RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens

[Fugu]

So what? Downplay it all you want to. It's still hands down and miles ahead of any team Bourque had in front of him in Boston!

You can downplay every Detroit team Lidstrom played on and prop up every Boston team Bourque played on and you will still be a mile apart at the end of the day heh.
Enough already even suggesting its close between then in teammates, support and opportunity.

There were years of greater separation, yes, but Lidstrom's stats held up for all the years. Consistency was his hallmark.

I'm not sure Bourque would have had the freedom to carry the puck up the ice and push the play on the Devils, and given those are things which I think he had a decisive edge over Lidstrom at doing, I think the situation would "less hamper" Lidstrom than Bourque.

These are of course very relative (not to mention subjective) calls though. We are talking about two guys who are rated top-5 in history by the HoH voting block. It's not like either one of them is ever going to be a bad, or even mediocre, option, no matter what situation you plunk them in.

Lidstrom played most of his career during the Wings puck possession era. He was an elite puck mover, and make no mistake that the Wings offense relied on a highly mobile defense, East-West play. He was the best they ever had at it as well.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Look, you are very good at manipulating and cherry picking data to back up your point while all but ignoring and attempting to downplay valid counter points.

But this complete crap you are trying to spout that the POs aren't completely different from the regular season is just assinine.

At some point all the stats and info you present (cherrypick) has to jive with the eye test and just good old fashioned common sense.

One of the oldest tactics in the book is to target the oppositions best/most important player and wear them down so their effectiveness is reduced the longer the series goes.
This is not something that done to anything close to the same level in the regular season. It doesn't provide much of an advantage in the single games played.
Bourque very, very unlike Lidstrom, was susceptible to these wear down tactics because he was so much more involved and counted upon (getting the puck out, defensively, offensively, handling the puck and generally controlling the play for the Bruins) to such a greater degree than Lidstrom was.
It was actually a disadvantage for anyone attempting to overload and isolate Lidstrom as Detroit had so many other dangerous players that would be left open if you tried.
That wasn't the case with Bourque, you could target him with little worry of being hurt by other players on the ice.

So seriously, gimme a break with this "things don't change in the POs" crap. Its not close to true and anyone with a lick of common sense with some hockey knowledge or experience knows it.

So no matter how many mirrors or how much smoke you bring about, in the end, Bourque was still better offensively overall and about even defensively with Lidstrom despite Bourque being much more vulnerable to isolation/wear down tactics.
Yes Bourque dropped off more than Lidstrom did from the regular season BUT Bourque was still above Lidstrom's actual level.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't know how I'm the one providing "smoke and mirrors" when I've provided stats, video and articles, yet you continue to hold on to lack of team support as the only justifiable reason for Bourque's drop in play while dismissing any evidence that he did struggle, while claiming Lidstrom's postseason consistency was a byproduct of 20 years worth of teammates and lesser responsibility.

One day you may realize how ridiculous that sounds.

And I also know how winning in the postseason is the most difficult thing for an athlete because there are added variables. My beef with Bourque is how he handled those variables, and I've provided plenty of evidence to show he did.

 

[The Panther]

Okay! This is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that Bourque's play dropped in the postseason, which seems to be the crux of the pro-Lidstrom defence.

If you go back in time to when they actually played, and suggested to NHL commentators, fans, and players that Bourque's play fell-off in the post-seasons, they would have laughed at you. I can only assume you are forming this conclusion based on some stats and not based on actually watching Bourque play.

By the way, the Bruins were generally (80s, early 90s) a solid defensive team. Bourque was not a run-and-gun defenseman like Coffey or Housley. He says today that his standard for himself was defensive excellence -- that's what he primarily cared about.

Also, what's with this idea of superior Lidstrom consistency? That's clearly bunk. Yes, Lidstrom was remarkably consistent, but Ray Bourque is, like, the most amazingly consistent athlete in hockey history.


