Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Fredrik_71]

Opening Bourque vs Lidstrom thread should be banned for at least 5 years. This matter gets argued at least once a year and it ends up always with the same exact result. With no new ideas and evidence why one was better. Same old ideas, biases and stats get recycled over and over again. And in the end both sides stick to their opinion and blame the other side for various sins.

I concur

Let Lids win another award and then we can start another thread. But atleast it seems that the general consensus is that both Bourque and Lids are top-5 all-time. Thats not bad

 

[Syckle78]

Is Lidstrom's defense that poor? I don't follow Detroit too closely, but I do remember being floored as an Oilers fan when he stopped an easy rebound goal by Ryan Smyth with the puck in the blue paint as he reached over from behind the net and effectively blocked Smyth's stick inches away from the puck. Then Legace covered it and I was just like RAAAAAWR.

Just one point, but I have usually heard that Lidstrom is a pretty solid two-way defenseman.

No... Lidstrom's defense is not poor in any sense. Lidstroms defense has never been questioned. You are misinterpreting what the poster meant. He is saying that people say Bourques offense was overrated, even though it was great, because of the era. So he is hitting back with Lidstroms defense is overrated, although it was great, because of the defensive era. Hope that explanation makes sense.

 

[Hardyvan123]

What are you even trying to say? What area am I not understanding exactly?

I meant era, spell check isn't my strong point.

Oh ok, so you have data from one year and against today's competition. Data that shows us vs this years D-men, Lidstrom has the best defensive metric while at the same time it shows Lidstrom way down in 15th offensively or did you miss that part? Now THAT is interesting.
So how does that help you exactly when, first off, it's only a 1 year sample size and secondly, there is no comparable metric done for Bourque.

If you search around the site a bit there is much more on a season by season independent basis. He is working backwards and I'm hoping he has all the same data available for when bourque played as well.

Double dip? I have never said to use raw stats a face value except for the 10 years they were in the league together.
You think because I refuse to use normalized, projected estimates at face value, that I'm double dipping. Give your head a shake, seriously.

To rate the prime and latter half of Bourque's career offensively with Lidstrom's 1st 10 years (in a stacked Detroit team where he wasn't always used in the offensive top Dman role) is exactly what I mean about cherrypicking.

Adjusted stats are not normalized projections or estimates but rather a conversion rate and furthermore Bourque and Lidstrom are hardly "outliers" from each other (and bringing up the whole outliers and 1st line crap when it didn't apply was intellectually dishonest in the 1st place) when you are doing the comparisons at least try to do an honest one and not cherry pick.

I have clearly explained on numerous occasions how Adjusted stats become less accurate the further away from the average you go and clearly you do not understand it or adjusted stats in general, just like I am 100% sure you didn't understand a single equation in article you linked.

Find a similar breakdown for Bourque and we'll talk...wait a minute, we do have similar data thanks to Overpass here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++

Tell me, how does Lidstrom make out against Bourque in that data?

Ya he doesn't make out that well at 2009 and probably not much better now but quickly reading it, some of it might be accounted for the strong team Lidstrom played on, especially early on in his career and with any numbers one has to factor in a lot of factors as well.

I'd take Overpasses comments on it before I'd go with your unbiased interpretation though or I guess we will be hearing from you at the Jagr is better than Wayne because of these numbers argument eh?

When I have time later i will read through that thread and ask Overpass on his thoughts.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I always look at the data and eye test ect, if fact I've changed my mind about Larry Murphy quite a bit lately, just to provide an example.

Tarheel supports Bourque but he doesn't get all tricky with his stats and selective either and that's to be respected.

Didn't Rhiessan71 say he changed his mind on Lidstrom over the last few years, putting him ahead of Robinson, Potvin and Shore?

Have you changed your view of Bourque or Lidstrom since this marathon thread was started?

 

[Rhiessan71]

To rate the prime and latter half of Bourque's career offensively with Lidstrom's 1st 10 years (in a stacked Detroit team where he wasn't always used in the offensive top Dman role) is exactly what I mean about cherrypicking.

