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

[Steve Kournianos]

I think I'm fairly objective on this subject.
Maybe you could direct me/us to some full game videos (or long sequences) where one can notice Bourque at his best both offensively and defensively.
(I have the age but rarely got to watch NHL games as they took place. And in international tournaments, I think rather guys like Coffey, Kasatonov and Fetisov were better than Bourque. Even in the 1987 Canada Cup finals I think so.)

I think I made some fairly accurate posts during the last couple of days, trying to inspire more detached(?) reasoning, but instread it is as if this is a thread for polarization. I just wish the discussions could aim more at learning and finding common agreements instead of people writing about how stupid those not agreeing are.
(Sorry for potentially bad English.)

I also don't get the reasoning that Bourque had poor teammates. The defencemen weren't exactly top level, but the forwards were good. Wasn't Steve Kasper the guy that Gretzky at a time regarded as the best defensive forward in the league (I may mix him up)? Didn't guys like Neely and Courtnall provide plenty of goals/offense? Linseman scored lots of points too, while getting Selke votes. Janney seemed to be an offensive success basically from the beginning. And so on...

Is it so certain that being the by far best defenceman on a team is bad for your stats? If you guys think about how +/- works, the average of the forwards on the team, and the average of the defencemen on the team, is basically even. So if one defenceman is better than the others on the team, while the forwards are being more evenly skilled, the defenceman will stand out. (Again, +/- can be deceptive.) Is it so certain that being THE best offensive defenceman on the team, on which much of the team's offensive play will be based, will hurt ones point production? Isn't it just a lot of speculation regarding who was more favoured than the other?

I don't want to re-write what I wrote in my previous posts, but nobody so far seem to even consider that Bourque did NOT compete with all the best players (Kasatonov, Fetisov...), while Lidstrom did. Nobody seems to notice that Detroit weren't very competitive before Lidstrom entered the league, just to become the best team during a 20 year period. Lidstrom during that time won 7(!) Norris', some seasons lead the whole league in icetime, three times he had the best +/- of all defencemen. He was the best, what more could be asked of him in an era where the difference between the best players and the average-to-replacement players seems considerably less than when Bourque played in the 80s. (And there is probably a bias. Some people look at Bourque's numbers and think they look much better than Lidstrom, without putting things enough into context.)

If Bourque was such a super defenceman, he surely should have been able to win more Norris Trophies, but there usually was someone considered better than him.
And there surely should be videos of him online where he excells?

Bourque was outstanding. You'd need weeks if not months to comb through all the footage where he excelled.

Doughty reminds me of Bourque the way he approaches the position, and he's STILL far behind in terms of defensive play (too many brain farts).

Bourque was the best of his generation. The only reason why I rank him slightly behind Lidstrom is the postseason.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think I'm fairly objective on this subject.
Maybe you could direct me/us to some full game videos (or long sequences) where one can notice Bourque at his best both offensively and defensively.
(I have the age but rarely got to watch NHL games as they took place. And in international tournaments, I think rather guys like Coffey, Kasatonov and Fetisov were better than Bourque. Even in the 1987 Canada Cup finals I think so.)

I think I made some fairly accurate posts during the last couple of days, trying to inspire more detached(?) reasoning, but instread it is as if this is a thread for polarization. I just wish the discussions could aim more at learning and finding common agreements instead of people writing about how stupid those not agreeing are.
(Sorry for potentially bad English.)

I also don't get the reasoning that Bourque had poor teammates. The defencemen weren't exactly top level, but the forwards were good. Wasn't Steve Kasper the guy that Gretzky at a time regarded as the best defensive forward in the league (I may mix him up)? Didn't guys like Neely and Courtnall provide plenty of goals/offense? Linseman scored lots of points too, while getting Selke votes. Janney seemed to be an offensive success basically from the beginning. And so on...

Is it so certain that being the by far best defenceman on a team is bad for your stats? If you guys think about how +/- works, the average of the forwards on the team, and the average of the defencemen on the team, is basically even. So if one defenceman is better than the others on the team, while the forwards are being more evenly skilled, the defenceman will stand out. (Again, +/- can be deceptive.) Is it so certain that being THE best offensive defenceman on the team, on which much of the team's offensive play will be based, will hurt ones point production? Isn't it just a lot of speculation regarding who was more favoured than the other?

I don't want to re-write what I wrote in my previous posts, but nobody so far seem to even consider that Bourque did NOT compete with all the best players (Kasatonov, Fetisov...), while Lidstrom did. Nobody seems to notice that Detroit weren't very competitive before Lidstrom entered the league, just to become the best team during a 20 year period. Lidstrom during that time won 7(!) Norris', some seasons lead the whole league in icetime, three times he had the best +/- of all defencemen. He was the best, what more could be asked of him in an era where the difference between the best players and the average-to-replacement players seems considerably less than when Bourque played in the 80s. (And there is probably a bias. Some people look at Bourque's numbers and think they look much better than Lidstrom, without putting things enough into context.)