(I'm right now remembering a Boston @ Calgary game in 1988 or 1989, when the Flames almost never lost at home. I remember it was a great match, very exciting. Bourque was at his best, all over the ice. As I recall, he scored the game-winner late in the third period. Just a sudden memory of a great game.)

 

[Big Phil]

Also, what's with this idea of superior Lidstrom consistency? That's clearly bunk. Yes, Lidstrom was remarkably consistent, but Ray Bourque is, like, the most amazingly consistent athlete in hockey history.

That's pretty much it as well. We bring up the 19 all-star selections for a reason. Bourque dropped off at the end of his career by Ray Bourque standards but not by elite standards. He was still a Norris threat until the end, and right in the beginning too. That's remarkable consistency and it is a level Lidstrom didn't have despite the fact he's pretty darn good in this situation too.

 

[Rhiessan71]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't know how I'm the one providing "smoke and mirrors" when I've provided stats, video and articles, yet you continue to hold on to lack of team support as the only justifiable reason for Bourque's drop in play while dismissing any evidence that he did struggle, while claiming Lidstrom's postseason consistency was a byproduct of 20 years worth of teammates and lesser responsibility.

One day you may realize how ridiculous that sounds.

And I also know how winning in the postseason is the most difficult thing for an athlete because there are added variables. My beef with Bourque is how he handled those variables, and I've provided plenty of evidence to show he did.

Naw dude, all you've done is cherry pick.
What if I hold Lidstrom to the same standard you're trying to hold Bourque to? You honestly think he stands up as well as you think under the same level of cherrypicking and scrutiny?

For example, how does Lidstrom hold up in his first trip to the Cup Finals?
Well lets see...
Gp-4 G-0 A-2(both on the PP) -6

Not very very flattering but unlike you, I'm going to present the context with it to make sure I'm not just cherrypicking without context.
Lets see how how he did relative to his teammates in that series.

Coffey Gp-4 G-1 A-1 -3
Konstantinov Gp-4 G-0 A-0 -1

Well that sure didn't help him out did it, oops.

Next, hmmm, I guess I could pick on just about any season in the early 90's but I won't cause that is too easy. How about I go with Lidstrom's Norris winning and highest scoring season ever, '06.

Gp-6 G-1 A-1 -4
Ouch! He went from 80 points in 80 games +21 to 2 points in 6 games and tied for the worst +/- on the entire team.

What next, 2000?
Sure...
Gp-9 G-2 A-4 -6
Once again, the worst +/- on the entire team and in the 5 games vs the Av's, he had 2 assists and was a -2.

Do I need to continue? Is this exercise in cherrypicking painting the right picture?

Do I need to dig up the articles from the Detroit press ripping him and Coffey for their PO failures?
C'mon.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Naw dude, all you've done is cherry pick.
What if I hold Lidstrom to the same standard you're trying to hold Bourque to? You honestly think he stands up as well as you think under the same level of cherrypicking and scrutiny?

For example, how does Lidstrom hold up in his first trip to the Cup Finals?
Well lets see...
Gp-4 G-0 A-2(both on the PP) -6

Not very very flattering but unlike you, I'm going to present the context with it to make sure I'm not just cherrypicking without context.
Lets see how how he did relative to his teammates in that series.

Coffey Gp-4 G-1 A-1 -3
Konstantinov Gp-4 G-0 A-0 -1

Well that sure didn't help him out did it, oops.

Next, hmmm, I guess I could pick on just about any season in the early 90's but I won't cause that is too easy. How about I go with Lidstrom's Norris winning and highest scoring season ever, '06.

Gp-6 G-1 A-1 -4
Ouch! He went from 80 points in 80 games +21 to 2 points in 6 games and tied for the worst +/- on the entire team.

What next, 2000?
Sure...
Gp-9 G-2 A-4 -6
Once again, the worst +/- on the entire team and in the 5 games vs the Av's, he had 2 assists and was a -2.

Do I need to continue? Is this exercise in cherrypicking painting the right picture?

Do I need to dig up the articles from the Detroit press ripping him and Coffey for their PO failures?
C'mon.

