Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[SillyRabbit]

This topic has been done to death. Here's some lengthy threads from this sub-forum:

Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why (34 pages).

Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time (11 pages).

However the poll that was attached to the first thread was destroyed in the HF server migration.

The goal of this thread is to serve as a poll of the members of the History of Hockey sub-forum specifically.

There's already a poll on this topic in the HFBoards poll section. The reason for posting the poll here is to get the opinions of people who watched both of them play.

We're operating with the honor system here, but if you didn't watch both of them play then ideally please refrain from voting.

Since most people here will have already given their opinion multiple times in the past, it would be nice if you could just copy/paste your opinion into this thread.

Click to read more...

 

[buffalowing88]

Bourque had higher highs. So I took him. If I was founding a team and wanted steadiness on the back-end for two decades, I may have reevaluated. When I have Bourque, I have a guy who is not only the best defenseman on the ice most of the time, but the best player as well.

 

[wetcoast]

It's basically flip a coin and voters preference as they both are equally accomplished all time IMO.

 

[bobholly39]

Take their best ~7-10 year stretch head to head and it's quite close. Maybe Bourque peaked higher, but Lidstrom has the better playoff resume (helps he played on better teams - but still), so there's a bit of a trade-off.

I think where Bourque wins this is he was better outside of those 7-10 years.

It's not a very big gap or anything - but I do think it's clear.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Bourque for me.

He did it a little bit better and for a longer time than Lidstrom. He had a 21 year career that was Norris Top 5 and AS-1/AS-2 from beginning to end. 19x Norris Top 5 (1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4) and 13x AS-1/6x AS-2

Another factor is Bourque had tougher competition going against the primes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, Stevens, Langway

Both are Top 5 IMO (Orr, Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom, Shore)

 

[pandro]

Their respective careers played out so that Lidstrom always had several highly capable players to share the defensive responsibilities with, while Bourque had to be the guy in both ends of the ice year-in and year-out. Who knows, maybe if Lidstrom was put in Bourque's spot he'd shine through and lead the Bruins to a Cup victory, while Bourque would struggle being surrounded with so much talent in Detroit?
But they way things went down, it has to be Ray Bourque.

 

[gretzkyoilers]

Bourque for me.

He did it a little bit better and for a longer time than Lidstrom. He had a 21 year career that was Norris Top 5 and AS-1/AS-2 from beginning to end. 19x Norris Top 5 (1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4) and 13x AS-1/6x AS-2

Another factor is Bourque had tougher competition going against the primes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, Stevens, Langway

Both are Top 5 IMO (Orr, Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom, Shore)

Lidstrom starting winning the Norris from 2001 to 2011 (age 31 to 41): a much lower depth of top defenders. By 2001 many such defenders had already retired or were past their prime. Lidstrom was still an amazing player, but Ray had much stiffer competition during his career.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In my opinion, the top tiers of all time D are relatively clear-cut.

Orr
<gap>
Bourque
<small gap>
Harvey + Lidstrom
<small gap>
Potvin + Shore + Kelly as a defenseman + maybe Fetisov

There is of course a lot of disagreement on the precise order, but I think those tiers become evident once the debate gets into the finer details.

We've done Bourque vs Lidstrom so many times that it feels settled to me. There's no new information coming along to give Lidstrom a nudge, like we might experience with deep research on an old-time player. I'm less interested in comparing him to Bourque than to Harvey, who seems like a damn near mirror image in many respects.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah I have defended Lidstrom many times but with both careers settled, more and more this is clearly Bourque.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Another factor is Bourque had tougher competition going against the primes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, Stevens, Langway

Not sure I buy that the competition shrank while the talent pool expanded.

 

[Moose Head]

Both are top 5 and both have a great case for #2, but personally I have Bourque ahead, behind Harvey.

Not sure I buy that the competition shrank while the talent pool expanded.

Bourque played against more elite guys playing at or near their peaks.

 

[rmartin65]

Not sure I buy that the competition shrank while the talent pool expanded.

I've noticed you making this argument in several threads over the past couple weeks (or months), and it has definitely made me reconsider my own personal ranking a bit.

But, having thought about it, I'm not sure it is quite as simple as it seems like you are arguing. Certainly the population has increased with the progression of time, but I don't know if that means hockey's talent pool has expanded accordingly. I think we also need to be taking the quality of the athletes choosing hockey to get a better picture of the talent pool. The following is a thoroughly un-researched stream-of-consciousness-

80 years ago, I don't think any sport was regularly paying the average athlete a ton of money. I could very well be mistaken (like I said, I have done absolutely zero digging into this), but I would be surprised to learn that the average salary of an NFL player was that much different than that of an NHL player, or NBA player, etc. Therefore, the best athletes wouldn't have an incentive to pick a different sport-if they liked hockey, they played hockey. But starting, I don't know, 30-40 years ago, salaries exploded. Yeah, hockey salaries grew, but look at what football players, soccer players, baseball and basketball players make now. It would seem to me that there would be a monetary incentive for the elite athletes to prioritize another sport instead of hockey.

