Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[Rhiessan71]

A couple of things here, Lidstrom is missing a season due to the lockout through no fault of his own and the spread isn't as great when you adjust the points for the goal scoring eras 1552-1185 for Bourque.

Also Bourque scores 70.05 points per season adjusted while Lidstrom has 65.8.

Lidstrom broke into he NHL with a 60 point season as a 21 yr old and had played 3 seasons in the elite Swedish league so we need to give him soem credit for that as well. There is no formula for it but we can take an educated guess of 20, 30, 45 points for those 3 seasons in Sweden.

Lidstrom isn't finished yet and he might pass Bourque in a few guys minds depending on how much longer he plays but I understand that for some guys Lidstrom will never pass Bourque and that position is defensible as well.

First off I think those adjusted numbers are a bunch of crap, especially considering that most of those Bourque Boston teams in the 80's and early 90's were barely keeping up with the league average in goal scoring.
As opposed to the most of Lidstrom's Wings teams who were more often than not near the top of the league in scoring.
Adjusting Bourque's totals for era yet not adjusting Lidstrom's for the superior and at times vastly superior teams he played on is a bunch of bull**** to me.

Just to humour you though, lets take your adjusted numbers at face value and apply them.
Bourque would now be only at about 1400 and change in 1600 games.
Lidstrom would now be around 1130 in 1400 games.

We're still talking around a 275 point advantage in just 200 more games and that's under an adjustment system that imo unfairly maximizes Lidstrom while minimizing Bourque.
Still not "only slightly" better.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

First off I think those adjusted numbers are a bunch of crap, especially considering that most of those Bourque Boston teams in the 80's and early 90's were barely keeping up with the league average in goal scoring.
As opposed to the most of Lidstrom's Wings teams who were more often than not near the top of the league in scoring.
Adjusting Bourque's totals for era yet not adjusting Lidstrom's for the superior and at times vastly superior teams he played on is a bunch of bull**** to me.

Just to humour you though, lets take your adjusted numbers at face value and apply them.
Bourque would now be only at about 1400 and change in 1600 games.
Lidstrom would now be around 1130 in 1400 games.

We're still talking around a 275 point advantage in just 200 more games and that's under an adjustment system that imo unfairly maximizes Lidstrom while minimizing Bourque.
Still not "only slightly" better.

Those adjusted numbers aren't a bunch of crap, they're closer to the truth than raw numbers whether you believe so or not. As you say though, there's still a clear edge for Bourque so I don't see the problem.

 

[Hardyvan123]

First off I think those adjusted numbers are a bunch of crap, especially considering that most of those Bourque Boston teams in the 80's and early 90's were barely keeping up with the league average in goal scoring.
As opposed to the most of Lidstrom's Wings teams who were more often than not near the top of the league in scoring.
Adjusting Bourque's totals for era yet not adjusting Lidstrom's for the superior and at times vastly superior teams he played on is a bunch of bull**** to me.

Just to humour you though, lets take your adjusted numbers at face value and apply them.
Bourque would now be only at about 1400 and change in 1600 games.
Lidstrom would now be around 1130 in 1400 games.

We're still talking around a 275 point advantage in just 200 more games and that's under an adjustment system that imo unfairly maximizes Lidstrom while minimizing Bourque.
Still not "only slightly" better.

I guess you are one of those guys that don't see the value in adjusted stats. Does anyone pre 1960 make your top 100 list as their totals are really low?

Sure Bourque has the overall advantage in both real and adjusted stats but he does have 4 more seasons as well. Bourque also played in the league at 19 and Lidstrom could have as well but back then most guys from Sweden came over a little bit later than their NA counterparts to the NHL.

As long as we are counting lets talk Norris trophies with one guy having 6 and the other 5 and Lidstrom's missed season when he would have been a front runner for another.

