Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[Overrated]

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.

The very same poster absolutely demolished the gaslighting often seen here in the post above the one I linked. He is apparently an older guy with such an interest in hockey he has interviewed many people from the silent generation and he struggled to find people who played organized hockey.

This quote is the most telling:
I once tallied my closest 200 male relatives going back 3 generations, and almost none of them had any opportunity to play any type of organized hockey. Mostly due to transportation.

I like how you mentioned car driving in your post. Just like organized hockey car driving was a niche a century ago. I agree that the talent pool within the NHL has decreased in the 21 century though.

 

[jigglysquishy]

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.

A key data piece I'd like to add eventually is births by ethnicity. ~50% of boys born in Canada 18 years ago were non white, but only 10% of incoming NHLers are non white.

I contacted Statcan and they don't collect this data, but do have age cohorts by ethnicity so we can get very close.

It would also be nice to regionalize it. There are very few Quebecers in the NHL compared to 1960, but many more Atlantic Canadians.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

I know what you're referring to, but I don't think Statistics Canada compiles that information anymore. (If they do, I couldn't find it).

The best idea I had in terms of estimating the participation rate in sports is using BMI (body mass index) data. The assumption is, once someone's BMI is over (say) 30, they're no longer fit enough to form part of the talent pool. I haven't incorporated this into the analysis because I can't find data that goes back prior to the early 1970's (maybe a reasonable estimate can be made), and it's a pretty crude/imprecise way to come up with the number.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

Talent slump is a very leading observation one would think right?

Look I don't want to get into it in great detail but there are a lot of moving parts here to consider and there isn't anything objective about it either without looking into why the numbers dropped so much in 1970 and that is for all NHL roster spots as well.

Put another way the drop would more likely indicate population trends more than hockey talent pool ones as the NHL was expanding during that time period and interest from non traditional hockey markets was gaining and producing more NHL caliber players.

The stats for British Columbia are quite informative in this regard.

Here are all the NHL players born in BC (some like Yzerman one can disregard as he grew up and is an Ontario product) in chronological order of when they entered the NHL.

NHL Players Born in British Columbia, Canada | Hockey-Reference.com

NHL Players Born in British Columbia, Canada

www.hockey-reference.com

The introduction of hockey academies in British Columbia has produced a more recent stream of stars for BC and also since the early 80s pretty much the all time time Atlantic roster team is from Al McInnis onwards.

We had a player drafted first overall from the USA in 2016 which isn't historically significant Brian Lawton was the first but Austin Matthews was born in California and grew up in Arizona not one of the traditional hockey hotbeds in the States, looking at you Minny and Mass.

Also with specific reference to Bourque/Lidstrom the 80s up to the mid 90s saw many more star players from non traditional Canadian provinces and then scoring went dead in the mid 90s so some people thought the players weren't as skilled which is complete nonsense but even people who know this might have a hard time accounting for just that one measure never mind the multitude of other differences in coaching, conditioning, ,ore recently salary caps ect....

If one thinks that Bourque/Lidstrom are close they might be open to looking at some of these variables, if some think it's a slam dunk for either guy then their minds are probably closed and there is little point in discussing it with those people.

One thing we can do, and it's imperfect to be sure, is to look at the constant variable the Canadian timeline when comparing players from more recent times to earlier times but then again this metric is more applicable to forwards than Dmen.

Just one last note on Lidstrom playing with "worse competition" in the 2000s for those Norris trophies, was it really any worse than the 60s when Orr exploded onto the scene?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Talent slump is a very leading observation one would think right?

I mean, it’s an extended downturn in the numbers in that graph. I think slump is a fair word. Certainly it was a concern at the time, with a very noticeable decline in star talent between ‘95 and ‘00 (even after correcting for injuries which were a big factor)

Look I don't want to get into it in great detail but there are a lot of moving parts here to consider and there isn't anything objective about it either without looking into why the numbers dropped so much in 1970 and that is for all NHL roster spots as well.

Put another way the drop would more likely indicate population trends more than hockey talent pool ones as the NHL was expanding during that time period and interest from non traditional hockey markets was gaining and producing more NHL caliber players.

The stats for British Columbia are quite informative in this regard.

Here are all the NHL players born in BC (some like Yzerman one can disregard as he grew up and is an Ontario product) in chronological order of when they entered the NHL.

NHL Players Born in British Columbia, Canada | Hockey-Reference.com

NHL Players Born in British Columbia, Canada

www.hockey-reference.com

The introduction of hockey academies in British Columbia has produced a more recent stream of stars for BC and also since the early 80s pretty much the all time time Atlantic roster team is from Al McInnis onwards.

