Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[danincanada]

Typical flawed reasoning continues. Already shown to be wrong on the hockey level when comparing states and provinces, Minnesota vs Quebec then and know which you simply ignore.

If we look at the distribution of elite athletes relative to era then the issue id defined more clearly. Doug Harvey is known today as a great hockey player - defenseman. But hockey was his third best sport behind football and baseball. However hockey provide the quickest opportunity to athletic and financial success so .........

In the fifties Canada was producing mainly hockey players at the elite athlete level. A few CFL calibre players and mainly participation level athletes at the amateur level with gold medal level athletes few and far between.

Today Canada is producing world class athletes, regularly in all four major North American sports NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA plus numerous gold medal Olympic Summer and Winter athletes Premier division soccer players, and so forth. This comes at a cost to hockey since athletic youngsters have a wide option of sports to choose from. This phenomena is also true in the USA. Not as true in other countries where the lag in certain sports is interesting. Few if any NBA/NFL/MLB athletes if any so the draw from other sports is minimized.

Again, spare us the bogus population based argument since it only illustrates the superficiality in your position.

It's not just a population argument. I used population to help show the approximate growth of people who have the opportunity to play hockey now. I admit greater numbers doesn't always equal quality but these are some large numbers we are talking about; not just a few people, so the potential for improvement in every area is actually huge.

You can't be serious with the rest of your post. There are fewer elite defenseman (only in Canada, of course) now because the kids are all playing other sports? Just imagine how many more kids are playing hockey now internationally than in the 1950's. How much has the American hockey program and European programs grown since then? This is why there are more elite defenseman in the NHL now. All logic points in this direction at least, not the other way.

 

[danincanada]

In your opinion, that's fine but lets not forget that Lidstrom has benefited defensively by playing the majority of his career in an NHL, that employs vastly superior team defensive scheme's and systems compared to what Bourque played the majority of his career under.
You CAN NOT rip on Bourque's offense, citing that he played in a more offensive NHL without doing exactly the same for Lidstrom's defense, while playing in a more defensive league.
That, in every sense of the word, is complete bull****!

I don't think I've "ripped" on Bourque's offense in this thread but I certainly brought up "adjusted craps" before so I guess I'm guilty as charged. You have a point in terms of differences between defense in the 80's and early 90's vs. after that. The only problem with that argument is that Bourque seemed to get flat out beat one on one in more instances than Lidstrom. To me, it wouldn't matter what system or style of play is going on; it's just two guys going head to head.

You may be the worst culprit I've encountered in terms of wanting to deny just how much offense there was in the 80's and early 90's. Bourque got to play through that whole crazy scoring fest and never quite reached 100 points. I would never claim Lidstrom is much better than Bourque offensively but I think they're extremely close and Lidstrom's defensive edge pulls him ahead overall by a hair.

Dream on buddy! Nobody was suited to have a one on one showdown with Mario. You contained him if you were lucky but you never stopped him and you did it as a team or you didn't do it at all!
Just because Lidstrom was able to out finesse Lindros's power, he was NOT going out finesse Mario.
Whole different animal there my friend and if Detroit's coaches were stupid enough to believe that they could shut down Mario with just one player, even if that player is Lidstrom...well...enjoy your handshakes after a rather short series before you board the plane to head home and contemplate your elimination from the Playoffs

Lidstrom's reach, height, and skating stride are much closer to Mario's than Bourque's were and I truly believe Nick was better defensively too. Lidstrom didn't only shut down Lindros either. You can add Sakic, Crosby (twice), Thornton to his huge list of playoff victims. I realize Mario is on another level than those guys which is why you know either Bowman or Babcock would try to match up a whole unit against him in a playoff series, like they did against Crosby. IMO, if anyone was even capable of stopping Mario you'd have to put your money on Lidstrom at this point.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't think I've "ripped" on Bourque's offense in this thread but I certainly brought up "adjusted craps" before so I guess I'm guilty as charged. You have a point in terms of differences between defense in the 80's and early 90's vs. after that. The only problem with that argument is that Bourque seemed to get flat out beat one on one in more instances than Lidstrom. To me, it wouldn't matter what system or style of play is going on; it's just two guys going head to head.

You may be the worst culprit I've encountered in terms of wanting to deny just how much offense there was in the 80's and early 90's. Bourque got to play through that whole crazy scoring fest and never quite reached 100 points. I would never claim Lidstrom is much better than Bourque offensively but I think they're extremely close and Lidstrom's defensive edge pulls him ahead overall by a hair.