It's not about cherry picking.
Tell ya what, you can use any method you want, even use Adjusted Stats at par for Bourque's first 12 seasons and Lidstrom's last 9 1/2 as long as you leave the years they played at the same time as is.
That sounds more than fair to me.

Adjusted stats are not normalized projections or estimates but rather a conversion rate and furthermore Bourque and Lidstrom are hardly "outliers" from each other (and bringing up the whole outliers and 1st line crap when it didn't apply was intellectually dishonest in the 1st place) when you are doing the comparisons at least try to do an honest one and not cherry pick.

It does apply because Bourque has much higher league finishes than Lidstrom does and is further away from the average than Lidstrom is.
Please for the love of god, STOP talking about it, you do not understand it!
At this point there are only two possibilities, either you truly do not comprehend what I'm saying or you simply refuse to even try to because it's coming from me.
While you're thinking about that, go look up the definition of "Normalization".

Ya he doesn't make out that well at 2009 and probably not much better now but quickly reading it, some of it might be accounted for the strong team Lidstrom played on, especially early on in his career and with any numbers one has to factor in a lot of factors as well.

I suggest you delve further into that data before saying anything else like "some of it might be accounted for the strong team Lidstrom played on". If anything, being on a stronger team should of vaulted Lidstrom past Bourque in everything except R-on/R-off.
Basically, at even strength, the difference is that Bourque played well defensively but also continued to generate a lot of offense. While Lidstrom played very well defensively, he didn't generate a lot of offense.
Which gels with Lidstrom's reliance on PP opportunities to generate most of his offense.
For example, while Lidstrom has outscored Chara 268-216 over the last 4 1/2 years, Chara is currently outscoring Lidstrom at even strength over that same period.

I'd take Overpasses comments on it before I'd go with your unbiased interpretation though or I guess we will be hearing from you at the Jagr is better than Wayne because of these numbers argument eh?

Jagr was/is a better 2-way player than Gretzky, not Selke better but better and I don't think this is going to come as shock to anyone. Also, if you continue through the thread, OP also does up the top 10 seasons and first 10 seasons where Gretzky is only second to Orr on both.
You may also note that Bourque makes both of those lists as well, at #4 and #6 respectively while Lidstrom does not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

For example, while Lidstrom has outscored Chara 268-216 over the last 4 1/2 years, Chara is currently outscoring Lidstrom at even strength over that same period.

Wow, that surprises me. Pulling up the numbers...

2008-09
Chara 20p in 80 games
Lidstrom 25p in 78 games

2009-10
Chara 27p in 80 games
Lidstrom 26p in 82 games

2010-11
Chara 27p in 81 games
Lidstrom 22p in 82 games

2011-12
Chara 14p in 45 games
Lidstrom 13p in 49 games


Total
Chara 88p in 285 games
Lidstrom 86p in 291 games

Boston: 623 ESG
Detroit: 626 ESG

I knew his production had dropped, but it's surprising to see him outscored at even strength by Chara... who isn't exactly a dynamic offensive threat.

 

[SChan*]

^ it just shows that lidstrom is really good at running a PP. Should he be penalized for that? Didnt someone praise Bourque for his great ability to run a PP not long ago? lol.

 

[Syckle78]

Wow, that surprises me. Pulling up the numbers...

2008-09
Chara 20p in 80 games
Lidstrom 25p in 78 games

2009-10
Chara 27p in 80 games
Lidstrom 26p in 82 games

2010-11
Chara 27p in 81 games
Lidstrom 22p in 82 games

2011-12
Chara 14p in 45 games
Lidstrom 13p in 49 games


Total
Chara 88p in 285 games
Lidstrom 86p in 291 games

Boston: 623 ESG
Detroit: 626 ESG

I knew his production had dropped, but it's surprising to see him outscored at even strength by Chara... who isn't exactly a dynamic offensive threat.

Not trying to make an excuse for Lidstrom's even strength numbers.Just something to think about and it may be completely off base. But, during all those years Lidstrom was teamed with Rafalski, a pure offensive defenseman who was a turn over machine and weak in his own zone. Lidstrom having to cover for him and being the defensive anchor while Rafalski focused on offense may have cut into his ES numbers. Maybe that is a factor, maybe not.. just a thought.