The European influx was in full swing by 92-93, or 93-94 at the very latest. Bourque won the 1993-94 Norris Trophy and has this All-Star record after the European influx:

Bourque was regularly a postseason All-Star after this time:

1992-93 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1993-94 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1994-95 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1995-96 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1998-99 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
2000-01 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

If Bourque was such a super defenceman, he surely should have been able to win more Norris Trophies, but there usually was someone considered better than him.
And there surely should be videos of him online where he excells?

The thing with competition is that Bourque had to compete against the strongest crop of American defensemen ever, while Lidstrom really didn't (except for a few seasons here and there). Between Chris Chelios and Brian Leetch, they won 5 Norrises during Bourque's prime. For 10 of 11 years between 1986-87 and 1996-97, one of those 3 won the Norris (Coffey won the other).

Nationality aside, for 13 straight years (1984-85 to 1996-97), either Bourque (5), Coffey (3), Chelios (3), or Leetch (2) won the Norris.

Plus I really don't think 2nd place in a given season is that much worse than finishing 1st, is it? Bourque was a 1st Team All-Star 13 times, which means that despite "only" winning 5 Norrises, he was considered top 2 13 times.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Funny how you're not mentioning names because they double up lol, or include Lidstrom LOL!

Datsyuk, Zetterberg. Rafalski. Lidstrom, Osgood

Excellent attempt. A simple microscope test ruins this line of argument though.
Those names that double up, in a Salary cap world, was one of the most stacked teams in the league compared to the rest.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg both pulled in between 7 and 15 writers votes nominating them for the Hart. Rafalski likewise pulled in over 10 votes for his placement.

I refrained from mentioning Osgood being 11th for the Vezina because getting a single vote for your placement does not hold much water.

But Dats and Zetterberg also pulled in the lions share of Selke votes. 43 and 22 first place votes respectively.

The team also had scoring depth beyond most other teams, with 8 players scoring over 40 points and 11 players scoring over 30 points.

The next closest team in the conference, the 108 point Sharks, had 4 players with over 40 points and 7 players with over 30 points. Even the Penguins, who met them in the finals, only had six 30 point scorers.

The Wings were excellent in both star power and depth compared to most teams in the Salary cap era.

I also love how you arbitrarily pick 1993 for the Bruins.

Vs

Oates, Neely, Bourque, Juneau, Sweeney, Poulin, Moog

The 1993 Bruins won 50+ games. And that was without a shootout. 2nd best record in the NHL.

Oates was 4th in Hart voting, 10th in Selke.

Oates picked up a single vote for the Selke, which put him in a 4 way tie with the others who picked up a single vote for the Selke. It holds no water.

Poulin was Selke runner up.

This I do not dispute. he earned it. It is still a far cry from having multiple superstar Selke Caliber top 5 scorers.

Juneau was Calder runner up

The calder is a pretty meaningless trophy at times. Ask Andrew Raycroft. Juneau was carried by Oates.

Moog was 5th in Vezina.

Moog picked up 3 secondary and tertiary votes like Osgood. But I agree he was a good goalie.

Sweeney was 13th in Dman AS voting.

Now you are being absurd, thinking a guy picking up a single throwaway vote from a writer matters.

Dan Cleary picked up 8 votes for the Selke trophy in 2008, including a first place vote and I did not bother to bring him up for the same reason I did not bother mentioning Osgood.

Neely was medically cleared in February and was in the postseason lineup all four games. He scored 50 goals the following season. Neely scored 15 goals in 22 games that season.

Neely was unable to play 2 games in a row without excruciating pain and was nearly incapable of backchecking anymore. He still had a nose for the net, but the greater part of his game was gone.

Neely/Oates/Bourque was a great Combo for the Bruins, but their depth was not there.

The wings had more 40 point scorers in 2008 than the Bruins did in 1993. Given how much easier it was to score in 1993, that alone should tell you something about depth.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think it's pretty funny (or sad) that the thread is about careers,
But all you hear is how miserable Bourque's teams were, how inept his coaches and GMs were, how broken and tired he was and how his defense partners were pylons.

Sounds to me like he probably didn't enjoy his own career.

Or we merely look at the Norris trophies Lidstrom did win and say "Would that have won when Coffey scored 121 and 138 points if you adjusted for era" and the answer is no. The same goes for many other years.

The problem is, evaluating a career does not equal merely counting a man's trophies and team trophies. How he did given his circumstances matters.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The European influx was in full swing by 92-93, or 93-94 at the very latest. Bourque won the 1993-94 Norris Trophy and has this All-Star record after the European influx:

Bourque was regularly a postseason All-Star after this time:

1992-93 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1993-94 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1994-95 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1995-96 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1998-99 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
2000-01 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)



The thing with competition is that Bourque had to compete against the strongest crop of American defensemen ever, while Lidstrom really didn't (except for a few seasons here and there). Between Chris Chelios and Brian Leetch, they won 5 Norrises during Bourque's prime. For 10 of 11 years between 1986-87 and 1996-97, one of those 3 won the Norris (Coffey won the other).

