Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[SChan*]

wow comparing a war to a sport :

Bourque is overrated, deal with it.

 

[Theokritos]

wow comparing a war to a sport :

So...that is supposed to be your counter-argument?

 

[tarheelhockey]

wow comparing a war to a sport

Outrageous!

Anyway. Lidstrom may have been a better general on the ice, but Bourque was a warrior who could win battles in the corners. The kind of guy you wanted in your foxhole during sudden-death. Both could withstand the war of attrition that is the playoffs, but Bourque could dominate a run-and-gun shootout as well.

 

[danincanada]

Anyway. Lidstrom may have been a better general on the ice, but Bourque was a warrior who could win battles in the corners. The kind of guy you wanted in your foxhole during sudden-death. Both could withstand the war of attrition that is the playoffs, but Bourque could dominate a run-and-gun shootout as well.

Lidstrom is as dominant a one on one player, whether it's in open ice or in the corners, as hockey has seen. During his prime it was extremely rare to see him lose a one on one battle for the puck or get beat at all. Bourque may have been more physical in terms of hitting but that doesn't mean he was better in the corners.

Lidstrom has 2 or 3 inches on Bourque so it's not like Bourque had a physical advantage on Lidstrom. He was probably at a disadvantage because his limbs where shorter and it's probably also a reason why he got beat more defensively than Lidstrom.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah, but I needed to squeeze in as many war analogies as possible

I do agree that Lidstrom was just as good in the corners, though getting even more specific about certain situation (ie, tying up Jagr on a cycle vs going in full speed against Forsberg on a dump-in) each player had his own narrower strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Pear Juice]

wow comparing a war to a sport :

Bourque is overrated, deal with it.

Well put. I believe that I just changed my mind.

 

[seventieslord]

Seconded.

the armpit of the history section.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

Ummm...there have been Europeans in the NHL since the 70's.
Only the Russians were missing until '89 and the Russians don't cover 9 addition teams last I checked

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.

19 time All-star vs 12 time All-star seems to say different.
I mean, as long as we're giving so much weight to off-season awards and all right.

 

[cheswick]

Ummm...there have been Europeans in the NHL since the 70's.
Only the Russians were missing until '89 and the Russians don't cover 9 addition teams last I checked



19 time All-star vs 12 time All-star seems to say different.
I mean, as long as we're giving so much weight to off-season awards and all right.

That means Bourque was one of the top denfencemen in more seasons than Lidstrom in his career but Lidstrom was the BEST defenceman in more seasons than Bourque in his career.

Means which one is better???


All I know is that if I was putting together a team I'd rather have Lidstrom than Bourque on it. Adn yes I'm old enough to have watched both. And yes I'm a Canadian

 

[SChan*]

The Norris trophy has always been the biggest award for a dman.

 

[overpass]

you cant list what's not been seen. There is not even video footage of that player.

Other people saw that player play.

Why can't you take the word of other people in this case? It's more than a little narcissistic to insist that your own experience should be at the centre of the discussion.

Seriously, it's not like Eddie Shore played in the Dark Ages. There are tons of first hand accounts out there that agree that he was really, really good.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That means Bourque was one of the top denfencemen in more seasons than Lidstrom in his career but Lidstrom was the BEST defenceman in more seasons than Bourque in his career.

Means which one is better???

Yeah, yeah because winning the Norris was harder in the 2000's than it was in the 90's and 80's

All I know is that if I was putting together a team I'd rather have Lidstrom than Bourque on it. Adn yes I'm old enough to have watched both. And yes I'm a Canadian

Your choice, just as long as you realise it's a minority one.
I know what it's like, I argue Orr over Gretzky all the time for best ever. I know it's a minority view (although that vote is more like 6-5 or 5-4 not the 2-1 ass kicking this one is) but I'm comfortable with it.

The Norris trophy has always been the biggest award for a dman.

I dunno, coming in second only to Gretzky for one Hart and pretty much winning another one is pretty big for a D-man.
Funny to talk about bias, when it was bias by an Edmonton journalist that cost Bourque that Hart over Messier.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That means Bourque was one of the top denfencemen in more seasons than Lidstrom in his career but Lidstrom was the BEST defenceman in more seasons than Bourque in his career.

As far as this discussion is concerned, here's what really counts:

Bourque was better than Lidstrom for more seasons than Lidstrom was better than Bourque.

 

[hcdt]

As far as this discussion is concerned, here's what really counts:

Bourque was better than Lidstrom for more seasons than Lidstrom was better than Bourque.

Aaaaanndddd... that could change
But sad part is that nothing will change your or Rheissans opinion
But its good that atleast Rheissan is used to be in minority

 

[canucks4ever]

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.