Don't put words in my mouth.
As I have said at length in the past, I have no issue with using Adjusted Stats as a tool or a guide.
It's only when they are used at face value as the basis for a point instead of what they were intended for, as support to other points.
It's not right IMO to use either raw or adjusted stats at face value when making comparisons between players of differing era's.
However, Raw stats should always receive the benefit of the doubt/weigh more between the two because they actually happened. They are not made up, fictional numbers.

Lidstrom's reach, height, and skating stride are much closer to Mario's than Bourque's were and I truly believe Nick was better defensively too. Lidstrom didn't only shut down Lindros either. You can add Sakic, Crosby (twice), Thornton to his huge list of playoff victims. I realize Mario is on another level than those guys which is why you know either Bowman or Babcock would try to match up a whole unit against him in a playoff series, like they did against Crosby. IMO, if anyone was even capable of stopping Mario you'd have to put your money on Lidstrom at this point.

Maybe if you changed the wording "Stopping Mario" to something like "might be able to contain Mario better than most", we might be able to move on.
You "Stop" or "Shut Down" Crosby, Sakic and Lindros.
You only hope to "Contain" or "Limit" Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr.

The question at the end of the day though is not IF Mario is going to make Lidstrom look sick, it's WHEN. Just a matter of time my friend.
Granted, Mario may not of been able to make Lidstrom look sick as often as he did to most others but he most certainly still would of.
Arguing otherwise is quite simply just blind denial mixed with a high level of ignorance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Produce the Numbers and Support your Positions

It's not just a population argument. I used population to help show the approximate growth of people who have the opportunity to play hockey now. I admit greater numbers doesn't always equal quality but these are some large numbers we are talking about; not just a few people, so the potential for improvement in every area is actually huge.

You can't be serious with the rest of your post. There are fewer elite defenseman (only in Canada, of course) now because the kids are all playing other sports? Just imagine how many more kids are playing hockey now internationally than in the 1950's. How much has the American hockey program and European programs grown since then? This is why there are more elite defenseman in the NHL now. All logic points in this direction at least, not the other way.

In the 1980's hockey at the youth level in Canada went thru a number of changes, main ones dealing with contact which was eliminated in certain categories and age groups. Varied from province to province and jurisdiction. This had a direct impact on how kids playing defense in Canada were taught and how they played the game as they progressed. Main difference was that when contact was permitted the young defenseman had no choice but face the play looking out into the middle of the ice. Without contact the defenseman could turn away exposing his back to the middle of the ice. Easier to protect the puck but harder to see game opportunities for puck movement. This was compounded by coaching that was more than happy with simple puck control plus the added opportunities that such play presented at levels where contact was permitted but not in the back.This produced a generation of Canadian defensemen who had elite talent but were far from ready to play or see the NHL game properly.Certain habits had to be unlearned at the NHL level. Not always successful. Since the early 2000's the rules and coaching in Canada have changed with encouraging results to date.

The European game, played on a larger surface, never had this issue since the size of the rink provides the kids with additional reaction time while effectively forcing them to play with a full view of the ice. These kids were spared having to adapt as they progressed thru the ranks to the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lindros, Lemieux vs Lidstrom.

I don't think I've "ripped" on Bourque's offense in this thread but I certainly brought up "adjusted craps" before so I guess I'm guilty as charged. You have a point in terms of differences between defense in the 80's and early 90's vs. after that. The only problem with that argument is that Bourque seemed to get flat out beat one on one in more instances than Lidstrom. To me, it wouldn't matter what system or style of play is going on; it's just two guys going head to head.

You may be the worst culprit I've encountered in terms of wanting to deny just how much offense there was in the 80's and early 90's. Bourque got to play through that whole crazy scoring fest and never quite reached 100 points. I would never claim Lidstrom is much better than Bourque offensively but I think they're extremely close and Lidstrom's defensive edge pulls him ahead overall by a hair.



Lidstrom's reach, height, and skating stride are much closer to Mario's than Bourque's were and I truly believe Nick was better defensively too. Lidstrom didn't only shut down Lindros either. You can add Sakic, Crosby (twice), Thornton to his huge list of playoff victims. I realize Mario is on another level than those guys which is why you know either Bowman or Babcock would try to match up a whole unit against him in a playoff series, like they did against Crosby. IMO, if anyone was even capable of stopping Mario you'd have to put your money on Lidstrom at this point.

Let's get a few things right. Hockey is not a one-on-one game. Also the notion that Lidstrom shut down Lindros in the 1997 finals is a rather superficial or limited understanding of what happened.

Lidstrom playing a defensive position against Eric Lindros during the 1997 finals was supported by three forward lines led by three elite centers - Fedorov and Larianov both LHS and Yzerman a RHS. All three had different styles and skills. So home or away Bowman
could create match-ups that gave Lindros different looks and styles that he would try to adjust to instead of simply playing his game.

