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

[Steve Kournianos]

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

The funny thing is that if you look at Lidstrom's seven less-than-stellar postseasons, five were in offensive or post-lockout eras.

A peak Lidstrom never really got to enjoy the halcyon days of goal scoring. By the time he established himself as a force the league changed.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

AGAIN, I never said that the raw data should be taken verbatim. I'm simply saying that there is no simple mathematical formula that's going to magically set it all right.
They are too many unaccounted for factors involved.

Furthermore...No magical stats manipulation/adjustment is going to make me or anyone else with hockey knowledge/experience and a lick of common sense that watched both of these players' full careers come away thinking Lidstrom was Bourque's equal offensively overall. He wasn't, period!!!
It's absolutely no different than when you have watched both players and you just know that Lidstrom was the better player one on one defensively and was more fluid positionally.

And seriously, that's all you're going to respond to from my post? Ignore the rest of it? {Mod}

 

[Merya]

Lidström edges out Bourque for me by a tiny margin. because national team success (especially Olympics) is so very very important in Nordic countries. (and bcs Canada is always the number 1, 2 and three favourite to win by the standards of this board... cake, eat, have, etc. )

 

[Steve Kournianos]

From a points production standpoint among peers, they are dead even. Literally.

Playoff scoring finishes among defensemen:

Bourque:

1980 -- 5th
1981 -- T-58th (outscored by O'Connell and Park)
1982 -- T-9th (or 12th if you use Ross criteria)
1983 -- 1st
1984 -- T-40th
1985 -- T-39th (outscored by O'Connell)
1986 -- T-76th (No Points -- outscored by Kluzak and Larson)
1987 -- T-46th
1988 -- 1st
1989 -- T-26th
1990 -- 1st
1991 -- 1st
1992 -- 6th
1993 -- T-70th
1994 -- T-8th
1995 -- T-37th
1996 -- T-12th
1998 -- T-16th
1999 -- 8th
2000 -- T-3rd
2001 -- T-3rd

Lidstrom:

1992 -- T-37th
1993 -- T-70th
1995 -- 2nd
1996 -- T-4th
1997 -- 10th
1998 -- 1st
1999 -- 7th
2000 -- T-15th
2001 -- T-7th
2002 -- 1st
2003 -- T-42nd
2004 -- 7th
2006 -- T-45th
2007 -- 1st
2008 -- 4th
2009 -- 1st
2010 -- 10th
2011 -- 11th
2012 -- T-82nd (no points)

Lidstrom:

4 x Top finishes
7 x Top-5 finishes
12 x Top-10 finishes
13 x Top-15 finishes

Bourque:

4 x Top finishes
7x Top-5 finishes
11 x Top-10 finishes
12 x Top-15 finishes

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Postseason +/- and placement among teammates (don't have team +/- stats for 1980-1983):

Bourque:

1984 -- T-15th (-3)
1985 -- T-6th (+1)
1986 -- T-6th (E)
1987 -- T-5th (-1)
1988 -- 1st (+16)
1989 -- T-14th (-1)
1990 -- 1st (+11)
1991 -- T-22nd (-4)
1992 -- T-23rd (-10)
1993 -- T-13th (-2)
1994 -- 21st (-5)
1995 -- 18th (-5)
1996 -- 19th (-4)
1998 -- 11th (-2)
1999 -- T-7th (+1)
2000 -- T-5th (+4)
2001 -- 2nd (+9)


Lidstrom:

1992 -- 24th (-5)
1993 -- T-15th (-2)
1994 -- T-3rd (+4)
1995 -- T-5th (+4)
1996 -- T-7th (+2)
1997 -- 2nd (+12)
1998 -- T-1st (+12)
1999 -- T-8th (E)
2000 -- 21st (-6)
2001 -- T-4th (+1)
2002 -- T-5th (+6)
2003 -- T-5th (-1)
2004 -- T-1st (+4)
2006 -- T-18th (-4)
2007 -- T-13th (E)
2008 -- T-6th (+8)
2009 -- T-3rd (+11)
2010 -- 3rd (+7)
2011 -- 2nd (+8)
2012 -- T-3rd (E)

 

[Steve Kournianos]

AGAIN, I never said that the raw data should be taken verbatim. I'm simply saying that there is no simple mathematical formula that's going to magically set it all right.
They are too many unaccounted for factors involved.