All you did is support the argument that despite several significant postseasons in which Lidstrom underachieved, his overall body of postseason work allowed him to finish his career with almost identical postseason-regular season comparisons.

Lidstrom's poor postseasons are outliers, just like Bourque's solid postseasons are.

If you take away Bourque's three or four best postseasons and Lidstrom's three or four best postseason's, that's where you will see the difference.

It's all about point of view. What holds more weight?

Playing well below standard for the majority of your postseasons and losing a lot on a good team, or playing slightly below standard and winning on an elite team.

I go with the former.

 

[Rhiessan71]

All you did is support the argument that despite several significant postseasons in which Lidstrom underachieved, his overall body of postseason work allowed him to finish his career with almost identical postseason-regular season comparisons.

Lidstrom's poor postseasons are outliers, just like Bourque's solid postseasons are.

If you take away Bourque's three or four best postseasons and Lidstrom's three or four best postseason's, that's where you will see the difference.

It's all about point of view. What holds more weight?

Playing well below standard for the majority of your postseasons and losing a lot on a good team, or playing slightly below standard and winning on an elite team.

I go with the former.

Except that doesn't jive with either the fact that Bourque is only 3 points behind Lidstrom despite playing 50 less games and it doesn't even jive with your very own post earlier detailing their scoring finishes each post season.

THE ACTUAL POINT though is that Lidstrom doesn't stand up any better to the absurd level of criticism you are bringing to bare on Bourque.

And you must know at this point that trying to dismiss or downplay what Bourque had to overcome to succeed compared to Lidstrom is futile and only serves to hurt your own credibility and portray a heavy bias.

As far as Lidstrom having sub-par PO's being an anomaly, I found 3 without even looking hard and I didn't even try to use any seasons at the beginning or at the end of his career.

You want more? Ok...
'96 vs Avs
Lidstrom GP-6 G-2 A-1 -6
Coffey GP-4 G-3 A-2 +2
Konstantinov GP-6 G-1 A-1 Even

Even more?
You want me to do '03 or '04 or '99?

Anomaly or outlier eh? Not so much I'm afraid.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

16+ Favorite
Lidstrom: 18-5
Bourque: 8-2
6-15 Favorite
Lidstrom: 8-5
Bourque: 7-6
5-5
Lidstrom: 2-6
Bourque: 4-7
6-15 Underdog
Lidstrom: 3-1
Bourque: 2-3
16+ Underdog
Lidstrom: 0-0
Bourque: 0-1

Thanks for taking the time to compile that information.

What stands out is how similar their results are when they're heavy favourites (Lidstrom's teams won 78.3% of those series, Bourque's teams won 80.0%).

When the teams are either light favourites or roughly even (based on the definitions we're using), it's again very similar (Lidstrom's teams won 47.6% of such series, Bourque's teams won 45.8%). Bourque`s teams a bit better when in a close series, Lidstrom`s teams a bit better when light favourites.

Lidstrom's teams appeared to do better when they're underdogs (3-1 compared to 2-4). We`re dealing with small sample sizes here, of course, but if there`s a legitimate argument against Bourque than perhaps this is it.

Overall, I don't think this supports the notion that Bourque's team underachieved in the playoffs. The first two categories above suggest that their teams generally performed quite similarly when they were in comparable situations. What really stands out is how often their teams were heavy favourites (48% of the time for Lidstrom`s, 25% for Bourque`s) or heavy & modest favourites (75% of the time for Lidstrom`s teams, 58% for Bourque`s). It seems like much of the different between the two teams` playoff results is a result of the difference in their regular season records.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Except that doesn't jive with either the fact that Bourque is only 3 points behind Lidstrom despite playing 50 less games and it doesn't even jive with your very own post earlier detailing their scoring finishes each post season.

High Scoring finishes on winning teams trumps high scoring finishes on losing teams.

And you continue to ignore eras for the benefit of your argument, yet this board to a man considers eras when comparing players.