We had a player drafted first overall from the USA in 2016 which isn't historically significant Brian Lawton was the first but Austin Matthews was born in California and grew up in Arizona not one of the traditional hockey hotbeds in the States, looking at you Minny and Mass.

At the same time though, we’ve also seen a rather extreme decline in talent from other provinces, especially Quebec which used to be a factory for NHL stars. BC goes up, Quebec goes down. You’re back where you started. Germany goes up, Slovakia goes down. Sweden goes up, Russia goes down.

But the big gorilla is Canada, and we know that the hockey playing Canadian population has been shrinking steadily and that hockey participation is withering in many areas. For a country that dominates the sport the way Canada does, to take a step or two back is the equivalent of losing entire European countries from the landscape. It’s a big, big deal that directly impacts the NHL product and the hockey world generally.

Also with specific reference to Bourque/Lidstrom the 80s up to the mid 90s saw many more star players from non traditional Canadian provinces and then scoring went dead in the mid 90s so some people thought the players weren't as skilled which is complete nonsense but even people who know this might have a hard time accounting for just that one measure never mind the multitude of other differences in coaching, conditioning, ,ore recently salary caps ect....

Is it complete nonsense, though? Look at the late 90s draft classes. The 1999 class for example was just stunningly void of talent outside a literal handful of players.

Circa 2000, the development system was filtering prospects for height and physicality first, skill second. That had consequences for the talent pipeline. A guy like Martin St Louis couldn’t even find a job in the league at first, while a bunch of Donald Brashear clones were carving out long careers. A guy like Derian Hatcher could be considered a model defenseman… and prospects drafted high because they resembled Derian Hatcher. After a few years of that, the league was just about dead for lack of commercial appeal. It’s not a coincidence.

Now there’s a legitimate question as to whether this is really a “talent pool” argument or something different. But in terms of the NHL player pool, I think it’s totally fair to say the quality dipped and we saw a period where low-skill hockey ruled, which led to an unusual glut of low-skill players in the league. It was just… not a good time for the league.

Just one last note on Lidstrom playing with "worse competition" in the 2000s for those Norris trophies, was it really any worse than the 60s when Orr exploded onto the scene?

I think there’s a legitimate question whether Orr should be brought down to earth a little based on the quality of league he played against. Generally people aren’t willing to have that debate, though. I think he’s still the clear GOAT, but it’s valid to point out that the league was in pretty poor shape for most of the 70s in particular.

 

[Voight]

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)

Bourque was Tom Brady-esque in that he basically had 3 HOF careers in one.

I agree on the top 5 tho theres times I consider putting Potvin ahead of Harvey or Lidstrom but thats a different argument for a different day.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think there’s a legitimate question whether Orr should be brought down to earth a little based on the quality of league he played against. Generally people aren’t willing to have that debate, though. I think he’s still the clear GOAT, but it’s valid to point out that the league was in pretty poor shape for most of the 70s in particular.

I think most people here do (should?) keep in mind the disparity Orr was playing in, however, he was so good it doesn't matter. Not only that, it is a red herring in an argument about Lidstrom and Bourque.

 

[MadLuke]

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

Yes but does it has much to do with a conversation Lidstrom vs Bourque ?

Could have not followed the plot, my comments was more Lidstrom competition for the Norris is not obviously affected by the per-team level of talent and competition, much more by how good the Top 8 defenceman are when he his playing.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The thing with Orr that get's me is how widespread the best player ever talk is.

Jean Beliveau talks about it in his book. He dedicates an entire chapter to Orr (in a book written in 1993). He was so good that Beliveau takes 15 pages to analyze how good he was. He doesn't do this for Howe or Gretzky or Lemieux or Richard or Harvey or Hull.

He wins a Norris playing 46 games and scoring 31 points at age 19. The two years later he scores 120.

You start to see reference to him being the best player ever in 1970. The "1972" Summit Series book is littered with players considering him the best ever. He won MVP in 1976 amongst a stacked team.

It's very common for those that watched it to be firm that he was simply the best.

There's also the eye test. Watch 15 games 1965-1975 and Orr jumps out in such an incredible way.

I'd also note his peak years (1970-1972) are not nearly as weak as the 1973-1979 time period. Expansion, but no WHA. Hull and Beliveau still in the league. Howe and Mikita still capable in 1970. Decent youth movement (Dionne and Park and Clarke and Perreault).