Furthermore...No magical stats manipulation/adjustment is going to make me or anyone else with hockey knowledge/experience and a lick of common sense that watched both of these players' full careers come away thinking Lidstrom was Bourque's equal offensively overall. He wasn't, period!!!
It's absolutely no different than when you have watched both players and you just know that Lidstrom was the better player one on one defensively and was more fluid positionally.

And seriously, that's all you're going to respond to from my post? Ignore the rest of it? {Mod}

Well you are in a very small camp who think:

1) Bourque was flawless in the postseason
2) The Bruins were not a good team at all between 1980-1999
3) Bourque was never responsible for critical goals against or entire series where he was statistically poor
4) Bourque neutralized opposing top forwards in the postseason
5) Bourque "should have" won several awards and championships that he didn't.


What do you want me to respond to exactly? The 10-teammate thing?

1983 Bruins:

1st in wins (50), points (110), 2nd in Diff (+99), GA (228), 5th in GF (327)
13th in PP (22.8) and 7th in PK (80.7)

100-point scorers: 1
90+: 2
70+: 5
60+: 7
50+: 8
40+: 9

40+ goals: 2
30+ goals: 3
20+ goals: 8

Top-20 scorers:

Goals:
Middeton (8th)
Pedersen (12th)

Points:
Pedersen (6th)
Middleton (13th)

Defensemen Scoring:
Bourque (5th)
O'Connell (16th)
Park (38th)


Postseason Awards:

Hart Finalists: 1 (Peeters)
Selke: Middleton 9th, Pedersen T-11, Krushelnyski T-11th
Norris: Bourque 3rd, O'Connell T-8th, Milbury 10th
Vezina: Peeters 1st

Bourque
Middleton
Pedersen
Park
McNabb
Crowder
O'Connell
Krushelnyski
Crig Mactavish
Pete Peeters

2008 Red Wings:

1st in wins (54-49 ROW), points (112), Diff (+73), GA (184)
3rd in GF (257), PP (20.7), 8th in PK (84.0)

100-point scorers: 0
90+: 2
70+: 3
60+: 3
50+: 4
40+: 8

40+ goals: 1
30+ goals: 2
20+ goals: 5

Top-20 scorers:

Goals:
Zetterberg (5th)


Points:
Datsyuk (4th)
Zettererg (6th)

Defensemen Scoring:
Lidstrom (1st)
Rafalski (8th)
Kronwall (29th)


Hart Finalists: 0 (Lidstrom-4, Datsyuk-9, Zetterberg-10)
Selke: Datsyuk 1st, Zetterberg , Pedersen T-11, Krushelnyski T-11th
Norris: Lidstrom 1st, Rafalski 9th, Cleary 15th
Vezina: Osgood 11th

Lidstrom
Zetterberg
Datsyuk
Rafalski
Kronwall
Franzen
Cleary
Hudler
Samuelsson
Osgood

 

[Killion]

Notice

Ok guys, this is getting nuts, wall's of statistics etc. While we admire the passion of the arguments perhaps you can agree to paint Bourque as a cubist, Picasso, somewhat more roughly hewn; Lidstrom as the softer touch, an impressionist after the style of a Monet. Both excellent, matter of subjectivity for many & most as to which of the two styles they prefer and just leave it at that.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Ok guys, this is getting nuts, wall's of statistics etc. While we admire the passion of the arguments perhaps you can agree to paint Bourque as a cubist, Picasso, somewhat more roughly hewn; Lidstrom as the softer touch, an impressionist after the style of a Monet. Both excellent, matter of subjectivity for many & most as to which of the two styles they prefer and just leave it at that.

It boils down to this:

Bourque was better in the regular season but not by a lot.

Lidstrom was better in the postseason but not by a lot.

 

[Budddy]

It boils down to this:

Bourque was better in the regular season but not by a lot.

Lidstrom was better in the postseason but not by a lot.

Bourque was better in the regular season quite comfortably...not really that close...offensive numbers were so much superior and played a more physical game

Players were similar in post season...goes either way...

Bourque was better.....

 

[The Panther]

Well you are in a very small camp who think:

1) Bourque was flawless in the postseason
2) The Bruins were not a good team at all between 1980-1999
3) Bourque was never responsible for critical goals against or entire series where he was statistically poor

He didn't say any of these things.