Mario Lemieux. Rarely played against Lidstrom since the east and west teams did not play against each other ofeten plus Lemieux retired after the 1996-97 season. Interestingly during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 season Mario Lemieux and the Penguins played four games afainst the Rd Wings, winning one while losing three. Mario Lemieux had 3G and 2A., hardly evidence that the Red Wings could
shut down Lemieux let alone that Lidstrom could have such an effect. Main difference between Lemieux and Lindros was that Lemieux did not care about the opposition he was going to impose his game.

Giving Lidstrom credit for shutting down Crosby is a stretch. Crosby plays the whole ice. Get the puck deep and set-up a strong forecheck against the Penguins and you will have success. So the forwars, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the keys. As long as the forwards do their job Lidstrom's responsibilities are simplified.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I really don't think any useful conclusion cam be drawn from their time in the league together.

Bourque's last truly elite season was 95-96, other than his resurgence in 00-01. Lidstrom's coming out party as a top two-way defenseman is generally considered to be the 1997 playoffs, though I'm willing to believe Red Wings fans who say he was really that good all through 96-97 but nobody noticed until he shut down Lindros. Either way, their primes basically did not overlap at all (I wouldn't call 00-01 a prime year for Bourque, since he had several very good but not elite seasons before it in his late 30s).

Hey, I basically agree with you. But then again, I don't think I was the one to bring up their overlap in the first place as a corollary to a comparison.

 

[ozzie]

91-96 for Lidstrom was pretty quiet and a period of adjustment. He was well above average but he was still getting used to the league. He was very quiet.

It wasn't really until that playoff run in 07, followed by the terrible accident with Konstantinov that he took things up a level. I always felt he just took that off season to reflect and came back with more determination, taking nothing for granted.

Lidstrom was also so smart, he realized in the peak of the dead puck era he couldn't play the way big defenders played. He couldn't jump on peoples backs. He found a different approach.

He had played behind Coffey in 95 and under different coaches. Bowman, Russian 5 and the style the Wings played all contributed to him turning the corner. After that first cup win the Wings were no longer pretenders, they were a force. They had the swagger

Confidence does wonderful things, negative situations turned positve make people stronger. Thats Lidstrom.

It doesn't help that Lidstrom has had a great team to play with for almost his entire career. He has also proven during times of injuries, he can put the team on his back and lead them.

I think Bourque will always have that aura of being 'the man' which puts him ever so slightly above Lidstrom. 2a and 2b in my books.

I believe Lidstrom has passed everyone but Bourque and Orr. I never saw Harvey play, but I find it difficult to believe he was better then Bourque, Potvin or Lidstrom.

 

[danincanada]

Don't put words in my mouth.
As I have said at length in the past, I have no issue with using Adjusted Stats as a tool or a guide.
It's only when they are used at face value as the basis for a point instead of what they were intended for, as support to other points.
It's not right IMO to use either raw or adjusted stats at face value when making comparisons between players of differing era's.
However, Raw stats should always receive the benefit of the doubt/weigh more between the two because they actually happened. They are not made up, fictional numbers.

What words did I put in your mouth? I'm confused.

You can't use raw numbers at face value when there were 8 goals per game one season and only 5 in another. Sure it actually happened but obviously it has been easier to score goals at certain times in league history so you have to take that into account. Adjusted stats help us try to do that. Not perfect, but a whole lot better than assuming everyone was better in the 80's because they scored more.

Maybe if you changed the wording "Stopping Mario" to something like "might be able to contain Mario better than most", we might be able to move on.
You "Stop" or "Shut Down" Crosby, Sakic and Lindros.
You only hope to "Contain" or "Limit" Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr.

The question at the end of the day though is not IF Mario is going to make Lidstrom look sick, it's WHEN. Just a matter of time my friend.
Granted, Mario may not of been able to make Lidstrom look sick as often as he did to most others but he most certainly still would of.
Arguing otherwise is quite simply just blind denial mixed with a high level of ignorance.

Read my first post regarding this again. I said Lidstrom was "better suited" to deal with Mario than Bourque. You overreacted at this and now you're telling me I should have used the type of phrase that I did use at first. Strange stuff.

And as great as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr were none of them scored at will every single game and won the cup every year. Other players did contain them enough to beat them in playoff series so don't act like they were invincible. With the goaltending, defense and systems of today it would be more difficult for all 3 of them.

 

[Rhiessan71]

What words did I put in your mouth? I'm confused.