The 1973-1982 time period absolutely was weak and way overexpanded. But I think the first few years post 1967 expansion still sees really strong hockey.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

I don't know why you think per roster spot is more important than total talent pool size. It seems to me roster spots are primarily relevant for determining how hard it is to enter the NHL or to get top minutes. That isn't typically much of a factor for all-time greats.

It's the total talent pool they're competing with for Norris votes and Hart votes regardless of how many teams or roster spots there are.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

The counteracting factor is money - significantly more now than ever before (adjusted for inflation of course). This creates additional demand.

For example, Bobby Orr signed the first $1M contract in 1971. He was making $200K per year. That equates to $1.5M in today's money. In the modern NHL this is bottom pairing money.

Bobby Orr today would make 8 or 9 times more than he did in his own era. There is simply no way that this doesn't equate to significantly more scouting, more agents, more talent development, etc.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

I don't either, but I still don't understand why you guys think per roster spot is the relevant stat in a comparison of Lidstrom and Bourque.

 

[Albatros]

And those numbers are more relevant when discussing the situation in Canada rather than internationally. In the 1990s the international prospect pool grew very rapidly.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't know why you think per roster spot is more important than total talent pool size. It seems to me roster spots are primarily relevant for determining how hard it is to enter the NHL or to get top minutes. That isn't typically much of a factor for all-time greats.

It's the total talent pool they're competing with for Norris votes and Hart votes regardless of how many teams or roster spots there are.

I agree that it’s not an overwhelming factor with respect to award voting, but it certainly does make a difference in e.g. offensive achievements racked up against would-be minor leaguers.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I agree that it’s not an overwhelming factor with respect to award voting, but it certainly does make a difference in e.g. offensive achievements racked up against would-be minor leaguers.

These are the same people who will argue that more teams = more people in situations to challenge for the votes. The goalposts will be moved because newer automatically means better.

All I can say is if someone thinks the talent pool is significantly better now than around the mid 90s.. show your work! I'm waiting.

 

[MadLuke]

And those numbers are more relevant when discussing the situation in Canada rather than internationally. In the 1990s the international prospect pool grew very rapidly.

In all the eastern block I am not sure how obvious if we would look at drafted in between 89 to 98 of Czech Republic:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Players with the most points are Jagr-Elias-Hejduk-Prospal-Holik-Sykora_Straka-Nedved-Lang-Hamrlik, Radek Bonk was 15th

D core had Harmlik, Kaberle, Kubina, Spacek, Rozsival, Slegr

Slovakia:
Players with the most points are Hossa-Bondra-Demitra-Satan-Palfy-Chara-Stumpel-Handzus-Zednik-Svehla

D core had Chara-Svehla

If we go from 1999 to 2008, so players growing up in the 90s instead of the 80s

Slovakia
Gaborik-Visnovsky-Sekera-Meszaros, no one else scored 200 pts, Gaborik quite the player with injury issue but no Hossa-Bondra-Chara in that group

Czech Republic:
Voracek, Krejci, Vrvata, Plekanec, Havlat, Hemsky, Erat, Michalek, Hudler, Zidickly, some very high talent a la Havlat-Hemsky that did turn out without a great career, some very good career Plekanec, obviously Krejci-Voracek but that not better than the Jagr group.

Would we look at Russia, Finland, Sweden, American not so sure that the 99-08 drafted would look better at all. And I am not sure what non hockey country became one during that time frame, I imagine Swiss, Belgium, Germany, England grew the game but did it impacted much ?

I agree that it’s not an overwhelming factor with respect to award voting, but it certainly does make a difference in e.g. offensive achievements racked up against would-be minor leaguers.

If your elite pair also play against the same would-be minor ....

League strength and style that follow could not affect everyone equal (KHL to NHL or AHL-NHL and vice versa seem clear in that regard) but hard to know for who would it be.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The counteracting factor is money - significantly more now than ever before (adjusted for inflation of course). This creates additional demand.

For example, Bobby Orr signed the first $1M contract in 1971. He was making $200K per year. That equates to $1.5M in today's money. In the modern NHL this is bottom pairing money.

Bobby Orr today would make 8 or 9 times more than he did in his own era. There is simply no way that this doesn't equate to significantly more scouting, more agents, more talent development, etc.

Absolutely, that's one factor that gives people a bigger incentive to pursue the NHL these days. That was one of the factors I talk about in the article. (My conclusion is, on balance, the participation rate is probably lower now than it was a few decades ago, despite the stronger financial incentives - but I haven't tried to quantify that).