You look very weak making things up to put in the mouth of your opponent. (weaker still with the endless cherry-picking of statistics)


This thread has become tiresome.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well you are in a very small camp who think:

1) Bourque was flawless in the postseason

Was never said.
You couldn't even say two of the greatest PO performers in history in Richard and Roy were flawess.
Neither Bourque nor Lidstrom were flawless. The difference was that when Lidstrom wasn't, he had a team of Hall of Famers to rely on.

2) The Bruins were not a good team at all between 1980-1999

Never said this either.
What has been said at length, is that the Bruins 1980-1999 don't hold a candle to the Wings 1992-2013.
What is this? Pants off Dance off? Sure seems like it the way you have been two-stepping around this one for this entire thread heh

3) Bourque was never responsible for critical goals against or entire series where he was statistically poor

Again, was never said and for the record I would have no issue with citing Bourque with every Bruins failure but that in turn would also mean that he should get cited with every Bruins triumph too.
He WAS the Bruins afterall.

BUT you won't give the later so I'm not giving the former.

4) Bourque neutralized opposing top forwards in the postseason

Are you saying he didn't?
Are you saying that Lidstrom neutralized every top forward he faced in the postseason? Looks like he only won 4 Cups in 20 years so that answer should speak for itself. The difference however is the help each player had doing so and we all know which player had a hell of a lot more help, don't we.

5) Bourque "should have" won several awards and championships that he didn't.

Not when during his first 14 years in the League that unless you played for the Isles, Oilers, Habs, Flames or Pens you didn't have a hope in hell of hoisting the Cup and unless you played for the Rags, Devils, Avs, Stars or Wings in his last 8, you had no chance then either.
In Bourque's entire 22 year career, only 10 teams won the Cup.
During Lidstrom's time in the League, 13 teams won the Cup in just 20 seasons.

What do you want me to respond to exactly? The 10-teammate thing?

1983 Bruins:

1st in wins (50), points (110), 2nd in Diff (+99), GA (228), 5th in GF (327)
13th in PP (22.8) and 7th in PK (80.7)

100-point scorers: 1
90+: 2
70+: 5
60+: 7
50+: 8
40+: 9

40+ goals: 2
30+ goals: 3
20+ goals: 8

Top-20 scorers:

Goals:
Middeton (8th)
Pedersen (12th)

Points:
Pedersen (6th)
Middleton (13th)

Defensemen Scoring:
Bourque (5th)
O'Connell (16th)
Park (38th)


Postseason Awards:

Hart Finalists: 1 (Peeters)
Selke: Middleton 9th, Pedersen T-11, Krushelnyski T-11th
Norris: Bourque 3rd, O'Connell T-8th, Milbury 10th
Vezina: Peeters 1st

Bourque
Middleton
Pedersen
Park
McNabb
Crowder
O'Connell
Krushelnyski
Crig Mactavish
Pete Peeters

2008 Red Wings:

1st in wins (54-49 ROW), points (112), Diff (+73), GA (184)
3rd in GF (257), PP (20.7), 8th in PK (84.0)

100-point scorers: 0
90+: 2
70+: 3
60+: 3
50+: 4
40+: 8

40+ goals: 1
30+ goals: 2
20+ goals: 5

Top-20 scorers:

Goals:
Zetterberg (5th)


Points:
Datsyuk (4th)
Zettererg (6th)

Defensemen Scoring:
Lidstrom (1st)
Rafalski (8th)
Kronwall (29th)


Hart Finalists: 0 (Lidstrom-4, Datsyuk-9, Zetterberg-10)
Selke: Datsyuk 1st, Zetterberg , Pedersen T-11, Krushelnyski T-11th
Norris: Lidstrom 1st, Rafalski 9th, Cleary 15th
Vezina: Osgood 11th

Lidstrom
Zetterberg
Datsyuk
Rafalski
Kronwall
Franzen
Cleary
Hudler
Samuelsson
Osgood

Nice try at another deflection here but all I asked was for you to provide Bourque's best team and I even amended it to providing Bourque's best team's worth of players from his entire career in Boston and I would better it with 10 individual Detroit teams from Lidstrom's time there.