You ignored the most important part of the data:

In 14 combined postseasons (92 games) of two rounds or fewer, Bourque scored almost 30 pct lower than his career regular season PPG and was a -21.

In Lidstrom's 12 combined postseasons (100 games) of two rounds or fewer, Lidstrom scored exactly 10 pct lower than his career regular season PPG and was a +6

27pct drop in production over 14 postseasons.

That is massive in comparison to Lidstrom's 10pct drop.

The +/- is even worse if you asked me. Keep in mind that's not including his -10 in just 12 playoff games in 1992.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Again, Bourque had a higher unadjusted PPG in the postseason but his top four offensive postseasons (really, his only four) were in a highly offensive-minded era.

Lidstrom had dominant postseasons where he was a still leading in playoff scoring but at a lower clip (due to DPE etc)

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Maybe a new poll is needed:

Who was a better playoff performer: Bourque or Lidstrom.

It all goes back to why I voted for Lidstrom in this poll.

Even if Lidstrom has a slight edge, it's still an edge.

Outside of unadjusted PPG, what advantages would Bourque have over Lidstrom?

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe a new poll is needed:

Who was a better playoff performer: Bourque or Lidstrom.

It all goes back to why I voted for Lidstrom in this poll.

Even if Lidstrom has a slight edge, it's still an edge.

Outside of unadjusted PPG, what advantages would Bourque have over Lidstrom?

He might have the edge in playoff portfolio although, like defensive play, it isn't by much. So you can do a poll on that, but if you look at the whole package I would take pretty much every other aspect of the game in favour of Bourque. Offensively, passing, shooting, controlling the pace of the game, physical play, more important to the success of his teams........etc. To me there is no doubt, on the ice vs. his peers Bourque was the better player, the higher peak. He's a guy who was better for longer and his highs were higher. He did this with less help and still kept the Bruins a contender for about 15 years. Not bad.

So yeah, you can find an edge with Lidstrom here and there, but overall it's Bourque.

 

[Rhiessan71]

High Scoring finishes on winning teams trumps high scoring finishes on losing teams.

And you continue to ignore eras for the benefit of your argument, yet this board to a man considers eras when comparing players.

You ignored the most important part of the data:

In 14 combined postseasons (92 games) of two rounds or fewer, Bourque scored almost 30 pct lower than his career regular season PPG and was a -21.

In Lidstrom's 12 combined postseasons (100 games) of two rounds or fewer, Lidstrom scored exactly 10 pct lower than his career regular season PPG and was a +6

27pct drop in production over 14 postseasons.

That is massive in comparison to Lidstrom's 10pct drop.

The +/- is even worse if you asked me. Keep in mind that's not including his -10 in just 12 playoff games in 1992.

And again dude, +/- means nothing without context. Bourque was -29 over those games compared to what for his teammates. Same for Lidstrom's +6 compared to his mates.

And since you seemed to have a little trouble protraying the correct value's and percentages earlier in the thread, I decided to check your work this time...

2 rounds or fewer

Lidstrom GP-101 Pts-63 PpG-0.62 +6
Bourque GP-104 Pts-75 PpG-0.72 -29

So yep, looks like Lidstrom had less of a drop off when only playing 2 rounds or fewer.
Lidstrom only a 15% drop off
Bourque with a 27% drop off

But what a minute!

There's the other side of this argument though.
Lets see how they did when playing 3 or more rounds in a season...

Lidstrom GP-162 Pts-120 PpG-0.74 +55
Bourque GP-110 Pts-105 PpG-0.95 +56

Almost no drop off for either player and Bourque is quite easily the better player by quite a margin by a whopping 28%.

Are you still so sure a new poll would go the way you think heh

See, that's the problem when you cherrypick the worst of it, it mean everything left over will be that much higher

 

[Fred Taylor]

Overall you have to go with Bourque. He was better offensively than Lidstrom by a good margin, way better physically, almost as good defensively, and has better longevity, which is really something considering Lidstrom's longevity is amazing as well. I really don't think there's much of a case for Lidstrom over Bourque.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

And again dude, +/- means nothing without context. Bourque was -21 over those games compared to what for his teammates. Same for Lidstrom's +6 compared to his mates.