 

[tarheelhockey]

^ it just shows that lidstrom is really good at running a PP. Should he be penalized for that?

It says absolutely nothing about his ability on the PP.

 

[Roy S]

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'm not sure if this should be assumed. Unfortunately, I can't find data on goals against for the playoffs, but Bourque's +- in the playoffs takes a significant dive from regular season per-game averages and one could also assume that part of that reduction was an increase in the amount of goals he allowed while on the ice. Granted, part of that is to be expected because the quality of teams are better in the playoffs. But, imo, based on their relatively equal offensive production in the playoffs and Lidstrom's distinct advantage in +-, its clear that Lidstrom has been the superior playoff performer. How one weighs the relative importance of regular season vs. playoff success will go a long way to determine how one rates Lidstrom vs. Bourque.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure if this should be assumed. Unfortunately, I can't find data on goals against for the playoffs, but Bourque's +- in the playoffs takes a significant dive from regular season per-game averages and one could also assume that part of that reduction was an increase in the amount of goals he allowed while on the ice. Granted, part of that is to be expected because the quality of teams are better in the playoffs.

different playoff formats and situations too. Look at who Bourque played in rounds 1 and 2 in any given year, then look at the same for Lidstrom.

 

[SChan*]

It says absolutely nothing about his ability on the PP.

which is worldclass anyway.

 

[alanschu]

Jagr was/is a better 2-way player than Gretzky, not Selke better but better and I don't think this is going to come as shock to anyone. Also, if you continue through the thread, OP also does up the top 10 seasons and first 10 seasons where Gretzky is only second to Orr on both.

Not to sidetrack too much, but wasn't Gretzky actually nominated for a Selke or two? (I just read that on this board I think though so it may (and probably does) mean nothing. I have no way to check who was in the running for awards though).

 

[SChan*]

gretzky wasnt a defensive forward, but his offense was so good that it basically didnt matter.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not to sidetrack too much, but wasn't Gretzky actually nominated for a Selke or two? (I just read that on this board I think though so it may (and probably does) mean nothing. I have no way to check who was in the running for awards though).

I think he got a single 3rd place vote on 2-3 occasions. Nothing meaningful. And no, Jagr was not better defensively than Gretzky

 

[alanschu]

I think he got a single 3rd place vote on 2-3 occasions. Nothing meaningful. And no, Jagr was not better defensively than Gretzky

Selke candidate then!!!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Not trying to make an excuse for Lidstrom's even strength numbers.Just something to think about and it may be completely off base. But, during all those years Lidstrom was teamed with Rafalski, a pure offensive defenseman who was a turn over machine and weak in his own zone. Lidstrom having to cover for him and being the defensive anchor while Rafalski focused on offense may have cut into his ES numbers. Maybe that is a factor, maybe not.. just a thought.

You're working on the premise that Lidstrom's ES production was much higher though and it wasn't.
Aside from 99/00 and 07/08, he never broke more than 30 ES points in a season.
His lowest year, as expected, was 03/04 with only 14.
He had a couple years of exactly 30 with the rest falling in the 20-29 range.
Granted that dropping to 22 a season last year and on pace for the same this year is a drop, it's only about 3-5 points off his average.

However, I have only found data going back to 1997.
I was hoping to have the data go back to a minimum of '91 but of course the further the better.
If anyone has a site that has special teams points going back further, a link would be appreciated.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think he got a single 3rd place vote on 2-3 occasions. Nothing meaningful. And no, Jagr was not better defensively than Gretzky

Yes he was.
This is the regular season we're talking about here not the playoff's.
Gretzky and his Oilers couldn't give two craps about defense in the regular season.
If we're talking playoffs or a big time tournament, that's a whole other story.

 

[seventieslord]

I think he got a single 3rd place vote on 2-3 occasions. Nothing meaningful. And no, Jagr was not better defensively than Gretzky

I think he was - possibly significantly better.