You can't use raw numbers at face value when there were 8 goals per game one season and only 5 in another. Sure it actually happened but obviously it has been easier to score goals at certain times in league history so you have to take that into account. Adjusted stats help us try to do that. Not perfect, but a whole lot better than assuming everyone was better in the 80's because they scored more.

Again, I said to NOT use either at face value, just that raw stats should receive the greater weight of the two in the end.
Gretzky scored 215 points in 85/86, according to AS, that total is like 155 points or something silly like that. Common sense should take over at some point. Wayne loses 60 points in that conversion while the other 9 top10 scorers only lose like 10-15 each....something wrong there folks.
At some point, the Raw stats have to be given a little more weight than the Adjusted.

Read my first post regarding this again. I said Lidstrom was "better suited" to deal with Mario than Bourque. You overreacted at this and now you're telling me I should have used the type of phrase that I did use at first. Strange stuff.

And as great as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr were none of them scored at will every single game and won the cup every year. Other players did contain them enough to beat them in playoff series so don't act like they were invincible. With the goaltending, defense and systems of today it would be more difficult for all 3 of them.

I know that it takes a team effort to contain those guys, it's what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
The issue was you implying that Lidstrom, on his own, would of even been capable of shutting down Lemieux in a "one on one showdown" as you called it.
The reality is that such a situation would of been Lidstrom fighting for his life to simply limit the number of times Lemieux made him look bad and he would of made Lidstrom look bad, believe it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Let's get a few things right. Hockey is not a one-on-one game. Also the notion that Lidstrom shut down Lindros in the 1997 finals is a rather superficial or limited understanding of what happened.

Lidstrom playing a defensive position against Eric Lindros during the 1997 finals was supported by three forward lines led by three elite centers - Fedorov and Larianov both LHS and Yzerman a RHS. All three had different styles and skills. So home or away Bowman
could create match-ups that gave Lindros different looks and styles that he would try to adjust to instead of simply playing his game.

Mario Lemieux. Rarely played against Lidstrom since the east and west teams did not play against each other ofeten plus Lemieux retired after the 1996-97 season. Interestingly during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 season Mario Lemieux and the Penguins played four games afainst the Rd Wings, winning one while losing three. Mario Lemieux had 3G and 2A., hardly evidence that the Red Wings could
shut down Lemieux let alone that Lidstrom could have such an effect. Main difference between Lemieux and Lindros was that Lemieux did not care about the opposition he was going to impose his game.

Giving Lidstrom credit for shutting down Crosby is a stretch. Crosby plays the whole ice. Get the puck deep and set-up a strong forecheck against the Penguins and you will have success. So the forwars, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the keys. As long as the forwards do their job Lidstrom's responsibilities are simplified.

Excellent point.

These players are not playing in a vacuum.

Is Lidstrom better than Bourque defensively? I don't know for sure.

Is Lidstrom, Kronwall, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Cleary

better than

Bourque, Sweeney, Oates, Neely, Donato defensively? Yes, for sure.

 

[seventieslord]

Again, I said to NOT use either at face value, just that raw stats should receive the greater weight of the two in the end.
Gretzky scored 215 points in 85/86, according to AS, that total is like 155 points or something silly like that. Common sense should take over at some point. Wayne loses 60 points in that conversion while the other 9 top10 scorers only lose like 10-15 each....something wrong there folks.
At some point, the Raw stats have to be given a little more weight than the Adjusted.

uhh, really? I'm calling BS here. Please demonstrate that this statement is true, because it doesn't pass the smell test.

First off, Gretzky's adjusted total in 1986 according to hockey-reference.com is 170.

If Gretzky loses 45 of 215 points after adjustment, that is 21% of his points. Most other star players near the top of the list, should lose a similar percentage of their points after adjustment. Give or take a few thanks to the calculations being done on goals and assists separately. So a guy with 122 points like Peter Statsny, should have about 96. According to adjusted stats, Stastny has..... exactly 96.

Adjusted stats do absolutely nothing to distort the scoring race within one season. Adjusted or unadjusted, Gretzky's point total proves to be extremely dominant because he outscores Peter Stastny, a great player in his own right who was 6th in the league in points, by about 80%.

Their use is to make attempted comparisons from season to season. As in, "scoring 100 points in this season is about as statistically significant as scoring 85 points in this season.". It doesn't change history with regards to any single season.

I think it's very important that if you are going to make such pointed criticisms of something, you should know your facts first, and then understand the concepts. Your last post indicates that you probably do not.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ask ing a Parallel Questions.

uhh, really? I'm calling BS here. Please demonstrate that this statement is true, because it doesn't pass the smell test.