And since you seemed to have a little trouble protraying the correct value's and percentages earlier in the thread, I decided to check your work this time...

2 rounds or fewer

Lidstrom GP-101 Pts-63 PpG-0.62 +6
Bourque GP-104 Pts-75 PpG-0.72 -29

So yep, looks like Lidstrom had less of a drop off when only playing 2 rounds or fewer.
Lidstrom only a 15% drop off
Bourque with a 27% drop off

But what a minute!

There's the other side of this argument though.
Lets see how they did when playing 3 or more rounds in a season...

Lidstrom GP-162 Pts-120 PpG-0.74 +55
Bourque GP-110 Pts-105 PpG-0.95 +56

Almost no drop off for either player and Bourque is quite easily the better player by quite a margin by a whopping 28%.

Are you still so sure a new poll would go the way you think heh

See, that's the problem when you cherrypick the worst of it, it mean everything left over will be that much higher

Read my follow up post.

Adjust the stats.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

He might have the edge in playoff portfolio although, like defensive play, it isn't by much. So you can do a poll on that, but if you look at the whole package I would take pretty much every other aspect of the game in favour of Bourque. Offensively, passing, shooting, controlling the pace of the game, physical play, more important to the success of his teams........etc. To me there is no doubt, on the ice vs. his peers Bourque was the better player, the higher peak. He's a guy who was better for longer and his highs were higher. He did this with less help and still kept the Bruins a contender for about 15 years. Not bad.

So yeah, you can find an edge with Lidstrom here and there, but overall it's Bourque.

If the playoffs never existed, I take Bourque 100 times out of 100.

Without question, actually.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Read my follow up post.

Adjust the stats.

Not a chance!
As I have expressed and proven in other threads, Adjusted Stats are horrible for projecting top tier players and suffer even more when trying to project regular season levels onto PO levels.
So yeah, that's a big fat NO!


BESIDES, your whole argument has been based on the difference between regular season and PO totals for each player anyway so there is no adjusting needed. The consistency going from regular season to playoffs is not adjustable, it is what it is.

Obviously, you want to attack that 28% better that I listed but I will guarantee you that even under the most favourable adjustment for Lidstrom, the very best you're going to get is around 15% and that's STILL 15% better soooo...

What are you going to do, cry foul now? With the ridiculous amount of cherry picking and stat manipulation you have carried out in this thread? Hahaha good luck with that.

I just took the other side of the stats you yourself presented and I presented them in exactly the same fashion that you did.
(Mod)
If it was ok for you to present those stats the way you did, then it's damned well ok for me to do the same with the remaining.

 

[Tam O Shanter]

1 Lidstrom - 4 Cups, 7 Norris, Conn Smythe, Olympic Gold
2 Bourque - 1 Cup, 5 Norris, Career Leader in G,A,Pts by a defenseman
3 Coffey - 4 Cups, 3 Norris


4 Stevens - 3 Cups, Conn Smythe

ditto.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Not a chance!
As I have expressed and proven in other threads, Adjusted Stats are horrible for projecting top tier players and suffer even more when trying to project regular season levels onto PO levels.
So yeah, that's a big fat NO!


BESIDES, your whole argument has been based on the difference between regular season and PO totals for each player anyway so there is no adjusting needed. The consistency going from regular season to playoffs is not adjustable, it is what it is.

Obviously, you want to attack that 28% better that I listed but I will guarantee you that even under the most favourable adjustment for Lidstrom, the very best you're going to get is around 15% and that's STILL 15% better soooo...

What are you going to do, cry foul now? With the ridiculous amount of cherry picking and stat manipulation you have carried out in this thread? Hahaha good luck with that.

I just took the other side of the stats you yourself presented and I presented them in exactly the same fashion that you did.
(Mod)
If it was ok for you to present those stats the way you did, then it's damned well ok for me to do the same with the remaining.