Don't get me wrong both guys are very close, I'll just take the more complete player in Lidstrom.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Those adjusted numbers aren't a bunch of crap, they're closer to the truth than raw numbers whether you believe so or not. As you say though, there's still a clear edge for Bourque so I don't see the problem.

Value in them sure, maybe to get a base before other factors are added in.

Look, just because the difference from say 84/85 to say 95/96 is 7.77ggp to 6.29ggp, that doesn't mean the 84/85 Bruins were keeping up to that nor does that mean the 95/96 Wings were staying as low as that.

In fact a 7.77 gpg means that each team averaged 3.89 gpg that year.
The 84/85 Bruins only averaged 3.79gpg putting them only at 12th out of 21.

In 95/96 that 6.29ggp means that teams scored an average of 3.15 goals per game yet the Wings that year not only blew away the league average with 3.96ggp but they also noticeably beat out the 84/85 Bruins team that played in a season that averaged 1.5 more goals per game. They also beat the league average for that higher scoring year as well.
Bourque at 25 years old had 86 points in 73 games or 1.18ppg in 84/85.
Lidstrom at 26 years old despite playing on a better offensive team only managed 67 points in 81 games or .83ppg in 95/96.

This is why I think flat adjustment for era systems are full of crap when used by themselves and nothing else.

 

[Reds4Life]

- It has been proven that superstars (example - Jagr, he played with scrubs and still produced at the same, or better rate) produce at the same rate no matter what their teammates are. Lidstrom played for better teams and had better chance of winning the Cup (which is not something you can put a number on, anything can happen in the playoffs). But his points totals would not be worse if he played for Habs. He would get more recognition, because it is much easier to stand out on average team.

- When you look at their best seasons, point-wise:
Lidstrom 80 games, 80 points (2005-2006)
Bourque 78 games, 96 points (1983-1984)
And you claim Bourque would have even a greater advantage if they both played at the same time (in either year)? Sorry, I have a hard time believing that.
As I said, Bourque is slightly better offensively, Lidstrom defensively. (because of their playstyles, I think Ray is perfectly capable of playing defense first, offense second; and Lidstrom is also capable of playing more offensively), so for me they are very close, but Lidstrom has the decisive edge in the playoffs, which makes him a better player by a razor thin margin.

 

[pavel13]

A lot of people are saying that because Bourque's teams were generally not as good as Lidstrom's, that works in Bourque's favor from an offensive standpoint. But sometimes it's easier to score on inferior teams. Bourque probably got more ice time than he would have if he were on the same team as Konstantinov, Coffey, Chelios, Fetisov, Murphy, etc. It makes sense to give Bourque the puck on the PP considering his skill, and it makes even more sense when there's no Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Hull, Coffey, etc. Somebody mentioned Bourque's shot totals, saying that he sometimes led the league in shots. Bourque has shot 50% more per 80ish games than Lidstrom. It's clear that Bourque, as a result of playing on inferior teams, got a lot more puck, which equates to more chances to score, and more points.

If Lidstrom averaged as many shots as Bourque, and assuming similar shot percentage, it's not unreasonable to think he could score 100 more goals (5.5 goals per year on about 100 more shots). If his shot% were exactly the same, he would have scored 120 more goals. It's hard to say how many more assists he would have from rebounds and deflections. 50 assists for almost 1800 shots isn't unreasonable. Is 100 out of the question? Currently, there's a 533 point difference between them (not 600 as somebody said earlier). Had Lidstrom shot 50% more, the gap between them would definitely be smaller.

 

[Paranoidbub]

My 2 cents on the Norris. It should be defined as defensive player of the year OR best offensive defenseman. I'm tired of seeing great defensemen lose the Norris to an offensive defensemen. I realize that this isn't always the case...but it irks me.
And I vote Bourque ahead of Lid, even tho he left the B for a cup with the Avs.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

One player (Wayne Gretzky) is "many" to you?