First off, Gretzky's adjusted total in 1986 according to hockey-reference.com is 170.

If Gretzky loses 45 of 215 points after adjustment, that is 21% of his points. Most other star players near the top of the list, should lose a similar percentage of their points after adjustment. Give or take a few thanks to the calculations being done on goals and assists separately. So a guy with 122 points like Peter Statsny, should have about 96. According to adjusted stats, Stastny has..... exactly 96.

Adjusted stats do absolutely nothing to distort the scoring race within one season. Adjusted or unadjusted, Gretzky's point total proves to be extremely dominant because he outscores Peter Stastny, a great player in his own right who was 6th in the league in points, by about 80%.

Their use is to make attempted comparisons from season to season. As in, "scoring 100 points in this season is about as statistically significant as scoring 85 points in this season.". It doesn't change history with regards to any single season.

I think it's very important that if you are going to make such pointed criticisms of something, you should know your facts first, and then understand the concepts. Your last post indicates that you probably do not.

I'll grant you the point that adjusted stats do absolutely nothing to distort the scoring race within one season.

Let's address the parallel question. Do the adjusted scoring stats distort any of the other stats or results that reflect the complete picture of the season as the raw stats do? In other words would the relative GAA for goalies remain exactly the the same, etc? Would the relative regular season standings remain exactly the same? Would the playoff results remain the same? If the contention is yes, has the contention been supported by actual simulation that were independently replicated?

Relevent to the topic at hand since the the Harvey vs Lidstrom debate turns on comparibles across eras with variances in Hart, Norris, AST team voting which adjustments if well-founded and applied properly would only clarify.

 

[Roy S]

I know it's nitpicky, but that's 5 seasons, not 6, and one of them gets a big asterisk as far as I'm concerned (since they were 6th and 8th in voting to begin with, and considering Bourque missed 20 games that year).

Staying healthy is a skill and an underrated one at that. Lidstrom's never missed more than 6 games in a season and, thus, rarely ever requires his team to dress their #7 defenseman and has been able to provide extra value over guys who were injury risks over the course of their careers. A player getting injured and missing games doesn't require an asterisk, especially when going up against someone who basically never missed an extended period of games over his entire career. Lidstrom's health and durability are an underrated aspect of his career because it enabled his teams to field their strongest lineup more often and is not mentioned enough in comparisons to guys like Bourque who had multiple injury-prone years where he missed 10+ games. Those missed games due to injury diminish a player's value because a team is forced more often to play bench players and rely on secondary players to play more meaningful roles than they should be given.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Shutouts

I'll grant you the point that adjusted stats do absolutely nothing to distort the scoring race within one season.

Let's address the parallel question. Do the adjusted scoring stats distort any of the other stats or results that reflect the complete picture of the season as the raw stats do? In other words would the relative GAA for goalies remain exactly the the same, etc? Would the relative regular season standings remain exactly the same? Would the playoff results remain the same? If the contention is yes, has the contention been supported by actual simulation that were independently replicated?

Relevent to the topic at hand since the the Harvey vs Lidstrom debate turns on comparibles across eras with variances in Hart, Norris, AST team voting which adjustments if well-founded and applied properly would only clarify.

Shutouts would definitely be a problem. How do you make a shutout in a higher scoring era look better statistically than one in a lower scoring era?

 

[CarlWinslow]

If you feel Harvey had tougher competition than Lidstrom then what you are really saying is that Canada produced more elite defenseman in the 50's from 21,000,000 people than Canada has today from 35,000,000 people plus the hockey programs in Europe, Russian and the US. I see that as being hard to believe and very improbable.

And yet the identities of the players themselves from each era indicate that it is in fact true.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Staying healthy is a skill and an underrated one at that. Lidstrom's never missed more than 6 games in a season and, thus, rarely ever requires his team to dress their #7 defenseman and has been able to provide extra value over guys who were injury risks over the course of their careers. A player getting injured and missing games doesn't require an asterisk, especially when going up against someone who basically never missed an extended period of games over his entire career. Lidstrom's health and durability are an underrated aspect of his career because it enabled his teams to field their strongest lineup more often and is not mentioned enough in comparisons to guys like Bourque who had multiple injury-prone years where he missed 10+ games. Those missed games due to injury diminish a player's value because a team is forced more often to play bench players and rely on secondary players to play more meaningful roles than they should be given.