Nationality aside, for 13 straight years (1984-85 to 1996-97), either Bourque (5), Coffey (3), Chelios (3), or Leetch (2) won the Norris.

Plus I really don't think 2nd place in a given season is that much worse than finishing 1st, is it? Bourque was a 1st Team All-Star 13 times, which means that despite "only" winning 5 Norrises, he was considered top 2 13 times.

This is pretty much what I always say. Great post

 

[Big Phil]

And I never said Leetch was better than Bourque. I said Bourque never had a postseason like Leetch had in 1994.

Neither did Lidstrom, Chelios, Stevens, among others. Coffey had one similar, MacInnis had one similar although I give the nod to Leetch. Man, if you judge defensemen in the postseason based on whether or not they had Leetch's high point in 1994 you wouldn't have any left. By the way, as great as Leetch was in 1994, Bourque kills in in postseason play. Not even debatable.

Ok, I'll play along.

Bourque needed a strong supporting cast to significantly succeed in the postseason.

Lidstrom did not, proven in 2008 and 2009.

Alright, Bourque would have won the Conn Smythe had the Bruins won in 1988. Unless you think Lidstrom would have figured out a way to stop Gretzky during his most prolific postseason then I think we ought to give Bourque his due here. And by the way, no spinning will ever make Ken Linseman and a rookie Craig Janney better centers than Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Just saying, let's keep this in context. It is very hard for me to imagine seeing Lidstrom as well winning with the cast the Bruins had against several dynasty teams. In a case like this, judge them on their playoff portfolio, which Bourque still did very well considering everything. Bourque didn't have the clutch goals of Yzerman and Fedorov helping him out either. You have to take everything into account when talking about their postseasons. For example, Marcel Dionne should have gotten the Kings further a time or two than he did. Bourque isn't a Dionne. He's more like a Brad Park this way in the postseason (close but no cigar but hardly a fault of his own because he still produced).

Didn't Lidstrom beat Bourque in Norris voting every year after Lidstrom's hit his prime? Wasn't it like for five years?

I'd double check but I'm pretty sure.

After 1996, yes he did start beating him in Norris voting. Typical though, because it is expected that a defenseman entering his prime would get more votes than an 18 year vet on the decline.

 

[Big Phil]

Or we merely look at the Norris trophies Lidstrom did win and say "Would that have won when Coffey scored 121 and 138 points if you adjusted for era" and the answer is no. The same goes for many other years.

The problem is, evaluating a career does not equal merely counting a man's trophies and team trophies. How he did given his circumstances matters.

That's the thing. Maurice Richard and Jaromir Jagr have one Hart Trophy each. If we stopped there and didn't look further then they are similar to Joe Thornton and Martin St. Louis. But you look further at things. How close were they, did they have a lot of 2nd place finishes? Who did they lose to? How long were they this good?

All of this factors into my decision personally.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think it's pretty funny (or sad) that the thread is about careers,
But all you hear is how miserable Bourque's teams were, how inept his coaches and GMs were, how broken and tired he was and how his defense partners were pylons.

Sounds to me like he probably didn't enjoy his own career.

Again, sounds more like Bourque would have liked Lidstrom's team and teammates but not his career.


Either way, this post reeks of yet another "editorial observation" post in the hopes of distracting from the 2 or 3 different lines of debate you are still involved in that are not going very well.

Keep on spinning though, it's at least fun to watch.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Again, sounds more like Bourque would have liked Lidstrom's team and teammates but not his career.


Either way, this post reeks of yet another "editorial observation" post in the hopes of distracting from the 2 or 3 different lines of debate you are still involved in that are not going very well.

Keep on spinning though, it's at least fun to watch.

The Pens were a dynasty and you clock ice time by watching tv.

Real value added over here.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Excellent attempt. A simple microscope test ruins this line of argument though.
Those names that double up, in a Salary cap world, was one of the most stacked teams in the league compared to the rest.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg both pulled in between 7 and 15 writers votes nominating them for the Hart. Rafalski likewise pulled in over 10 votes for his placement.

I refrained from mentioning Osgood being 11th for the Vezina because getting a single vote for your placement does not hold much water.

But Dats and Zetterberg also pulled in the lions share of Selke votes. 43 and 22 first place votes respectively.

The team also had scoring depth beyond most other teams, with 8 players scoring over 40 points and 11 players scoring over 30 points.

The next closest team in the conference, the 108 point Sharks, had 4 players with over 40 points and 7 players with over 30 points. Even the Penguins, who met them in the finals, only had six 30 point scorers.

The Wings were excellent in both star power and depth compared to most teams in the Salary cap era.

I also love how you arbitrarily pick 1993 for the Bruins.


Oates picked up a single vote for the Selke, which put him in a 4 way tie with the others who picked up a single vote for the Selke. It holds no water.