You're right I should have worded it this way. There was several 200+ point seasons.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

First off I think those adjusted numbers are a bunch of crap, especially considering that most of those Bourque Boston teams in the 80's and early 90's were barely keeping up with the league average in goal scoring.
As opposed to the most of Lidstrom's Wings teams who were more often than not near the top of the league in scoring.
Adjusting Bourque's totals for era yet not adjusting Lidstrom's for the superior and at times vastly superior teams he played on is a bunch of bull**** to me.

Just to humour you though, lets take your adjusted numbers at face value and apply them.
Bourque would now be only at about 1400 and change in 1600 games.
Lidstrom would now be around 1130 in 1400 games.

We're still talking around a 275 point advantage in just 200 more games and that's under an adjustment system that imo unfairly maximizes Lidstrom while minimizing Bourque.
Still not "only slightly" better.

You keep bringing up offensive stats. I thought the 1st goal of a defenseman is to keep the puck out his own net. Mike Green put huge offensive numbers and we know he can't play defense to save his life. Now Bourque is a 1000x better than Green. But the point is offensive number don't tell the story.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you still ignore the fact that scoring in the 80's and early 90's was very high. And HHOF goalie Fuhr gave up 246 goals in 1987-88 and 25 teams last year didn't score that many goals.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Based on your comment about "many 200+ point scorers", I sincerely doubt you were even old enough to even remember watching Chris Pronger in 2000. It's only in the last two or three years that people have come out with this "Lidstrom should have won the Norris" and "Jagr should have won the Hart" crap. There was no questioning it at the time though. Everyone who watched that season saw Pronger dominate and take the Blues, who many had pegged as a merely decent team, to the President's Trophy.

That was worded wrong.

Is it automatic that a player voted most valuable to HIS team becomes that best all around defenseman? If that's the case why isn’t every Vezina winner voted the Hart also? Why every Selke winner isn’t voted the Hart. In other words the Hart and Norris are mutually exclusive and have nothing to with each other.

BTW I'm probably older than you. After looking at your profile I have you by more than 20 years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defense

You keep bringing up offensive stats. I thought the 1st goal of a defenseman is to keep the puck out his own net. Mike Green put huge offensive numbers and we know he can't play defense to save his life. Now Bourque is a 1000x better than Green. But the point is offensive number don't tell the story.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you still ignore the fact that scoring in the 80's and early 90's was very high. And HHOF goalie Fuhr gave up 246 goals in 1987-88 and 25 teams last year didn't score that many goals.

So the same reasoning could point in the direction that it was a lot easier to defend during the 2009-10 season since a good part of the game is played against players with extremely limited offensive skills.

Example. Sidney Crosby generates well over 100 points centering a line with Kunitz and Guerin, two players that combined cannot generate the points that one of Gretzky's wingers - Kurri would generate or that a Rob Brown would generate with Lemieux.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

So the same reasoning could point in the direction that it was a lot easier to defend during the 2009-10 season since a good part of the game is played against players with extremely limited offensive skills.

Example. Sidney Crosby generates well over 100 points centering a line with Kunitz and Guerin, two players that combined cannot generate the points that one of Gretzky's wingers - Kurri would generate or that a Rob Brown would generate with Lemieux.

Not really. Defensive systems and goaltending are light years better now vs then.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Adjusting Bourque's totals for era yet not adjusting Lidstrom's for the superior and at times vastly superior teams he played on is a bunch of bull**** to me.

I completely agree with you, I was trying to say the same thing in the Lafleur/Bossy thread while being shouted down.

The problem is how do you separate the player from the team?

How much was Lidstrom responsible for the team doing so well?

That is what makes it hard.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Those adjusted numbers aren't a bunch of crap, they're closer to the truth than raw numbers whether you believe so or not. As you say though, there's still a clear edge for Bourque so I don't see the problem.

They are bunk.

One reason is exactly what Rhiessan said: they adjust players based on average league scoring while totally disregarding that some teams score much less than average and some much more than average.