Gretzky's goals against stats are absolutely awful, particularly post-Edmonton. Jagr's were never that bad.

Both are "how bad can they be when they have the puck so often?" and "they are so good offensively, who cares how bad defensively they are?" -type players. But statistically, Jagr blows him out of the water, 0.93 adjusted ESGA/GP to 1.16.

On top of that, consider that the adjusted numbers above can be subjected to the same criticism that most seem to have with 80s numbers compared to DPE. In other words, the true gap is probably larger.

Both spent the majority of their careers on run and gun teams centered around them, with copious amounts of ES icetime. Both had lame linemates half the time, and a very strong defensively elite player on their lines for their best seasons.

The figures are far enough apart that I am comfortable saying Jagr was better defensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think he was - possibly significantly better.

Gretzky's goals against stats are absolutely awful, particularly post-Edmonton. Jagr's were never that bad.

Both are "how bad can they be when they have the puck so often?" and "they are so good offensively, who cares how bad defensively they are?" -type players. But statistically, Jagr blows him out of the water, 0.93 adjusted ESGA/GP to 1.16.

On top of that, consider that the adjusted numbers above can be subjected to the same criticism that most seem to have with 80s numbers compared to DPE. In other words, the true gap is probably larger.

Both spent the majority of their careers on run and gun teams centered around them, with copious amounts of ES icetime. Both had lame linemates half the time, and a very strong defensively elite player on their lines for their best seasons.

The figures are far enough apart that I am comfortable saying Jagr was better defensively.

I don't understand the math as to why the bolded would be true. Can you explain further?

I also wouldn't ascribe any meaning to the regular season GA numbers of the 80s Oilers - they so obviously didn't even try to play defense until the playoffs.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't understand the math as to why the bolded would be true. Can you explain further?

What I mean is, the adjustments made to GF/GA figures are based on the same data used to make adjustments to scoring stats. And people look at the adjusted scoring stats and say "I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. Either the DPE stats are coming out too high, or the 80s stats are coming out too low, or a bit of both." The phenomena has never been 100% cracked but it does seem to exist. So in other words, Jagr's post-adjustment GA/game total is probably coming out high, and/or, Gretzky's is coming out low.

I also wouldn't ascribe any meaning to the regular season GA numbers of the 80s Oilers - they so obviously didn't even try to play defense until the playoffs.

But the Penguins really didn't either, did they?

I think there is merit to these numbers - case in point: I looked at all players with 800+ games and 500+ points (basically to remove low icetime players) and sorted them by adjusted ESGA/GP.

Best:
Craig Ramsay 0.49
Bobby Clarke 0.50
Bob Gainey 0.52
Clark Gillies 0.52
Jere Lehtinen 0.52

Worst:
Wayne Gretzky: 1.16
Mario Lemieux: 1.09
Vincent Lecavalier 0.97
Alexei Yashin 0.96
Phil Esposito 0.96

so this rather elementary statistic does have something to it.

I would be interested in seeing something that attempts to remove the player from their team situation, i.e. how much better/worse did the Oilers' defense get when Gretzky was on the ice compared to when he wasn't? Basically what overpass' adjusted +/- does, but for defense exclusively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What I mean is, the adjustments made to GF/GA figures are based on the same data used to make adjustments to scoring stats. And people look at the adjusted scoring stats and say "I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem quite right to me. Either the DPE stats are coming out too high, or the 80s stats are coming out too low, or a bit of both." The phenomena has never been 100% cracked but it does seem to exist. So in other words, Jagr's post-adjustment GA/game total is probably coming out high, and/or, Gretzky's is coming out low.

The overall 80s stats aren't coming in too low - just the offensive stats for the scoring line players, while the checkers are probably coming in too high still.

I'm not sure how that affects goals against numbers for star forwards.

But the Penguins really didn't either, did they?

More than the Oilers. The Penguins at least had to worry about making the playoffs. The Oilers could coast to the playoffs.

I think there is merit to these numbers - case in point: I looked at all players with 800+ games and 500+ points (basically to remove low icetime players) and sorted them by adjusted ESGA/GP.