This I do not dispute. he earned it. It is still a far cry from having multiple superstar Selke Caliber top 5 scorers.

The calder is a pretty meaningless trophy at times. Ask Andrew Raycroft. Juneau was carried by Oates.

Moog picked up 3 secondary and tertiary votes like Osgood. But I agree he was a good goalie.

Now you are being absurd, thinking a guy picking up a single throwaway vote from a writer matters.

Dan Cleary picked up 8 votes for the Selke trophy in 2008, including a first place vote and I did not bother to bring him up for the same reason I did not bother mentioning Osgood.


Neely was unable to play 2 games in a row without excruciating pain and was nearly incapable of backchecking anymore. He still had a nose for the net, but the greater part of his game was gone.

Neely/Oates/Bourque was a great Combo for the Bruins, but their depth was not there.

The wings had more 40 point scorers in 2008 than the Bruins did in 1993. Given how much easier it was to score in 1993, that alone should tell you something about depth.

The 1993 Bruins were swept in the 1st round by a team they were 23 points better than in the regular season.

The 2008 Wings won a Cup.

According to you, Bourque needed one more 40-point scorer to beat the Sabres in the first round.

Brilliant.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Or we merely look at the Norris trophies Lidstrom did win and say "Would that have won when Coffey scored 121 and 138 points if you adjusted for era" and the answer is no. The same goes for many other years.

The problem is, evaluating a career does not equal merely counting a man's trophies and team trophies. How he did given his circumstances matters.

Given his circumstances, Bourque personally underachieved in the postseason. If he personally overachieved, he'd have more postseason success.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Neither did Lidstrom, Chelios, Stevens, among others. Coffey had one similar, MacInnis had one similar although I give the nod to Leetch. Man, if you judge defensemen in the postseason based on whether or not they had Leetch's high point in 1994 you wouldn't have any left. By the way, as great as Leetch was in 1994, Bourque kills in in postseason play. Not even debatable.



Alright, Bourque would have won the Conn Smythe had the Bruins won in 1988. Unless you think Lidstrom would have figured out a way to stop Gretzky during his most prolific postseason then I think we ought to give Bourque his due here. And by the way, no spinning will ever make Ken Linseman and a rookie Craig Janney better centers than Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Just saying, let's keep this in context. It is very hard for me to imagine seeing Lidstrom as well winning with the cast the Bruins had against several dynasty teams. In a case like this, judge them on their playoff portfolio, which Bourque still did very well considering everything. Bourque didn't have the clutch goals of Yzerman and Fedorov helping him out either. You have to take everything into account when talking about their postseasons. For example, Marcel Dionne should have gotten the Kings further a time or two than he did. Bourque isn't a Dionne. He's more like a Brad Park this way in the postseason (close but no cigar but hardly a fault of his own because he still produced).



After 1996, yes he did start beating him in Norris voting. Typical though, because it is expected that a defenseman entering his prime would get more votes than an 18 year vet on the decline.

Woulda, could shoulda. Has no place in this discussion.

Glad you acknowledged Bourque began to decline in 1996.

From a postseason standpoint his decline started earlier. That is, before he demanded the trade to the Avs.

 

[Wrath]

The Pens were a dynasty and you clock ice time by watching tv.

Real value added over here.

Real ad hominem added over here.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Real ad hominem added over here.

Meh. I already stated my case. I'm still waiting for the statistical proof that Bourque was better defensively than Lidstrom was in the postseason.

{Mod}

 

[Rhiessan71]

Meh. I already stated my case. I'm still waiting for the statistical proof that Bourque was better defensively than Lidstrom was in the postseason.

Hahaha! Waiting for me to present statistical proof?
Where have you presented anything except that Bourque's offense dropped by more in the PO's than Lidstrom's has and that this is some how proof of something.
Well, I got news for ya bud...Bourque's offense did drop by 14%(not 17% as you stated earlier btw) compared to Lidstrom's 4% drop but guess what? Even at these reduced numbers, Bourque was still producing offensively at a 20% better clip than Lidstrom was.

So seriously, what was the point you were trying to make exactly because the only point anyone else sees from that is teams actively keyed on Bourque because almost everything ran through him. They didn't and couldn't key on Lidstrom because first off, he wasn't near as big of a threat offensively as Bourque was, especially at even strength and second, because Detroit simply had other players (that's plural as in multiple players btw) that were much bigger threats.

You stated no case. All you stated was your opinion backed up by cherry picked data and out of context stats.

{Mod}

What do you have now, like 4 posts in a row where you are trying to distract and confuse from Lidstrom's partners by bringing up Chelios and Leetch without going any where near Lidstrom's partners?
THAT was what was being compared after all, Bourque's partners vs Lidstrom's heh and this will be the second time I have called you out on it directly.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Regarding their defensive performance in the postseason:

From 1988 to 2001 (the only years I have data for), Bourque was on the ice for 147 even-strength goals against in 160 playoff games (I'm defining "even-strength" as I did before - total goals less powerplay goals). That's 0.92 ES goals against per game.