There is also the cost argument; hockey is expensive. It used to be cheaper, but it was still more expensive than a sport like football, basketball, soccer, or baseball, by sheer dint of the difference in equipment. The other sports are financially more accessible than hockey is, and I think that accessibility gap has only continued to grow with the passage of time.

Perhaps I am way off here, but I think it is something that should be considered and/or looked into.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not sure I buy that the competition shrank while the talent pool expanded.

It’s far from a given that the talent pool expanded post-1995 or so.

This has been addressed in old threads, and there’s compelling evidence that several countries including Canada and Russia regressed during that timeframe.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The most Canadians ever born in a year was 1961. Bourque was born December 1960.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

It’s far from a given that the talent pool expanded post-1995 or so.

This has been addressed in old threads, and there’s compelling evidence that several countries including Canada and Russia regressed during that timeframe.

That and we're talking about 2 guys that had overlapping seasons and only 10 years or so between their respective peaks. It's not really something that applies in this case.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It’s far from a given that the talent pool expanded post-1995 or so.

This has been addressed in old threads, and there’s compelling evidence that several countries including Canada and Russia regressed during that timeframe.

I've read the arguments. Hockey Outsider provides the most logical and credible estimate that I've seen.

Canada almost certainly regressed, but that is likely more than made up for by the internationalization of hockey.

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[BraveCanadian]

Canada almost certainly regressed, but that is likely more than made up for by the internationalization of hockey.

Which sounds great until you factor in more expansion and the KHL.

The talent pool argument is basically over for most of us until someone can introduce *any* evidence to show it is significantly better or worse than ~1995 on a per team basis.

 

[Albatros]

Lidstrom always had several highly capable players to share the defensive responsibilities with

In the 2000s that often wasn't the case, still they invariably won the division while playoff success varied.

 

[Midnight Judges]

.......

 

[tarheelhockey]

I've read the arguments. Hockey Outsider provides the most logical and credible estimate that I've seen.

Canada almost certainly regressed, but that is likely more than made up for by the internationalization of hockey.

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

Here is the relevant data set, found toward the end of that thread:

Competition per roster spot decreased between ~1993 and ~2015.

That coincides with Lidstrom’s entire career, whereas Bourque was 32 years old when the talent slump began.

 

[Overrated]

I've read the arguments. Hockey Outsider provides the most logical and credible estimate that I've seen.

Canada almost certainly regressed, but that is likely more than made up for by the internationalization of hockey.

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

More like the least logical estimate possible

I kind of liked this rebuttal

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[MadLuke]

Which sounds great until you factor in more expansion and the KHL.

Not sure how relevant the expansion is here the talk not being about the average defenseman but how good the top one were (which is more the competition we have in mind for player like Bourque and Lidstrom).

But yes a clear decline from the 2 biggest hockey country his major enough for an elevation in top end talents in the NHL to not be obvious at all, we can even arguably talk about some golden american generation faced by Bourque that went down after that before rising up again.

2006 team USA featured Scheinder, Rafalski, Liles, Leopold, 44 years old Chelios, Hedican, 33 post lockout Derian Hatcher.

1991: Leetch, Chelios, Gary Suter, K.Hatcher, Wolanin, Johnson, Weinrich all in their 24 to 29 years old peak
1996: Leetch, x2 hatcher, Chelios, Scheinder, Suter, Housley, Chambers

No one outside Rafalski on the 2006 team is close to the 1996 team Top 6 (either 10 years younger self or better players), so that arguably the biggest 3 country that went down in quality for top defenceman from 1996 to 2006. Chelios at 44 making an olympics team making it a bit obvious imo.

What elite Ds giving trouble to Lidstrom looking good after Bourque-Leetch-MacInnis went down did not come from an established hockey talent market in the 90s or one that was both significant and clearly stronger ?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I didn't publish the raw data before, but I'll show it here:

Year	Talent Pool	Per spot
1980​	4,601,445	11,532
1981​	4,799,712	12,029
1982​	4,947,457	12,400
1983​	4,971,774	11,838
1984​	5,110,527	12,168
1985​	5,321,801	12,671
1986​	5,295,630	12,609
1987​	5,266,788	12,540
1988​	5,204,062	12,391
1989​	5,256,808	12,516
1990​	5,294,826	12,607
1991​	5,247,876	12,495
1992​	5,420,302	12,319
1993​	5,660,952	11,794
1994​	5,686,602	10,936
1995​	5,807,951	11,169
1996​	5,764,127	11,085
1997​	5,692,480	10,947
1998​	5,684,429	10,932
1999​	5,633,267	10,432
2000​	5,945,609	10,617
2001​	6,153,407	10,256
2002​	6,281,375	10,469
2003​	6,161,274	10,269
2004​	6,213,206	10,355
2006​	6,317,017	10,528
2007​	6,502,584	10,838
2008​	6,619,818	11,033
2009​	6,625,570	11,043
2010​	6,446,723	10,745
2011​	6,582,157	10,970
2012​	6,540,184	10,900

The estimated global talent pool during the span of Bourque's career was 5.40M. During Lidstrom's career, it was estimated to be 6.09M.