But no, you just can't stop the cherrypicking can you? You attempt to provide one of Bourque's stronger teams vs and even try to provide one of Lidstrom's weaker ones for me. Well, that was awful nice of you but I think I can provide my own Detroit teams thanks.
MOD

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Was never said.
You couldn't even say two of the greatest PO performers in history in Richard and Roy were flawess.
Neither Bourque nor Lidstrom were flawless. The difference was that when Lidstrom wasn't, he had a team of Hall of Famers to rely on.



Never said this either.
What has been said at length, is that the Bruins 1980-1999 don't hold a candle to the Wings 1992-2013.
What is this? Pants off Dance off? Sure seems like it the way you have been two-stepping around this one for this entire thread heh



Again, was never said and for the record I would have no issue with citing Bourque with every Bruins failure but that in turn would also mean that he should get cited with every Bruins triumph too.
He WAS the Bruins afterall.

BUT you won't give the later so I'm not giving the former.



Are you saying he didn't?
Are you saying that Lidstrom neutralized every top forward he faced in the postseason? Looks like he only won 4 Cups in 20 years so that answer should speak for itself. The difference however is the help each player had doing so and we all know which player had a hell of a lot more help, don't we.



Not when during his first 14 years in the League that unless you played for the Isles, Oilers, Habs, Flames or Pens you didn't have a hope in hell of hoisting the Cup and unless you played for the Rags, Devils, Avs, Stars or Wings in his last 8, you had no chance then either.
In Bourque's entire 22 year career, only 10 teams won the Cup.
During Lidstrom's time in the League, 13 teams won the Cup in just 20 seasons.



Nice try at another deflection here but all I asked was for you to provide Bourque's best team and I even amended it to providing Bourque's best team's worth of players from his entire career in Boston and I would better it with 10 individual Detroit teams from Lidstrom's time there.

But no, you just can't stop the cherrypicking can you? You attempt to provide one of Bourque's stronger teams vs and even try to provide one of Lidstrom's weaker ones for me. Well, that was awful nice of you but I think I can provide my own Detroit teams thanks.
MOD

I agree with what you said about citing Bourque with every Bruin postseason failure.

That's been my stance the whole time.

People have tried to paint Bourque as "superhuman" and "titanic" during his entire body of work but I only saw it a few times.

I just wanted to show a different side and it's open for interpretation. Mission accomplished on my end.

If you have issues with what I'm presenting, be my guest. I don't agree that 14 seasons of stats are cherrypicked.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Bourque was better in the regular season quite comfortably...not really that close...offensive numbers were so much superior and played a more physical game

Players were similar in post season...goes either way...

Bourque was better.....

Playing a more physical game doesn't trump playing a more disciplined game.

It evens out. Lidstrom did things Bourque wasn't as good at and vice versa.

I overlook the Norris advantage because of the Hart nods. The points side with Bourque, but off hand I think Lidstrom almost as many top-5 dman scoring finishes. Or slightly below.

Again, saying "...it's not close" is another way of saying "I refuse to consider anything but points"

 

[Steve Kournianos]

He didn't say any of these things.

You look very weak making things up to put in the mouth of your opponent. (weaker still with the endless cherry-picking of statistics)


This thread has become tiresome.

I never said anybody specifically said that. Several have who I didn't name.

Guilty conscience I guess.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I never said anybody specifically said that. Several have who I didn't name.

Guilty conscience I guess.

Actually...you did exactly that when you quoted my post and said "You" in the following post:

Well you are in a very small camp who think:

1) Bourque was flawless in the postseason
2) The Bruins were not a good team at all between 1980-1999
3) Bourque was never responsible for critical goals against or entire series where he was statistically poor
4) Bourque neutralized opposing top forwards in the postseason
5) Bourque "should have" won several awards and championships that he didn't.

I took care of it though so no worries.

That said, do you know what the worst part about arguing with you has been?
That, unlike some of the others I debate with on a regular basis around here that seem to lack a full understanding of the game, I never got that impression from you.
At least with them, some of their more...for lack of a better word, silly posts comes out of ignorance or simply being too passionate over a certain player or Nationality.
Not you though, I sense a good understanding of the game and decent hockey knowledge, yet you posted what and how you posted regardless.
You ignored counter point after counter point and trudged on anyway, on purpose, knowing full well that a large majority of your argument had already been buried.
Rather disingenuous in my opinion

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Actually...you did exactly that when you quoted my post and said "You" in the following post:



I took care of it though so no worries.