I agree with your analysis that bourque is likely 10% better offensively, but I disagree that Lidstrom is only 0.3% better defensively. You cant just quantify stats like how many goals were scored on them to determine thier overall value defensively. Among the top 20 defenseman in the hoh thread, lidstrom is usually considered 2nd best 'defensively' after harvey, while Bourque is usually seen as middle of the pack.

In 1986, Robinson and Mark Howe scored the same amount of points as Bourque but finished higher in norris/all star voting. From 1993-1997, chelios was usually finishing higher in norris voting, despite scoring significantly fewer points. This would indicate Bourque was at his best 'defensively' in 1988 and 1990, every other year, there was another defenseman that was better than him 'defensively, among d-man that contributed offensively. Chelios was probably better defensively in 1991 and 1994, had he scored more points on the powerplay, he probably would have won the norris in 1991.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.)

Doing the top 25 in a 21 team league and top 25 in a 30 team league isn't a fairy direct comparison and that's probably the biggest reason the average difference might be a bit less than the overall league average when looking at all the adjusted stats between 2 seasons.

Comparing 21 to 30 would be a more comp but you already knew that didn't you?

Even so the differences are enormous and here they are


Here is 84

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

The 21st guy has 86 points and the 25th guy 84. 31 guys scored 80 points or better in that 80 game season.

Here is last season

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

the 25th guy had 69 points and the 30th had 66. Exactly 7 guys had more than 82 points in the 82 game season.

Maybe a more complex math mind can elaborate more but looking at these seasons adjusted makes a hell of alot more sense than the way you are doing it and fudging what adjusted stats mean and do.

And for Habjunkie I will add that stats, adjusted or not are not the end all or be all of players, I'm a huge proponent of looking and comparing players with as much information and from as many different angles as possible. R71's disdain of adjusted stats and dismissal of them is my contention here.

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'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt but you should be careful assuming people's ages. If you don't agree with the arguments other present that's fine but making assumptions only....well you know how the saying goes.

I'm in my 40's and watched hockey extensively all of my life. I'm also a bit of an outside the box and whole picture thinker about things aside from hockey but including hockey as well.

As you can see from the above 2 seasons math isn't the problem here but rather a certain bias.

R71 doesn't like adjusted stats mainly because how they treat Wayne and Mario (from what I ahve read by him). not sure what your reason is but you need to get off the "it doesn't work bandwagon". they give a pretty good baseline when comparing scoring from different eras.

as you can tell from my other comments league size, and a whole other bunch of variables come into play as well.

I'm not a huge formula guy but here is a site that might interest you.

http://hockeyanalytics.com/2010/11/a-regression-based-adjusted-plus-minus-statistic-for-nhl-players/

 

[Hardyvan123]

As far as this discussion is concerned, here's what really counts:

Bourque was better than Lidstrom for more seasons than Lidstrom was better than Bourque.

Aaaaanndddd... that could change
But sad part is that nothing will change your or Rheissans opinion
But its good that atleast Rheissan is used to be in minority

That probably won't change as Lidstrom won't get the lockout season back ever and started later in the NHL than Bourque.

The better number of seasons arguments also might depend a bit on how one actually does the calculation, ie stacking up Bourque's best versus Lidstrom's or who had the best season at each age ect...

The playoffs and fully integrated league tip the balance ever so slightly to Lidstrom IMO but once again the argument for Bourque is very strong and guys favoring him with reasonable arguments have to be respected.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Doing the top 25 in a 21 team league and top 25 in a 30 team league isn't a fairy direct comparison and that's probably the biggest reason the average difference might be a bit less than the overall league average when looking at all the adjusted stats between 2 seasons.

Comparing 21 to 30 would be a more comp but you already knew that didn't you?

Even so the differences are enormous and here they are


Here is 84

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

The 21st guy has 86 points and the 25th guy 84. 31 guys scored 80 points or better in that 80 game season.

Here is last season

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

the 25th guy had 69 points and the 30th had 66. Exactly 7 guys had more than 82 points in the 82 game season.

Maybe a more complex math mind can elaborate more but looking at these seasons adjusted makes a hell of alot more sense than the way you are doing it and fudging what adjusted stats mean and do.

And for Habjunkie I will add that stats, adjusted or not are not the end all or be all of players, I'm a huge proponent of looking and comparing players with as much information and from as many different angles as possible. R71's disdain of adjusted stats and dismissal of them is my contention here.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt but you should be careful assuming people's ages. If you don't agree with the arguments other present that's fine but making assumptions only....well you know how the saying goes.

I'm in my 40's and watched hockey extensively all of my life. I'm also a bit of an outside the box and whole picture thinker about things aside from hockey but including hockey as well.

As you can see from the above 2 seasons math isn't the problem here but rather a certain bias.

R71 doesn't like adjusted stats mainly because how they treat Wayne and Mario (from what I ahve read by him). not sure what your reason is but you need to get off the "it doesn't work bandwagon". they give a pretty good baseline when comparing scoring from different eras.

as you can tell from my other comments league size, and a whole other bunch of variables come into play as well.

