is just total ********.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,656
- 5,058
What about Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson and Brad Park losing to that 1st world war guy? Canadian bias against Potvin, Robinson, Park?
(BTW Shore entered the NHL 8 years after the end of WW1.)
What about Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson and Brad Park losing to that 1st world war guy? Canadian bias against Potvin, Robinson, Park?
(BTW Shore entered the NHL 8 years after the end of WW1.)
still no one here has seen him play. So Shore shouldnt even be listed.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,656
- 5,058
A few people here have seen the likes of Red Kelly, Doug Harvey and Pierre Pilote play, but most haven't. So list them or not list them?
Pear Juice
Registered User
You might want to check up on what part of the boards this is. The entire point of taking an interest in historical events is to understand things that you haven't seen for your own.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Health (2001 and 2007).
Also, Niedermayer and Pronger have the year-to-year consistency of lumpy oatmeal. You'll get a brilliant season out of them if it falls under certain animals of the Chinese Zodiac Calendar.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
What about Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson and Brad Park losing to that 1st world war guy? Canadian bias against Potvin, Robinson, Park?
(BTW Shore entered the NHL 8 years after the end of WW1.)
Exactly. You beat me to it. It's funny because a guy like Potvin has every right to be spoken of ahead of Lidstrom and up until a few years ago, he was.
But Lidstrom has continued to play well and managed IMO to pass him with his consistency and longevity.
Lidstrom and Potvin have very similar peak lengths. Lidstrom's was a bit longer but Potvin's peaked higher.
I mean the reality is that for longevity and consistency, Lidstrom has almost no superior.
Except for who?
That's right, Raymond Bourque, who has Lidstrom on consistency, longevity, peak length and peak height.
Now, I have to ask...how old are you?
Did YOU see Bourque play from the beginning, Potvin, Robinson?
Are you even old enough to have seen and understood watching Lidstrom in the beginning of his career?
You are making such a big deal out of people actually seeing these players, it seems only fair to find out if you are old enough to have actually seen the players you're arguing against.
you cant list what's not been seen. There is not even video footage of that player.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,225
Ooops... now ya gone n' done it!.
Heres the dealeo', of course most of us never witnessed the likes of Shore nor many others pre mid 50's. Im old enough to remember & saw with my own eyes all of them from about 1960 onwards, and I quite openly admit that I trend towards subjectivity & actually disregard a lot of statistical data, totally biased in favoring players who I "saw with my own eyes" and most in my formative years on this planet when 1st impressions & experiences were strongest. I dont see Baun, Stanley, Horton, Pilote etc etc etc on the lists or if they are, well back in the pack, yet to me, totally subjectively forever will be the real Giants of the game. I make no apologies for it.
As its extremely difficult to compare & then rank individuals however, I appreciate the statisticians work here in making sense of what is certainly a difficult task in determining objectively just where these players do indeed rank in the pantheons, transcending eras'. If left to the likes of me, you might have Salming displacing Lidstrom in your top picks. In fact, I guarantee it. Jiri Bubla?. He'd be on my list. Derek Sanderson?. Right up there Baby. Top ah the heap Ma.
How d'ya like me so far?...
Pear Juice
Registered User
So basically, any research regarding long-time past events is pointless? As an example, say a modern historian is trying to investigate a theory he has regarding the Battle of Passchendaele during the first World War. Is his research now completely irrelevant, given that he wasn't alive to witness the event itself? Or is he actually able to draw significant conclusions based on witness recollections, pictures, the odd video footage and statistical data?
You seem to be arguing that you can't say anything determinative about past events, which is obviously a very narrow view of historical analysis.
Wings are 5-7-3 without Lidstrom since the lockout... Without Lidstrom they are not even a playoff team!
And 15 games is a huge sample size
No, I understand them just fine. It's you who doesn't understand them and using them as the be all, they are not. The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. I've already responded to these things and no it isn't any better than other numbers. Where they rank on their teams is a better indication and Ray Bourque destroys Lidstrom.