 

[The Panther]

I think Bourque and Lidstrom are close enough that I don't really care who is higher. Elite legends both.

Bourque came into the League at a time when it was, like, "Kid, you're 19, go out there and make a difference on the ice in any way you know how!" Whereas when Lidstrom came in, it was more like, "Kid, you're going to learn your craft slowly and by playing your position and the team system." Both excelled into the best at what they were asked to do.

The difference here is that Bourque was basically depended on to carry the heavy weight of his club offensively and defensively for about 16 years, while Lidstrom's entire career bookends a period when Detroit had an all-time great line-up of talent in all areas (well, not so much in goal). This doesn't mean Bourque was better necessarily, but it explains why Bourque can be seen making more mistakes. Lidstrom didn't need to carry his club's offensive load, and he didn't have to gamble too often. He was the master at knowing where to be, letting the game come to him, taking charge when necessary. Bourque didn't have that luxury, as he had to lead at both ends.

To put this in perspective, the Bruins made the Cup Finals with a defence core that included two teenage rookies, Gord Kluzak, Michael Thelven, and Allen Pedersen (and the corpse of Reed Larson who played 8 games). Oh yeah, and Bourque (who had also led the team in scoring that season).

Two years later, they were the League's #1 defensive team and made the Finals again. This time, the playoff D-core included Wesley, Galley (-8), Sweeney (-10), Hawgood (-9), Beers, Pedersen, and Wiemer. And Bourque (+11).

The first time Lidstrom made the Finals (and lost, like Bourque), the D-core included Coffey, Fetisov, Konstantinov, Ramsey, and Rouse (even the corpse of Mark Howe for a few games).

The second time Lidstrom made the Finals (and won), the D-core included Murphy, Fetisov, Konstantinov, Rouse, and... er, Aaron Ward.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I like how it's "corpse of Reed Larson" at age 31 with a half point per game season. But it's not corpse of 37 year old Slava Fetisov or corpse of Mike Ramsey - who wasn't even a regular in the lineup any longer at this point.

I'm not saying Bourque had it easy. But it's being framed like that Bruins defense wasn't good and Detroit's was amazing at the time. I don't think that's necessarily a good or fair framing of it...

 

[MadLuke]

Not sure if Montreal would ever have again a Coffey-Lidstrom-Konstantinov- old Fetisov type of defensive quad.

The Wings were second in goal against, close to first on the PK-PP, .729 team and was quite similar to the team that will set that 62 win record season.

 

[Victorias]

The thing with Orr that get's me is how widespread the best player ever talk is.

Jean Beliveau talks about it in his book. He dedicates an entire chapter to Orr (in a book written in 1993). He was so good that Beliveau takes 15 pages to analyze how good he was. He doesn't do this for Howe or Gretzky or Lemieux or Richard or Harvey or Hull.

He wins a Norris playing 46 games and scoring 31 points at age 19. The two years later he scores 120.

You start to see reference to him being the best player ever in 1970. The "1972" Summit Series book is littered with players considering him the best ever. He won MVP in 1976 amongst a stacked team.

It's very common for those that watched it to be firm that he was simply the best.

There's also the eye test. Watch 15 games 1965-1975 and Orr jumps out in such an incredible way.

I'd also note his peak years (1970-1972) are not nearly as weak as the 1973-1979 time period. Expansion, but no WHA. Hull and Beliveau still in the league. Howe and Mikita still capable in 1970. Decent youth movement (Dionne and Park and Clarke and Perreault).

The 1973-1982 time period absolutely was weak and way overexpanded. But I think the first few years post 1967 expansion still sees really strong hockey.

You don’t even need 15 games - I recently watched the Bruins-Leafs from 1967 and despite playing more of a stay-at-home role, Orr tipped in a goal and provided an assist along with an array of shot blocks and puck race wins. Even before expansion and before his prime he looked a level above.

Besides, would Orr not still have won multiple Ross’s and Hart’s and been the best player in the league practically his whole career if the league hadn’t expanded? It’s not like the talent pool declined, it just became diluted; the best players in the world pre-expansion were all still there.

Finally, he produced slightly more PPG against the West than the East, but so did Espo and everyone else. In fact, Bobby Hull had the biggest East/West differential from the superstars I checked. Maybe the North Stars made Orr look a little bit better sometimes but they made all the superstars look a little better and Orr looked better than all of them!