I'm not a huge formula guy but here is a site that might interest you.

http://hockeyanalytics.com/2010/11/a-regression-based-adjusted-plus-minus-statistic-for-nhl-players/

Bla bla bla...so tell me Hardy, who are we talking about here 99% of the time? The 21-30 place scorers or guys that finished in the top 10-15?

You just do not get that do you??? We are mostly talking about the very top players and outliers 99% of the time and adjusted stats screws them in the butt.

And if you knew a damned thing about numbers in the first place you would realise just how silly you sound mentioning the difference between a 21 and 30 team league.
If anything the 21 team numbers are going to be more skewed than the 30 team numbers because the 30 team is a bigger sample size while a very high scoring team *cough* Gretzky's Oilers* or an extremely low scoring team can skew the results more with only 21 teams.

I've had enough, seriously move on. You don't get it and I'm doubtful you ever will.

 

[revolverjgw]

That means Bourque was one of the top denfencemen in more seasons than Lidstrom in his career but Lidstrom was the BEST defenceman in more seasons than Bourque in his career.

Means which one is better???

Lidstrom won a grand total of one more Norris (in what I think is an era with less elite d-men). And it's not like there's a massive difference between the 1st and 2nd best d-man in any given year, there's more to gauging a career than trophy counting. There IS a massive difference between being a 19 time all-star and a 12-time all-star. Bourque had many more seasons as an absolute top-flight d-man, more than making up for the one Norris (which was a reputation Norris anyway).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom won a grand total of one more Norris (in what I think is an era with less elite d-men). And it's not like there's a massive difference between the 1st and 2nd best d-man in any given year, there's more to gauging a career than trophy counting. There IS a massive difference between being a 19 time all-star and a 12-time all-star. Bourque had many more seasons as an absolute top-flight d-man, more than making up for the one Norris (which was a reputation Norris anyway).

While I agree with you that counting Norrises is silly, a couple of things:

1) Lidstrom has 2 more Norrises

2) if you're going to play the "his last Norris was based on reputation/wasn't deserved,

A) there's a good case Lidstrom actually "deserved" the 1998 and 2009 Norrises and

B) Why don't we ever hear anything about Bourque's "reputation" 1st Team All Star in 2001?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Generally speaking if your argument boils down to "everyone who disagrees with me is biased," you probably don't have a good argument to begin with.

And that goes for both sides of this debate. Carry on.

 

[Rhiessan71]

B) Why don't we ever hear anything about Bourque's "reputation" 1st Team All Star in 2001?

Reputation?
He got the 1rst team All-star nod in 2001 the same way Lidstrom got some of his Norris's and for the same reason Bourque was only a 2nd team All-star a few times and missed out of some Norris's himself in the early 80's.

Games missed.
Blake, Pronger and MacInnis all missed chunks of that season.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that I would of prolly put Stevens and Leetch ahead of Bourque that year but Ray still holds down a 2nd team all-star nod.
Truth be told though, if Leetch was on a playoff team instead of a pretty lousy, over the hill Ranger's team, Leetch takes a real run at that Norris.

 

[hcdt]

Lidstrom won a grand total of one more Norris (in what I think is an era with less elite d-men). And it's not like there's a massive difference between the 1st and 2nd best d-man in any given year, there's more to gauging a career than trophy counting. There IS a massive difference between being a 19 time all-star and a 12-time all-star. Bourque had many more seasons as an absolute top-flight d-man, more than making up for the one Norris (which was a reputation Norris anyway).

19 vs 12 is a massive difference. Its the biggest thing that speaks on Bourques side and its a big thing. This year should be credited to Lidstrom All-star stats as its widely known he would have been chosen... but anyway.. if it gets closer to 19vs 16... then its not that big difference anymore or what do you think ?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Reputation?
He got the 1rst team All-star nod in 2001 the same way Lidstrom got some of his Norris's and for the same reason Bourque was only a 2nd team All-star a few times and missed out of some Norris's himself in the early 80's.

Games missed.
Blake, Pronger and MacInnis all missed chunks of that season.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that I would of prolly put Stevens and Leetch ahead of Bourque that year but Ray still holds down a 2nd team all-star nod.
Truth be told though, if Leetch was on a playoff team instead of a pretty lousy, over the hill Ranger's team, Leetch takes a real run at that Norris.

Sure but Lidstrom holds down a 2nd Team in 2011 too if you want to claim Chara and Weber were better. If you want to stretch it, you can say Vishnovsky, but there is no way the likes of Yandle and Letang were better.

 

[SayNoToStim]

I haven't read the whole thread, so this has probably been mentioned, but I've always viewed Bourque as a stat collector, Lidstrom as a winner.