That said, do you know what the worst part about arguing with you has been?
That, unlike some of the others I debate with on a regular basis around here that seem to lack a full understanding of the game, I never got that impression from you.
At least with them, some of their more...for lack of a better word, silly posts comes out of ignorance or simply being too passionate over a certain player or Nationality.
Not you though, I sense a good understanding of the game and decent hockey knowledge, yet you posted what and how you posted regardless.
You ignored counter point after counter point and trudged on anyway, on purpose, knowing full well that a large majority of your argument had already been buried.
Rather disingenuous in my opinion

Your opinion.

Likewise.

 

[Budddy]

Playing a more physical game doesn't trump playing a more disciplined game.

It evens out. Lidstrom did things Bourque wasn't as good at and vice versa.

I overlook the Norris advantage because of the Hart nods. The points side with Bourque, but off hand I think Lidstrom almost as many top-5 dman scoring finishes. Or slightly below.

Again, saying "...it's not close" is another way of saying "I refuse to consider anything but points"

I didn't say "refuse to consider anything but points" ...You said that but you seem to have this habit of twisting words as shown before...I also added the physical part which Lidstrom wasn't nearly as strong and nor do I think Lidstrom clearly played a more disciplined game....

The Norris advantage was due to weaker competition.....

Agree to disagree...is fine...

 

[Get North]

Ray Bourque. Better in goals, goals per game, assists, assists per game, points, points per game. 2 Canada Cups, just 2 less Norris Trophys than Lidstrom. You can't be a great defenceman without defence and Bourque wasn't 1 dimensional.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look at their PIM totals - Lidstrom's game was clearly more disciplined.

 

[Barnum]

Look at their PIM totals - Lindstrom's game was clearly more disciplined.

Bourque did play 12 years in a rougher time for the NHL. I guess Lidstrom saw the tail end of those times but he was very soft for the first bunch of his years.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Ray Bourque. Better in goals, goals per game, assists, assists per game, points, points per game. 2 Canada Cups, just 2 less Norris Trophys than Lidstrom. You can't be a great defenceman without defence and Bourque wasn't 1 dimensional.

Lidstrom was not one-dimensional.

 

[Wrath]

Lidstrom was not one-dimensional.

He wasn't implying that Lidstrom was one-dimensional (at least... I don't think he was )


I think he was saying that Bourque wasn't just an offensive defenseman, despite having great offensive skills and gaudy offensive stats Bourque was still considered among the best and in some years the best defensive defenseman (via coaches polls IIRC).


In other words I think he was saying that Bourque's not a Coffey or Housley type defenseman, even though his offensive numbers are quite impressive.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

He wasn't implying that Lidstrom was one-dimensional (at least... I don't think he was )


I think he was saying that Bourque wasn't just an offensive defenseman, despite having great offensive skills and gaudy offensive stats Bourque was still considered among the best and in some years the best defensive defenseman (via coaches polls IIRC).


In other words I think he was saying that Bourque's not a Coffey or Housley type defenseman, even though his offensive numbers are quite impressive.

The post is saying why Ray Bourque is better than Lidstrom, then says "you can't be a great defenseman without defense" as if that is something Bourque had and Lidstrom didn't.

 

[Wrath]

The post is saying why Ray Bourque is better than Lidstrom, then says "you can't be a great defenseman without defense" as if that is something Bourque had and Lidstrom didn't.

I still think you're reading into his intention wrong:

Ray Bourque. Better in goals, goals per game, assists, assists per game, points, points per game. 2 Canada Cups, just 2 less Norris Trophys than Lidstrom.

This is his reasoning for why he considers Bourque better, his offense.

You can't be a great defenceman without defence and Bourque wasn't 1 dimensional.

This is him asserting (albeit without evidence) that Bourque was good defensively, i.e. not a 1 dimensional offensive defenseman.



I don't see where you're reading into him making a jab at Lidstrom.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I still think you're reading into his intention wrong:



This is his reasoning for why he considers Bourque better, his offense.



This is him asserting (albeit without evidence) that Bourque was good defensively, i.e. not a 1 dimensional offensive defenseman.



I don't see where you're reading into him making a jab at Lidstrom.

Why even make the last statement if it has nothing to do with why Bourque is better than Lidstrom? It seems pointless if that is the case.

The whole thing just seems poorly worded anyway.