So you feel Bourque spending 17 of his 20+ seasons in the highest offensive era in history has no bearing on his stat totals?

Ok.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Bourque's adjusted PPG for the regular season is 0.88 pct (-10pct)

Lidstrom's adjusted PPG for the regular season is 0.77 pct (+04 pct)

Bourque's unadjusted playoff PPG is 0.84 pct.

Lidstrom's unadjusted playoff PPG is 0.70 pct

Overall, Bourque has a 14pct advantage on Lidstrom in playoff production, but if you use the adjustment criteria for the regular season (-10/+04), they come out even.

Now, I know you have to factor in quality of postseason competition and GF/GA in those postseasons, but clearly any single-digit difference would not be enough to offset what is known, which is Lidstrom's distinct advantage in postseason +/- and postseason hardware.

The teammate factor is debatable. As we've seen with the Blues, Sharks, pre-lockout Flyers, Keenan Blackhawks and Ovechkin Caps, having a loaded team - veteran or young - doesn't always translate to postseason success.

We will never know if the Wings would have won without Lidstrom. What we do know is that they won a lot with him as a cornerstone.

Would Bourque have won more if he was on a different team? If he was on a perrenial powerhouse team, he may have had a reduced role, less minutes, less scoring chances and less points -- ultimately, maybe less Norris trophies or all star nods.

I'm of the opinion that Boston was what made Bourque and vice versa. Altering his career trajectory to improve his postseason resume wouldn't guarantee he'd still be one of the all-time greats, just with more Cups and a Conn Smythe.

If his play in 2001 was any indication of what he could do on a stacked team, then you could say he would have been light years ahead of Lidstrom, given the chance.

But it didn't turn out that way. Can't change what's already happened. At least in my mind.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So you feel Bourque spending 17 of his 20+ seasons in the highest offensive era in history has no bearing on his stat totals?

Ok.

I never said that.
I SAID, that I will not accept adjusted stats verbatim in the first place when dealing with Elite/outlier players, let alone for using the regular season levels on the PO's.

I also said, that even if I did accept a very Lidstrom favourable adjustment for Bourque, it's still not going to be much better than 15% at best and AGAIN, that's still 15%.

As far as the other, you presented the regular season to PO drop offs sans adjustment to prove your point and I simply did the same with the rest so no whining please.
I played your game by your rules and now you're not happy with the results...three words...suck it up!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque's adjusted PPG for the regular season is 0.88 pct (-10pct)

Lidstrom's adjusted PPG for the regular season is 0.77 pct (+04 pct)

Bourque's unadjusted playoff PPG is 0.84 pct.

Lidstrom's unadjusted playoff PPG is 0.70 pct

Overall, Bourque has a 14pct advantage on Lidstrom in playoff production, but if you use the adjustment criteria for the regular season (-10/+04), they come out even.

Now, I know you have to factor in quality of postseason competition and GF/GA in those postseasons, but clearly any single-digit difference would not be enough to offset what is known, which is Lidstrom's distinct advantage in postseason +/- and postseason hardware.

First of all, you would need to actually show that PO scoring was the same as regular season scoring and it's not even close. Then you have Bourque coming out of and playing a lot of games out of the much more conservative Adams division in the East compared to the goal average raising Oiler led Smythe division in the West.
You also have Lidstrom playing many, many more games vs lower and much lower seeded teams compared to Bourque's Bruins.
On top of everything else, you also have to factor in that a full 10 of Lidstrom's seasons overlapped with Bourque's.

In short, some simple mathematical adjustment just aint gonna cut it worth a **** period.

The teammate factor is debatable. As we've seen with the Blues, Sharks, pre-lockout Flyers, Keenan Blackhawks and Ovechkin Caps, having a loaded team - veteran or young - doesn't always translate to postseason success.