For Lidstrom (1992 to 2012 - entire career), he was on the ice for 172 ES goals against in 263 games. That's 0.65 ES goals against per game. Superficially, it would appear that Lidstrom was quite a bit better defensively in the playoffs.

During those years, Bourque's teams (two years Colorado, everything else Boston) allowed 351 ES goals against in 172 games (2.04 GPG).

Lidstrom's teams allowed 421 ES goals against in 265 games (1.59 GPG).

On a relative basis, Bourque was on the ice for 45% of his team's ES goals against and Lidstrom was on the ice for 41% of his team's ES goals against. (So Bourque was on the ice for about 10% more goals against, relative to the team average). I suspect that most of this is due to ice time (Bourque's ice time was higher by roughly 10%).

The bottom line is, even in the playoffs, relative to the context of their teams, their defensive performances were virtually even.

 

[Big Phil]

Woulda, could shoulda. Has no place in this discussion.

Glad you acknowledged Bourque began to decline in 1996.

From a postseason standpoint his decline started earlier. That is, before he demanded the trade to the Avs.

There are not woulda, shoulda or couldas in this discussion. It is what it is. The Bruins relied on Bourque because he was their best player by far. Throw in the combination that he didn't have the same supporting cast and you'll notice a lot more of a load he had to carry. Yet we penalize him when he takes the Bruins deep and doesn't win a Cup? It's nonsense. It is like blaming Hasek for not winning in Buffalo or doing more. If a guy was lousy in the postseason, that's one thing, but 180 points in the playoffs as a defenseman are far from lousy. And when he has years where he didn't carry that big load on his back deep like 1993, he deserves criticism?

Even the greats have playoff years where they couldn't make a difference. You know, like Lidstrom in some giant upsets in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Why don't I criticize him for that? Because I know better. I know he had some wonderful runs that he more than made up for. I do the same with Bourque. It's better than cherrypicking with things. That way you get more of the whole picture.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Regarding their defensive performance in the postseason:

From 1988 to 2001 (the only years I have data for), Bourque was on the ice for 147 even-strength goals against in 160 playoff games (I'm defining "even-strength" as I did before - total goals less powerplay goals). That's 0.92 ES goals against per game.

For Lidstrom (1992 to 2012 - entire career), he was on the ice for 172 ES goals against in 263 games. That's 0.65 ES goals against per game. Superficially, it would appear that Lidstrom was quite a bit better defensively in the playoffs.

During those years, Bourque's teams (two years Colorado, everything else Boston) allowed 351 ES goals against in 172 games (2.04 GPG).

Lidstrom's teams allowed 421 ES goals against in 265 games (1.59 GPG).

On a relative basis, Bourque was on the ice for 45% of his team's ES goals against and Lidstrom was on the ice for 41% of his team's ES goals against. (So Bourque was on the ice for about 10% more goals against, relative to the team average). I suspect that most of this is due to ice time (Bourque's ice time was higher by roughly 10%).

The bottom line is, even in the playoffs, relative to the context of their teams, their defensive performances were virtually even.

Thanks for doing this, but I can't agree with your conclusion here. In particular, I don't think it's any surprise that Detroit was better with Lidstrom off the ice than Boston was with Bourque off the ice. But I'm not sure how relevant that is as to how many goals were let in when each defenseman was on the ice. Assuming that both were primarily matched against the best opposition.

To put it another way - most of us wouldn't discredit Guy Lafleur's offensive production just because his team had fantastic secondary scoring when he wasn't on the ice. Why should Lidstrom's goal prevention be discredited just because the wings had great "secondary defenders?" It would be one thing if goaltending were the primary cause of the difference in ES goals allowed between Bourque and Lidstrom's teams, but I really don't know if I would buy that.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for doing this, but I can't agree with your conclusion here. In particular, I don't think it's any surprise that Detroit was better with Lidstrom off the ice than Boston was with Bourque off the ice. But I'm not sure how relevant that is as to how many goals were let in when each defenseman was on the ice. Assuming that both were primarily matched against the best opposition.

That's a good counter-point. The Red Wings obviously had better depth players than the Bruins, but I was thinking more about the goaltending. Bad goaltending will affect all players on the team, so a "relative to the team" approach has merit.

Take 1993 as an example. The Bruins goalies combined for an 83.6% save percentage that spring (swept by the Sabres). That will distort the performance of the entire team. As long as Bourque wasn't on the ice for a disproportionate amount of goals against, relative to his ice time (which was the case - in fact Bourque was on the ice for fewer goals against than one would expect, relative to his ice time) I'd be more inclined to attribute the high GAA to the goaltending rather than an individual player`s performance.

====

If you disagree with this approach and strictly compare ES goals against for each player, Bourque was on the ice for about 42% more per game. Using an era adjustment of 15% (ballpark estimate), Lidstrom is ahead by 23%.