So, this sort of comes back to the “talent pool” vs “talent pool per team” discussion. As others have said, I don’t think talent pool per team matters when you’re comparing the best of the best.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The counteracting factor is money - significantly more now than ever before (adjusted for inflation of course). This creates additional demand.

For example, Bobby Orr signed the first $1M contract in 1971. He was making $200K per year. That equates to $1.5M in today's money. In the modern NHL this is bottom pairing money.

Bobby Orr today would make 8 or 9 times more than he did in his own era. There is simply no way that this doesn't equate to significantly more scouting, more agents, more talent development, etc.

Absolutely, that's one factor that gives people a bigger incentive to pursue the NHL these days. That was one of the factors I talk about in the article. (My conclusion is, on balance, the participation rate is probably lower now than it was a few decades ago, despite the stronger financial incentives - but I haven't tried to quantify that).

We have to be careful with this dynamic, though, because the effect of financial incentives is not linear.

Higher salaries will always garner more interest, but there is a breaking point where extremely-high salaries reduce the level of competition — because people who are already wealthy will apply their financial leverage to corner the market on opportunity.

We see this happen in all areas of society. In a hockey context, it looks like personal coaches and year-round travel leagues and $300 sticks and hockey academies and moving to Ontario and playing in international tournaments. The current NHL is a clear demonstration of a system where socioeconomic status is a primary determining factor in promotion.

 

[The Panther]

I like how it's "corpse of Reed Larson" at age 31 with a half point per game season. But it's not corpse of 37 year old Slava Fetisov or corpse of Mike Ramsey - who wasn't even a regular in the lineup any longer at this point.

Maybe "corpse" was over-stating it, but I mean, he played 55 career games after the '88 playoffs. Also, he appeared in only 8 playoff games, picking up 1 assist in the first game, a loss. He wasn't really a factor for Boston.

It's true that Mike Ramsey was old by 1995.

I'm not saying Bourque had it easy. But it's being framed like that Bruins defense wasn't good and Detroit's was amazing at the time. I don't think that's necessarily a good or fair framing of it...

I would actually say that it is quite good and fair. Bourque's defense teammates -- not so much, maybe, in the very early 80s, but from the mid-80s through his Boston tenure (for about 15 years) -- were very middling.

I could imagine a club with Detroit's 1995-1997 defence-core, without Lidstrom, still competing for 1st place. I could not imagine this with any Boston club without Bourque between 1984-85 and 1999.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I like how it's "corpse of Reed Larson" at age 31 with a half point per game season. But it's not corpse of 37 year old Slava Fetisov or corpse of Mike Ramsey - who wasn't even a regular in the lineup any longer at this point.

I'm not saying Bourque had it easy. But it's being framed like that Bruins defense wasn't good and Detroit's was amazing at the time. I don't think that's necessarily a good or fair framing of it...

Yeah, early Bourque had a good partner catching the tail end of Park's prime, but during his peak the Bruins defense was average. Kluzak could've been a stud if he didnt have his injury issues and Wesley was a good Top 4 guy. But beyond that a Top 4 with a rotation of Milbury/Sweeney/Larson/Thelven/Hawgood is middle of the pack across the league. I do agree that the gap in the D groups gets overstated because the big names in Detroit (Coffey, Chelios, Murphy), while still good, were removed from their peak years.

For me the biggest "advantage" in terms of help that Lidstrom had was at forward. Notably playing with 3 of the top 2 way guys of his era in 2x Selke and Hart winning Fedorov, Selke winning Yzerman and arguably best of the bunch Datsyuk. Getting to have an unbroken chain, with some overlap, of Fedorov-Yzerman-Datsyuk is pretty unreal.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yeah, early Bourque had a good partner catching the tail end of Park's prime, but during his peak the Bruins defense was average. Kluzak could've been a stud if he didnt have his injury issues and Wesley was a good Top 4 guy. But beyond that a Top 4 with a rotation of Milbury/Sweeney/Larson/Thelven/Hawgood is middle of the pack across the league. I do agree that the gap in the D groups gets overstated because the big names in Detroit (Coffey, Chelios, Murphy), while still good, were removed from their peak years.

For me the biggest "advantage" in terms of help that Lidstrom had was at forward. Notably playing with 3 of the top 2 way guys of his era in 2x Selke and Hart winning Fedorov, Selke winning Yzerman and arguably best of the bunch Datsyuk. Getting to have an unbroken chain, with some overlap, of Fedorov-Yzerman-Datsyuk is pretty unreal.

Zetterberg doesn't even get a mention?