Debatable my ass!
Then please, by all means take me up on my offer from earlier. You make up a team of the best players Bourque ever had in Boston over his entire career and I'll better it with 10 individual seasons of Lidstrom's Wings.
There is NOTHING debatable in this and stop pretending there is!

We will never know if the Wings would have won without Lidstrom. What we do know is that they won a lot with him as a cornerstone.

And lost a lot with him too considering the powerful rosters year in and year out for almost the entirety of Lidstrom's career.

Would Bourque have won more if he was on a different team? If he was on a perrenial powerhouse team, he may have had a reduced role, less minutes, less scoring chances and less points -- ultimately, maybe less Norris trophies or all star nods.

No one that watched Bourque would even come close to thinking this and when he finally did win with the Av's, his role was not reduced and played as many or more minutes than Lidstrom did in his freakin prime.

I'm of the opinion that Boston was what made Bourque and vice versa. Altering his career trajectory to improve his postseason resume wouldn't guarantee he'd still be one of the all-time greats, just with more Cups and a Conn Smythe.

If his play in 2001 was any indication of what he could do on a stacked team, then you could say he would have been light years ahead of Lidstrom, given the chance.

But it didn't turn out that way. Can't change what's already happened. At least in my mind.

That's rich, saying Bourque was in a "perfect storm".
That's a joke right? Compared to Lidstrom.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I never said that.
I SAID, that I will not accept adjusted stats verbatim in the first place when dealing with Elite/outlier players, let alone for using the regular season levels on the PO's.

I also said, that even if I did accept a very Lidstrom favourable adjustment for Bourque, it's still not going to be much better than 15% at best and AGAIN, that's still 15%.

As far as the other, you presented the regular season to PO drop offs sans adjustment to prove your point and I simply did the same with the rest so no whining please.
I played your game by your rules and now you're not happy with the results...three words...suck it up!

The results show one guy declined by a lot and lost a lot, while the other guy barely declined and won a lot.

You're just scared to adjust the stats because the overall PPG is the last thing you're trying to hold onto.

There isn't a single stat other than unadjusted playoff PPG you can use, so you simply discredit any alternative despite the academic hockey world realizing one era produced more offense and inflated stat totals than the next.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Adjusted stats are far from perfect, especially when using adjustments based on the league average to compare players who are far above the league average.

But they are far better than looking at raw point totals between a high scoring era and a low scoring one

 

[Steve Kournianos]

First of all, you would need to actually show that PO scoring was the same as regular season scoring and it's not even close. Then you have Bourque coming out of and playing a lot of games out of the much more conservative Adams division in the East compared to the goal average raising Oiler led Smythe division in the West.
You also have Lidstrom playing many, many more games vs lower and much lower seeded teams compared to Bourque's Bruins.
On top of everything else, you also have to factor in that a full 10 of Lidstrom's seasons overlapped with Bourque's.

In short, some simple mathematical adjustment just aint gonna cut it worth a **** period.



Debatable my ass!
Then please, by all means take me up on my offer from earlier. You make up a team of the best players Bourque ever had in Boston over his entire career and I'll better it with 10 individual seasons of Lidstrom's Wings.
There is NOTHING debatable in this and stop pretending there is!



And lost a lot with him too considering the powerful rosters year in and year out for almost the entirety of Lidstrom's career.



No one that watched Bourque would even come close to thinking this and when he finally did win with the Av's, his role was not reduced and played as many or more minutes than Lidstrom did in his freakin prime.



That's rich, saying Bourque was in a "perfect storm".
That's a joke right? Compared to Lidstrom.

So you are denying it by making up excuses about the Divisions.

Anyway in 1983, in one of Bourque's best postseason's, the Bruins and their opponents averaged 7.4 goals a game.

In 1998, the Red Wings and their opponents averaged 5.4 goals a game.

In 1988, the Bruins and their opponents averaged 6.8 goals a game.

In 2002, the Red Wings and their opponents averaged 5.2 goals a game

1991 - 6.42

1997 - 4.80

I guess the Dead Puck Era didn't exist and had no impact on offensive stats.