Not just his health, but his discipline as well. Not only is he always playing and playing effectively, but he's not putting his team at risk by penalizing them and having their best penalty killer sit in the box. These two factors help inch him ever so close to Bourque and Harvey, but they were just too obviously the better players in their primes and at their peaks.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Staying healthy is a skill and an underrated one at that. Lidstrom's never missed more than 6 games in a season and, thus, rarely ever requires his team to dress their #7 defenseman and has been able to provide extra value over guys who were injury risks over the course of their careers. A player getting injured and missing games doesn't require an asterisk, especially when going up against someone who basically never missed an extended period of games over his entire career. Lidstrom's health and durability are an underrated aspect of his career because it enabled his teams to field their strongest lineup more often and is not mentioned enough in comparisons to guys like Bourque who had multiple injury-prone years where he missed 10+ games. Those missed games due to injury diminish a player's value because a team is forced more often to play bench players and rely on secondary players to play more meaningful roles than they should be given.

Wait, so you'd like to paint Bourque as an "injury-prone" player? That's just... wow. I know what you're trying to say. I've seen it in all the Gretzky vs Lemieux discussions, etc. But we're not talking about career value. We're talking about a specific segment of time, and discussing whether or not we can pinpoint where Lidstrom's impact surpassed that of Bourque's through examination of the overlap period between the two careers. It is at this point that I should point out, that aside from that one season, during the period of overlap between these two guys, Bourque missed 6 total games, and Lidstrom missed 5. That's not exactly a big difference, and one reason right there that '96/97 sticks out as an anomaly that might deserve an asterisk.

Moving on, despite missing those games, Bourque still finished with more goals than Lidstrom, and his PPG suggests he would have finished with more points than Lidstrom as well, if he hadn't missed those games. Now given that Bourque received more votes than Lidstrom for the Norris in '95/96, and that Bourque was having a "better" season individually in '96/97, the fact that Lidstrom ended up with more votes than Bourque that year has to stem from Bourque missing games, and not purely from Lidstrom's level of play surpassing that of Bourque.

So if someone wants to point to the Norris voting as evidence of when a young Lidstrom elevated his game above that of an aging Bourque, and points to 5 straight years of coming ahead in the polls, I'll certainly put an asterisk on that first year where one guy obviously lost consideration because of games played (much like Crosby "lost" the Lindsay this year because of games played, not his level of play), not the impact his was having on the game at the time.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll grant you the point that adjusted stats do absolutely nothing to distort the scoring race within one season.

Let's address the parallel question. Do the adjusted scoring stats distort any of the other stats or results that reflect the complete picture of the season as the raw stats do? In other words would the relative GAA for goalies remain exactly the the same, etc? Would the relative regular season standings remain exactly the same? Would the playoff results remain the same? If the contention is yes, has the contention been supported by actual simulation that were independently replicated?

Relevent to the topic at hand since the the Harvey vs Lidstrom debate turns on comparibles across eras with variances in Hart, Norris, AST team voting which adjustments if well-founded and applied properly would only clarify.

I'm not sure if any of those questions are relevant at all but I don't care if they are or not. My point was only a clarification on what adjusted stats do and don't do. I'm certainly not touting them to be anything special here… they often make a lot more sense than unadjusted stats but they aren't beyond criticism themselves.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Wait, so you'd like to paint Bourque as an "injury-prone" player? That's just... wow. I know what you're trying to say. I've seen it in all the Gretzky vs Lemieux discussions, etc. But we're not talking about career value. We're talking about a specific segment of time, and discussing whether or not we can pinpoint where Lidstrom's impact surpassed that of Bourque's through examination of the overlap period between the two careers. It is at this point that I should point out, that aside from that one season, during the period of overlap between these two guys, Bourque missed 6 total games, and Lidstrom missed 5. That's not exactly a big difference, and one reason right there that '96/97 sticks out as an anomaly that might deserve an asterisk.

Moving on, despite missing those games, Bourque still finished with more goals than Lidstrom, and his PPG suggests he would have finished with more points than Lidstrom as well, if he hadn't missed those games. Now given that Bourque received more votes than Lidstrom for the Norris in '95/96, and that Bourque was having a "better" season individually in '96/97, the fact that Lidstrom ended up with more votes than Bourque that year has to stem from Bourque missing games, and not purely from Lidstrom's level of play surpassing that of Bourque.

So if someone wants to point to the Norris voting as evidence of when a young Lidstrom elevated his game above that of an aging Bourque, and points to 5 straight years of coming ahead in the polls, I'll certainly put an asterisk on that first year where one guy obviously lost consideration because of games played (much like Crosby "lost" the Lindsay this year because of games played, not his level of play), not the impact his was having on the game at the time.

I think you agree that ultimately PPG is not as important as actual results (at least you do in other debates).