Looking at offense (total production - not breaking it down in ES vs PP), Bourque was 21% more productive on a per-game basis. Using the same era adjustment, he's ahead by 5%.

Using this analysis, Bourque is about 5% better offensively and 23% weaker defensively (at least at ES) - a 15% advantage for Lidstrom (1.05 / 1.23). This assumes that the difference in defense was equally large on the PK as it was at ES (since I only have the ES numbers).

The question is how much of that 15% difference is attributable to teammates. My subjective opinion is if the impact of Lidstrom's superior teammates could be included, he'd still be ahead, but by a narrow margin. I don't know if it's possible to quantify that.

I agree with the position that Lidstrom was a better "relative" postseason performer (in the sense that his performance declined less than Bourque's, relative to how they did in the regular season). By most metrics Bourque was better in the regular by a relatively small but clear margin. The tricky question is whether he's still ahead in the postseason (once again my subjective opinion is Lidstrom is ahead, but I can't prove that).

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Thanks for doing this, but I can't agree with your conclusion here. In particular, I don't think it's any surprise that Detroit was better with Lidstrom off the ice than Boston was with Bourque off the ice. But I'm not sure how relevant that is as to how many goals were let in when each defenseman was on the ice. Assuming that both were primarily matched against the best opposition.

Because Bourque and Lidstrom, both being 30 minute/night defensemen (Bourque even more so than Lidstrom), played with other players in various combinations during any game. As such, their GA numbers are a function of the guys they played with, and they seem to suggest that Boston was more reliant on Bourque's contributions than Detroit was on Lidstrom's - regardless of the level of excellence ultimately showed by either in any case. There's still only so much one guy can do to prevent any particular goal against. I'd point to goaltending as a bigger difference between the two when talking about the "disappointing" runs, though.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The 1993 Bruins were swept in the 1st round by a team they were 23 points better than in the regular season.

The 2008 Wings won a Cup.

According to you, Bourque needed one more 40-point scorer to beat the Sabres in the first round.

Brilliant.

A team that had everything come together. LaFontaine scored over 50 goals and 148 points, Mogilny scored 76 goals and 127 points. Elite Center Hawerchuk to spread the scoring out. Grant Fuhr and Dominic Hasek were just better than Moog(Who was a sieve this series) and John blue.

But I successfully debunked your point and you just don't want to admit it, so you run. The 2008 Wings were stacked. Dodge and weave around it all you want. Everyone around here knows it and you are not fooling anyone.

Given his circumstances, Bourque personally underachieved in the postseason. If he personally overachieved, he'd have more postseason success.

Nah. He performed like a superhuman given what he had vs who he was facing.

But you already know that since we have had this discussion in 5 other threads, all of which you started giving short 1 sentence responses towards the end when you were losing.

Meh. I already stated my case. I'm still waiting for the statistical proof that Bourque was better defensively than Lidstrom was in the postseason.

{Mod}

We have 5 threads full of evidence for you to ignore.

 

[plusandminus]

The European influx was in full swing by 92-93, or 93-94 at the very latest. Bourque won the 1993-94 Norris Trophy

Yes, he won it once, by a very small margin (and also finished 2nd narrowly, so it evens itself out).
Lidstrom won seven Norris while all the best players were in the NHL.

If you sort the "best defencemen project" outcome based on birth year, you'll see some interesting things.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1029907
Immediately over Bourque, you find Kasatonov (one year older) and Fetisov (two years older), both who were not in the NHL during their prime. Fetisov is ranked 8th, ahead of Chelios, MacInnis, Coffey, Leetch, Langway, Larry Murphy and all other guys Bourque competed with. You surely can admit that Fetisov and (most the time) Kasatonov would have provided even tougher competition for Bourque? Thus he didn't face all the best players and likely benefitted from it when it came to Norris voting.

Lidstrom faced Pronger and Leetch (who is just two years older than Lidstrom and thus overlap Lidstrom's career rather than Bourque's). Those are according to the referred ranking comparable to MacInnis and Stevens. He also faced Niedermayer (comparable to Langway) and Chara (comparable with Murphy).
If we take out those players, Bourque "only" had Coffey and Chelios, both within two years of him. So based on the outcome of the defenceman project, those two are the main difference (I consider Wilson a step down).
Looking at it this way, it seems to me too as if Bourque might have faced better competition.

But it's hard to finish better than 1st place in Norris voting, isn't it?

Bourque won the 1993-94 Norris Trophy and has this All-Star record after the European influx:

Bourque was regularly a postseason All-Star after this time:

1992-93 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1993-94 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1994-95 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1995-96 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1998-99 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
2000-01 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

But looking at the time when the best players all were in the NHL, Lidstrom wins easily over Bourque, doesn't he?
Lidstrom had 10(!) 1st AST nominations, compared to Bourque's 4.
Lidstrom overall had 10+2 = 12 AST nominations, compared to Bourque's 6.