The estimated global talent per roster spot during Bourque's career was about 11,700 (that's the estimated number of people in the global talent pool, per roster spot). During Lidstrom's career, it was estimated to be approximately 10,900.

In other words - based on this method, the talent pool was estimated to be approximately 13% larger during Lidstrom's career, but because there were more teams, the competition per roster spot was about 7% tougher during Bourque's career.

In the original post, I go into a lot of detail (probably excessive detail) about all the assumption that go into this. It's intended as a high-level calculation only. The error bars on these estimates are quite wide. Still, based on this, I don't think the talent pool argument makes much of a difference in this comparison.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

More like the least logical estimate possible

I kind of liked this rebuttal

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

First, I'll say that I have no issues with criticisms to help improve the method. (I didn't even come up with the method - @jigglysquishy did). And, as you'll see in the thread you linked, I re-ran all the numbers based on constructive feedback that was provided. So I'm open to improving this approach, based on reasonable feedback.

But the "rebuttal" that you quoted has no substance to it. That poster is essentially saying that an activity that a large percentage of the population does, has no correlation with the total population. That doesn't make sense.

If we're talking about a niche activity that a small percentage of males age 18-35 do (collecting insect specimens, writing poetry, playing the trombone, etc) - there's probably less of a correlation. (Why? Because the biggest driver of the "talent pool" would be the percentage of the population doing that activity. An increase in the participation rate for trombone players from 1% to 4% of Canadian male youths would have a much larger impact on the "talent pool", than the change in the population, which is comparatively stable).

But if we're talking about activities that a large percentage of males 18-35 do (driving a car, drinking beer, graduating high school - and yes, playing hockey), it seems obvious that there would be a correlation. It wouldn't be a perfect correlation, but it would give us a reasonable starting point. Absent any other information, if you had to guess the number of Canadian males who graduated from high school in 2023 vs 1953, the single most relevant piece of information would be the population in those two years. Then you can fine-tune whether the graduation rate was 92% vs 95%, but the population would be by far the largest driver in that estimate.

In fact, in the original post, I talk about certain key assumptions, including the assumption that a consistently high percentage of Canadians males in that age range play hockey. Although I look at factors in both directions, on balance, I'm fairly sure that I've over-estimated the modern talent pool because the participation rate in hockey has decreased over time. I haven't tried to quantify this (I have some ideas on how to do this, but they're shaky) - but if I did, the estimated talent pool from the 21st century would decrease, rather than increase. I think the data I presented is actually fairly charitable to McDavid/Crosby etc when we compare his talent pool to what Gretzky/Lemieux faced.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Not sure how relevant the expansion is here the talk not being about the average defenseman but how good the top one were (which is more the competition we have in mind for player like Bourque and Lidstrom).

Expansion obviously affects the per-team level of talent/competition?

The argument that people always make is that because the NHL is more international than in the past and drawing on larger populations for talent, players today must be better because of this competition on average, and therefore the star players must be even better than in the past.

However, as soon as anyone starts getting into the data we can find.. the argument tends to fall off the rails rather quickly. I challenge anyone who believes it to present their case - we've done it to death here. The numbers just do not show that this ever better and ever bigger talent pool is there.

My rough guesstimate based on the evidence people have put forth is that talent in the NHL was spread very thin in the war years, improved through the 50s into the tightly compressed O6, fell off pretty badly after expansion and especially during the 70s with the WHA, and began recovering after the WHA folded and a larger number of international players started arriving in the mid 80s. The overlap of the baby boom and the influx of international players reached a peak in the early to mid-90s before dipping again into the early 00s. Since that time the available talent has largely matched expansion.

Long story short - it is a poor argument to make in a Lidstrom vs. Bourque comparison because a) they had a large overlap in their careers, b) Bourque played a good chunk of his career in an environment not dissimilar to Lidstrom as far as talent level goes, and c) Bourque competed against an all-time class of defensemen for longer.

In fact, in the original post, I talk about certain key assumptions, including the assumption that a consistently high percentage of Canadians males in that age range play hockey. Although I look at factors in both directions, on balance, I'm fairly sure that I've over-estimated the modern talent pool because the participation rate in hockey has decreased over time. I haven't tried to quantify this (I have some ideas on how to do this, but they're shaky) - but if I did, the estimated talent pool from the 21st century would decrease, rather than increase. I think the data I presented is actually fairly charitable to McDavid/Crosby etc when we compare his talent pool to what Gretzky/Lemieux faced.

I did run across some sport participation rates on statscan at one point -- do they still compile those? I know the few I found did show that participation was dropping in Canada but I forget the specific numbers.