I notice all the Lidstrom posters have two things in common.
1. They're mostly all not old enough to have seen Bourque play, and
2. They punish Bourque for playing in a higher scoring ERA, but do no such thing for Lidstroms defensive game in a lower scoring era.
I seldom, if ever, see posters like yourself trying to calculate the decreased scoring values and what it means to Lidstrom by using a formula, but hey, whatever supports your opinion, even if it's wrong.
To me, Bourque's peak was quite a bit better and he was the much more dominant player. You sound like you've never seen him play and you're telling me how it works
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,225
Bourque wins this thing hands down. And before I get accused of being a xenophobic Canadian, fact is at his peak he was a machine in the physicality department. I prefer that in my defenceman to the more gentlemanly albeit equally as effective methods employed by the likes of Lidstrom or Salming, though ideally I like to see one of each in front of me, paired, if Im in the crease. Lidstrom is esoteric, an intellectual, paces himself, crafty, clever. I'll take them both, buttering both sides of my bread if you dont mind but if I had to choose one or the other, Im picking Ray... hit the gas Earl.
Pear Juice
Registered User
Directed to no one in particular (you probably know who you are):
These "you never saw him play, your opinion is worthless" shenanigans are extremely tiresome. I realize that this thread has long since passed the point of constructive critique, but please, for future discussions aswell as this one, try to be constructive instead of using condescending wording towards people who happen to be younger than you.
I see it getting pulled far too often these days, and it drags down the whole level of the conversation.
This is not the board section for people who have been watching hockey since the 1950s, it's the board section for people who have an interest in hockey from the 1950s.
These "you never saw him play, your opinion is worthless" shenanigans are extremely tiresome. I realize that this thread has long since passed the point of constructive critique, but please, for future discussions aswell as this one, try to be constructive instead of using condescending wording towards people who happen to be younger than you.
I see it getting pulled far too often these days, and it drags down the whole level of the conversation.
This is not the board section for people who have been watching hockey since the 1950s, it's the board section for people who have an interest in hockey from the 1950s.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,225
... and, the late 19th early 20th Centuries, through WW's 1&2, not only in North America but so too contemporaneously throughout Europe & the UK. Very few here were even born before 1950. As the game has changed so much, granted its a leap to be comparing players from different eras', however, by combining anecdotal information, contemporaneous newspaper reports, biographies & statistics a picture forms, transcending time & place. Determinations made, stations arrived at.
Pear Juice
Registered User
Obviously. Using the 1950s was not some kind of actual drawn line it was more of a rhetorical example.
No, I understand them just fine. It's you who doesn't understand them and using them as the be all, they are not. The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. I've already responded to these things and no it isn't any better than other numbers. Where they rank on their teams is a better indication and Ray Bourque destroys Lidstrom.
I notice all the Lidstrom posters have two things in common.
1. They're mostly all not old enough to have seen Bourque play, and
2. They punish Bourque for playing in a higher scoring ERA, but do no such thing for Lidstroms defensive game in a lower scoring era.
I seldom, if ever, see posters like yourself trying to calculate the decreased scoring values and what it means to Lidstrom by using a formula, but hey, whatever supports your opinion, even if it's wrong.
To me, Bourque's peak was quite a bit better and he was the much more dominant player. You sound like you've never seen him play and you're telling me how it works
i am 33 years old and i have seen my fair share of bourque. His best era was without the europeans and he wasnt as dominant in the 90s.
Lidstrom has been more dominant through 2 decades, and the fact is that he has been voted best defenseman 7 times over bourques 5 times.
that wins it in my book. No one can really dispute those facts.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,656
- 5,058
There's no video footage of Napoleon's battles. Ergo you would exclude him from an all-time list of the best commanders-in-chief?
Make a case for Bourque over Lidström and that'll be your Canadian passport. At least in the eyes of some posters.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Yeah Sullivan Sucks, but Dubas needs to be talked about too...- Latest: BusinessGoose
-
-
-