Of course we should also consider how good Bourque was prior to 1993 or so.
In his first 7 seasons, he won no Norris. Internationally, I rate him below Fetisov and Kasatonov (who was much better defensively). Bourque might have had anything from 0-4 1st team AST nominations during that time, if considering all players in the World. He might also have lost one or two 2nd team AST.

After that, Bourque had 4 Norris wins in 5 seasons, 4 1st AST, and one 2nd AST. By this time, his older Soviet stars Fetisov and Kasatonov started to decline, so they might only have been competitive with Bourque for a season or two. I give Bourque credit here, during this 4-5 year period he was likely the best defenceman in the World.

To summarize, basically all of Bourque's Norris wins would likely remain, if taking on a "world-wide" approach. He might have a few less 1st AST, and couple of seasons where he was not even in the 2nd AST. That would make his career stats in this regard look slightly less impressive.
So while he was unfavoured regarding competion from one view of looking at it ("number of all-time-greats playing simultanously"), he was actually also a bit favoured pre-1990 by not having to compete with the best Europeans.

Please try to respect, and understand, that for me it is very natural to look world-wide. Not doing so would for me be similar to chosing the best NHL players only from the Western Conference (or similar) without giving any consideration to the Eastern Conference players. (I admit that's might be an exaggeration, but you get the point.)

The thing with competition is that Bourque had to compete against the strongest crop of American defensemen ever, while Lidstrom really didn't (except for a few seasons here and there). Between Chris Chelios and Brian Leetch, they won 5 Norrises during Bourque's prime. For 10 of 11 years between 1986-87 and 1996-97, one of those 3 won the Norris (Coffey won the other).

Nationality aside, for 13 straight years (1984-85 to 1996-97), either Bourque (5), Coffey (3), Chelios (3), or Leetch (2) won the Norris.

Yes, and then Lidstrom came and took 6 Norris wins in 7 seasons, separating himself from the competition in a way the four you mentioned was unable to. (Those four might have been five if Fetisov had been considered.)

There are different ways of looking at things. I agree it may seem as if Bourque faced harder competition, that's my current impression too (even though It's just an impression).

Plus I really don't think 2nd place in a given season is that much worse than finishing 1st, is it? Bourque was a 1st Team All-Star 13 times, which means that despite "only" winning 5 Norrises, he was considered top 2 13 times.

I think one needs to look at the number of votes. Sometimes the difference is big, sometimes (like when Bourque won in 1993-94) it's not.

This thread has so far not convinced me any further at all that Bourque being the better player career wise. On the contrary, I find the arguments from the "Bourque supporters" to be surprisingly weak. We all seem to agree that Bourque's many AST nominations are very impressive. But to me it's not dead sure that Bourque faced a tougher competition, or that he was disfavoured by playing on a "worse" team.

I think Lidstrom is being underrated is these discussions. Like I've written, it was easier to put of great stats (both scoring and +/-) in the 80s. It was easier to dominate than it has been during the last 10-20 years.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Hahaha! Waiting for me to present statistical proof?
Where have you presented anything except that Bourque's offense dropped by more in the PO's than Lidstrom's has and that this is some how proof of something.
Well, I got news for ya bud...Bourque's offense did drop by 14%(not 17% as you stated earlier btw) compared to Lidstrom's 4% drop but guess what? Even at these reduced numbers, Bourque was still producing offensively at a 20% better clip than Lidstrom was.

So seriously, what was the point you were trying to make exactly because the only point anyone else sees from that is teams actively keyed on Bourque because almost everything ran through him. They didn't and couldn't key on Lidstrom because first off, he wasn't near as big of a threat offensively as Bourque was, especially at even strength and second, because Detroit simply had other players (that's plural as in multiple players btw) that were much bigger threats.

You stated no case. All you stated was your opinion backed up by cherry picked data and out of context stats.

{Mod}

What do you have now, like 4 posts in a row where you are trying to distract and confuse from Lidstrom's partners by bringing up Chelios and Leetch without going any where near Lidstrom's partners?
THAT was what was being compared after all, Bourque's partners vs Lidstrom's heh and this will be the second time I have called you out on it directly.

I think I stated several valid reasons Bourque declined defensively as he got older, whereas Lidstrom over the same age bracket somehow got better.

Funny how you forgot to mention that Bourque in 1994 (a Norris season) went into that postseason with Don Sweeney, a 58-point Glen Wesley AND a 58-point Al Iafrate, who was a 2nd Team AS the year prior.

In 1994, the Bruins entered the postseason with THREE defensemen with 58 points or higher (Bourque, Wesley and Iafrate).

They took a 2-0 lead going back to Boston in the 2nd round.

Bourque in Games 3-6?....-7.

So clearly, "the lack of support" excuse can only go so far. Bourque was on several Bruins teams who did fine without him even playing (they won two playoff games in Boston against Roy and the Habs without Bourque).

In fact, I think the Bruins went a combined 12-5 in the games Bourque missed between 1993 and 1994.