Best:
Craig Ramsay 0.49
Bobby Clarke 0.50
Bob Gainey 0.52
Clark Gillies 0.52
Jere Lehtinen 0.52

Worst:
Wayne Gretzky: 1.16
Mario Lemieux: 1.09
Vincent Lecavalier 0.97
Alexei Yashin 0.96
Phil Esposito 0.96

so this rather elementary statistic does have something to it.

I would be interested in seeing something that attempts to remove the player from their team situation, i.e. how much better/worse did the Oilers' defense get when Gretzky was on the ice compared to when he wasn't? Basically what overpass' adjusted +/- does, but for defense exclusively.

It's amazing how much worse Gretzky and Lemieux do here than everyone else. How much of it do you think is because they just saw so much more ice time than everyone else? This is adjusted goals against per game, not goals against per 60 minutes.

 

[seventieslord]

It's amazing how much worse Gretzky and Lemieux do here than everyone else. How much of it do you think is because they just saw so much more ice time than everyone else? This is adjusted goals against per game, not goals against per 60 minutes.

Oh, I know a lot of it has to do with their higher ES ice time. If adjusted they would fall closer to the pack but would still look pretty bad. Here are the same ten players adjusted to ES ice time per game, plus I went down the lists a bit further to see if I could catch anyone with lower icetime whose per-game number got skewed:

STEVENS, KEVIN 4.10
LECAVALIER, VINCENT 4.03
LEMIEUX, MARIO 4.01
GRETZKY, WAYNE 4.01
YASHIN, ALEXEI 3.84
NICHOLLS, BERNIE 3.79
ST. LOUIS, MARTIN 3.76
OATES, ADAM 3.74
PAIEMENT, WILF 3.70
HULL, BRETT 3.68
SAKIC, JOE 3.53
STASTNY, PETER 3.52
JAGR, JAROMIR 3.51
ESPOSITO, PHIL 3.45

OTTO, JOEL 2.91
CARBONNEAU, GUY 2.69
BOURNE, BOB 2.55
LUCE, DON 2.55
TREMBLAY, MARIO 2.51
GAINEY, BOB 2.47
LEHTINEN, JERE 2.40
GILLIES, CLARK 2.33
SHUTT, STEVE 2.30
RAMSAY, CRAIG 2.27
BARBER, BILL 2.26
CLARKE, BOBBY 2.10

(these are per 60 ES minutes figures)

 

[Sentinel]

I take Lidstrom. A better defenseman, and a far greater trophy list. Yes, he didn't carry his team the way Bourque did, so what? Where exactly DID Bourque carry his Bruins? Lidstrom didn't have to provide offense every time he touched the puck, like Bourque, because playing alongside Fedorov, Yzerman, and Shanahan, he had to do two things first and foremost: play defense (and he was perfect) and provide the first pass. He did that, and did it well. He took nearly half as many shots as Bourque did... for a reason. He could pass the puck to one of his teammates and expect a goal. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I would also like to remind people of another point of comparison: 1998 Olympic appearance by Bourque (failed to score on Hasek) and 2006 appearance by Lidstrom (scored in the final game).

We are talking about DEFENSEMEN here. Lidstrom may not have been the better hockey player (if there is such a thing), but he was surely a better defensman.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I take Lidstrom. A better defenseman, and a far greater trophy list. Yes, he didn't carry his team the way Bourque did, so what? Where exactly DID Bourque carry his Bruins? Lidstrom didn't have to provide offense every time he touched the puck, like Bourque, because playing alongside Fedorov, Yzerman, and Shanahan, he had to do two things first and foremost: play defense (and he was perfect) and provide the first pass. He did that, and did it well. He took nearly half as many shots as Bourque did... for a reason. He could pass the puck to one of his teammates and expect a goal. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I would also like to remind people of another point of comparison: 1998 Olympic appearance by Bourque (failed to score on Hasek) and 2006 appearance by Lidstrom (scored in the final game).

We are talking about DEFENSEMEN here. Lidstrom may not have been the better hockey player (if there is such a thing), but he was surely a better defensman.

Was not.