1997 is a year where Bourque is helped by PPG, but off the top of my head, he is hurt by it as well - 2001 comes to mind - his own linemate, Blake, scored more goals and the same points in like 20 less games, but Bourque was the Norris runner-up and clearly benefited from it. As he should, IMO.

Pretty much everyone is injury-prone when it comes to a comparison with Lidstrom. Penalty-taking machines too.

 

[Rhiessan71]

uhh, really? I'm calling BS here. Please demonstrate that this statement is true, because it doesn't pass the smell test.

First off, Gretzky's adjusted total in 1986 according to hockey-reference.com is 170.

If Gretzky loses 45 of 215 points after adjustment, that is 21% of his points. Most other star players near the top of the list, should lose a similar percentage of their points after adjustment. Give or take a few thanks to the calculations being done on goals and assists separately. So a guy with 122 points like Peter Statsny, should have about 96. According to adjusted stats, Stastny has..... exactly 96.

Adjusted stats do absolutely nothing to distort the scoring race within one season. Adjusted or unadjusted, Gretzky's point total proves to be extremely dominant because he outscores Peter Stastny, a great player in his own right who was 6th in the league in points, by about 80%.

Their use is to make attempted comparisons from season to season. As in, "scoring 100 points in this season is about as statistically significant as scoring 85 points in this season.". It doesn't change history with regards to any single season.

I think it's very important that if you are going to make such pointed criticisms of something, you should know your facts first, and then understand the concepts. Your last post indicates that you probably do not.

So at the end of the day, you are comfortable with the line, under AS, that Gretzky loses 45 points and Statsny only loses 26?

That seems logical to you then? That Gretzky would of actually had a harder time scoring than Statsny did?
That is what you're saying here, that Gretzky, over the course of the year, would of been stopped 19 more times than Statsny was.
Or that some 4th line Goon, that only scored 10 points would only lose 2 points.

Wouldn't it seem more logical that that 4th line Goon actually doesn't get any points at all vs the improved goaltending and systems of today, while one of the greatest players in history would most likely lose less than the average player.
That's what they're doing after all, bringing everyone closer to the average across the league right.

No, sorry, like I said, neither the Raw or the adjusted stats are going to be right by today's line. All they do is provide the range.

I won't clutter up this thread with any more crap about Adjusted Stats though.
If someone can not understand the mistake of assigning league averages to above and well above league average players, then they never will.

 

[seventieslord]

So at the end of the day, you are comfortable with the line, under AS, that Gretzky loses 45 points and Statsny only loses 26?

That seems logical to you then? That Gretzky would of actually had a harder time scoring than Statsny did?
That is what you're saying here, that Gretzky, over the course of the year, would of been stopped 19 more times than Statsny was.
Or that some 4th line Goon, that only scored 10 points would only lose 2 points.

Wouldn't it seem more logical that that 4th line Goon actually doesn't get any points at all vs the improved goaltending and systems of today, while one of the greatest players in history would most likely lose less than the average player.
That's what they're doing after all, bringing everyone closer to the average across the league right.

No, sorry, like I said, neither the Raw or the adjusted stats are going to be right by today's line. All they do is provide the range.

I won't clutter up this thread with any more crap about Adjusted Stats though.
If someone can not understand the mistake of assigning league averages to above and well above league average players, then they never will.

To answer the question - yes, I am comfortable with that. Basically your contention is that if your goal is to adjust scoring down, everyone should have the same number of points chopped off. That's not the way it works and I'm not going to bother explaining why because most people reading don't need that explanation.

I would much rather see a system used where Gretzky's percentage edge remains the same after adjustement, over one that sees his advantage get even more obscene. It makes perfect mathematical sense and I don't mean to criticize you because you're a good poster, but you have just demonstrated that you are not in any way a person who should be commenting on numbers.

 

[Rhiessan71]

To answer the question - yes, I am comfortable with that. Basically your contention is that if your goal is to adjust scoring down, everyone should have the same number of points chopped off. That's not the way it works and I'm not going to bother explaining why because most people reading don't need that explanation.

I would much rather see a system used where Gretzky's percentage edge remains the same after adjustement, over one that sees his advantage get even more obscene. It makes perfect mathematical sense and I don't mean to criticize you because you're a good poster, but you have just demonstrated that you are not in any way a person who should be commenting on numbers.

I'm actually very, very good with numbers. My point is that numbers only take you so far.
At the end of the day the more talented a player is, the less effected he is going to be by better goalies and systems. The less talented players will have much more difficulty with such things.
I'm just talking about injecting some common sense into the totals at the end.

Lets play a game for a second, no common sense allowed, just by the numbers ok.

Mario Lemieux 2000/01 35 years old, going on 36.