So, we have statistical proof that between 1991-1994, the Bruins:

1) won playoff games without Bourque.

2) in the 1992 Wales final, the Bruins best game (Game 1) was a game Bourque didn't even play in. The Bruins dominated the game and held a 3-2 midway through the third until Jagr won it in OT. Bourque came back for games 2-4 and the Bruins were outscored 15-4 in those games and Bourque was a -6. And watch the film too.

3) the Bruins surrounded Bourque with talent. Selke types (Poulin), Vezina top-5 (Moog), 50+ scoring dmen (Wesley, Iafrate), 50-goal scorer (Neely), Hart top-4 (Oates)

These are facts. Nothing subjective.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

There are not woulda, shoulda or couldas in this discussion. It is what it is. The Bruins relied on Bourque because he was their best player by far. Throw in the combination that he didn't have the same supporting cast and you'll notice a lot more of a load he had to carry. Yet we penalize him when he takes the Bruins deep and doesn't win a Cup? It's nonsense. It is like blaming Hasek for not winning in Buffalo or doing more. If a guy was lousy in the postseason, that's one thing, but 180 points in the playoffs as a defenseman are far from lousy. And when he has years where he didn't carry that big load on his back deep like 1993, he deserves criticism?

Even the greats have playoff years where they couldn't make a difference. You know, like Lidstrom in some giant upsets in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Why don't I criticize him for that? Because I know better. I know he had some wonderful runs that he more than made up for. I do the same with Bourque. It's better than cherrypicking with things. That way you get more of the whole picture.

Again, Bourque was underperforming consistently in two significant periods.

1984-1987 and 1991 CF to 1999.

It's too long of a period to ignore. We're talking like a dozen or so playoff series.

Lidstrom too has instances of inconsistency. Just not as prolonged and certainly not as stark.

That's why people are holding onto the teammate excuse for dear life. If the Bruins were good enough to win 51 games, why couldn't they win a playoff game? If the Bruins were good enough to take a 2-0 lead in two different series, then why did they lose four straight? And why in those four straight was Bourque at his worst?

Doesn't add up. I think if Bourque played as well as he did in the regular season, he'd have more playoff success. Lidstrom didn't have as many lapses.

Go ahead and blame teammates. I already provided proof that the Bruins were fine record-wise without Bourque in two seasons where they were one of the top teams in the league.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

A team that had everything come together. LaFontaine scored over 50 goals and 148 points, Mogilny scored 76 goals and 127 points. Elite Center Hawerchuk to spread the scoring out. Grant Fuhr and Dominic Hasek were just better than Moog(Who was a sieve this series) and John blue.

Ah, love this reasoning. Everything went right for Buffalo so it excuses a four-game first round sweep of a 51-win team. So now you're saying Buffalo was the better team heading into the series by spewing regular season stats, even though the Bruins were favored in the series.

Funny. Did Lafontaine, Mogilny and Hawerchulk play defense too? Because Bourque had one point in four games. And Fuhr was terrible that series. Hasek didn't play until Game 4 and it was in relief of Fuhr.

Why don't you go and "debunk" that. While you're at it, Debunk Mays GWG. It's really a thing of beauty.

But I successfully debunked your point and you just don't want to admit it, so you run. The 2008 Wings were stacked. Dodge and weave around it all you want. Everyone around here knows it and you are not fooling anyone.

You conveniently used your own ridiculous metric of 40-point scorers as the difference between getting swept in the 1st round and winning the Cup.

Too bad you avoided mentioning that both the 1993 Bruins and the 2008 Wings had SIX forwards hit the 40-point mark, except Boston added Neely who led the Bruins in playoff goal scoring and played every game.

Again, you debunked nothing. You simply are taking blind stabs to excuse a massive choke job by the Bruins. There is no excuse for a 51-win team getting swept in the first round. None. The fact that Bourque was garbage that entire series (video and stats back it up) is something you refuse to acknowledge.

Nah. He performed like a superhuman given what he had vs who he was facing.

But you already know that since we have had this discussion in 5 other threads, all of which you started giving short 1 sentence responses towards the end when you were losing.

We have 5 threads full of evidence for you to ignore.

It's not winning and losing. It's an opinion based discussion. You support your side and I support mine.

While I understand that Bourque will get the edge in terms of overall play (I have never said Bourque wasn't the better player), my intent is to bring to light things that one should consider.

I'm not trying to convince anybody to change their minds. You seem obsessed with winning debates (which is odd considering you're a Bourque fan) when in fact, all you do is add strawman upon strawman to every discussion until people get fed up debating.


Several posters have provided ample data showing that Lidstrom and Bourque are on a level platform in some areas, while Bourque and Lidstrom have advantages/disadvantages in others.

To me, Cups, Smythes and Norris' trump points and AS selections.

It's performing your best when you are expected to be the best. The playoffs.

Lidstrom did it more than bourque did. Saw it with my own eyes.