43GP 35G 41A 76P

Lets first pro-rate that over a full season, 145 points.
Now lets take the 2000/01 AS matrix and substitute it for the 1985/86 AS matrix.

WHOA! That's like 190 points!!!

That's amazing, that a 35 year old Mario recovered from Cancer, is almost on par with himself at age 24 in his prime...you see where I'm going here?
Without common sense, the numbers take on a much greater meaning then they should.

All I'm saying and all I ever say on the subject is that the numbers, when crossing era's, should be viewed as guides or ranges, not as we see far too often, presented as final totals.


...and you know what started this too right?
I was getting sick of seeing people constantly using them against Bourque's offense. Sayingthat his numbers were inflated by playing in a much higher scoring league. Meanwhile, these same people never acknowledge that Lidstrom's defensive numbers might also be inflated by playing in such a lower scoring league.

Cheers

 

[Infinite Vision*]

That's true, but Mario was playing with Jagr that year who played at a similar level to him. Regardless of era Bourque was the better offensive player, but it is hard to say for sure that regardless of team or era that Lidstrom is better defensively.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

That's true, but Mario was playing with Jagr that year who played at a similar level to him. Regardless of era Bourque was the better offensive player, but it is hard to say for sure that regardless of team or era that Lidstrom is better defensively.

Using stats, sure. Though proponents of +/- could use Lidstrom's leading all contemporaries by a greater margin than Bourque, who was not even first. I think team has a lot to do with it but wouldn't completely dismiss it.

It's fair to say Lidstrom is better defensively simply because most have watched both of them, and even if you haven't Bourque was usually considered "among" the top defensive players in his era, while Lidstrom was considered "the" defensive player of his era. It's not just Red Wing homers that describe Lidstrom's defensive play as "perfect".

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Using stats, sure. Though proponents of +/- could use Lidstrom's leading all contemporaries by a greater margin than Bourque, who was not even first. I think team has a lot to do with it but wouldn't completely dismiss it.

Plus/minus goes both ways. One could argue that Bourque has a better plus/minus despite playing on teams with significantly worse plus/minus overall:

Bourque +528; his teams were +736 overall*. Lidstrom was +429; his teams were +1,217. These numbers would suggest that Bourque was both better and more important to his team.

It's fair to say Lidstrom is better defensively simply because most have watched both of them, and even if you haven't Bourque was usually considered "among" the top defensive players in his era, while Lidstrom was considered "the" defensive player of his era. It's not just Red Wing homers that describe Lidstrom's defensive play as "perfect".

My issues is with people (this isn't directed at you specifically) who claim that Bourque's apparent offensive advantage is primarily era-driven, yet they refuse to acknowledge that Lidstrom's apparent defensive advantage is also era-dependent.

By my calculations, the NHL averaged 6.86 gpg during Bourque's career and 5.79 gpg during Lidstrom's**. Thus, Bourque played in an era with about 18.5% more offense per game.

Bourque scored 0.98 points per game; Lidstrom scored 0.74 ppg. A superficial look suggests that Bourque scored 32% more than Lidstrom per game, but this is wrong. Adjusted for era, Bourque scored about 0.83 ppg, which is an 12% advantage. Based on seeing them play and understanding how the NHL has changed over the past three decades, I'm comfortable saying that Bourque was about 12% better than Lidstrom offensively. This type of analysis isn't controversial.

Defensively, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 even-strength goals per game (which I'll simply call "GPG" for simplicity). Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.76 gpg. A superficial glance suggests that Lidstrom was on the ice for 20% fewer goals per game than Bourque. However, in order to be consistent, we need to apply the same era adjustment we did for the offense. Adjusted for era, Bourque was on the ice for 0.76 gpg, which is 1% more than Lidstrom***.

Before we consider ice time and teammates, it appears that, adjusted for era, Bourque was only very slightly worse than Lidstrom defensively. These calculations are consistent with my intuition - Bourque was better offensively, Lidstrom was better defensively by a small margin and, overall, Bourque is slightly ahead.

I think that Bourque and Lidstrom are much more similar than most people realize, and the notion that Bourque was vastly superior offensively and Lidstrom was clearly better defensively are based on people get confused by era effects.

====

* I'm looking at the total GF and GA - if someone has GF and GA with PP goals removed, please post. For Lidstrom I've used the Red Wings; for Bourque I've used the Bruins from 1980 to 2000, and the Avalanche for 2001 (thus I've ignored the impact of the late-season trade in 2000).

** This entire section excludes 2010-11 as I don't have the necessary data.

*** Calculations have been rounded so if you re-perform you may encounter minor rounding differences.