So you can actually benefit twice from being on a stacked team in a low scoring era and actually be penalized for being on a low scoring team in a high scoring era.

Adjusted stats are the absolute roughest of comparisons and should never be cited as anything other than that in my opinion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Really???????????

Not really. Defensive systems and goaltending are light years better now vs then.

Pure nonsense that you cannot qualify or quantify.

Example 2009-10 playoffs. Washington and Pittsburgh lose to Montreal because their forwards,except Crosby, are not willing to go to the net and into the prime scoring areas. Halak looks great.Posters rave about Montreal's defensive system.

Philadelphia forwards drive the net, dominating the prime scoring areas,beat Montreal easily. Halak looks ordinary with sub 1980's SV% and the Canadiens defensive system is no more.

Another example. Playoffs,Chicago two years in a row against Vancouver. Everyone is talking about the Canucks defense and Luongo. Chicago drives the net and creates some basic east - west offensive movement. Result the Canucks and Luongo look very ordinary yielding 5GA per game in the 8 games that they lost over the two series. Even teams in the eighties and prior had better defense and goaltending than the Canucks.

Defense is much easier to play if the offense stays on the perimeter. Likewise goaltending appears much stronger than it really is when the shots come from the perimeter, unscreened.

The willingness to go to the net is not a function of offensive skill. Offensive skill simply dictates how effective the result will be.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

So are saying teams of 80's werent much more offensive minded? Heck there's probably no man alive or not born yet that will ever come close to Gretzkys scoring records! Bowman took a high scoring forward and made him a Selke winner. Yzerman had 6 straight 100 plus seasons and only a lockout stopped it from being 7. In Fuhr 4 SC winning years he averaged 3.66 gaa and .882 save pct. Show me a SC winning gosling with numbers that high in today's NHL? So there no way anyone can say that scoring wasn't up in the 80's. Now is that only reason why Bourques scoring was up? No but it didn't hurt either!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You're right I should have worded it this way. There was several 200+ point seasons.

You don't think that a reasonable person would consider Wayne Gretzky to be an outlier?

It's amazing the lengths you will go in order to defend your position.

 

[bruinforstanley]

Personally, you can take all the stats and throw them out the window. It's obvious both were/are offensively gifted.

However, neither player is/was and offensive "force" compared to a defense man like a Coffey. Bourque & Lidstrom earned their points largely from the QB position (point, breakout, PP, etc..)

The debate for me is DEFENSE. Who is the better defense man?

Again, throwing stats out the window, I pick Bourque for the mere fact that he was the more physical of the two. Both are/were great defensively but both great in different defensive modes. Bourque mucked it up. He got dirty in the corners, in front of the net, and in open ice. This is the difference for me.....even though I'm still pissed that he jumped ship in Boston and went to Colorado.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Personally, you can take all the stats and throw them out the window. It's obvious both were/are offensively gifted.

However, neither player is/was and offensive "force" compared to a defense man like a Coffey. Bourque & Lidstrom earned their points largely from the QB position (point, breakout, PP, etc..)

The debate for me is DEFENSE. Who is the better defense man?

Again, throwing stats out the window, I pick Bourque for the mere fact that he was the more physical of the two. Both are/were great defensively but both great in different defensive modes. Bourque mucked it up. He got dirty in the corners, in front of the net, and in open ice. This is the difference for me.....even though I'm still pissed that he jumped ship in Boston and went to Colorado.

I'd put forward that although Bourque was more physical and had that low center of gravity going on.. Lidstrom was/is actually better defensively.

He is so rarely out of position and he has been the NHLs best shutdown defenseman for years even though he plays an intellectual game instead of a physical one. This has also contributed to his longevity because he hasn't taken that beating for years. I mean Bourque was still a great defenseman by the time he was getting close to 40.. but was he still the BEST defenseman?

I think they are about equal overall with Bourque being slightly better offensively and Lidstrom being slightly better defensively.

They are pretty much a coin flip for me.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

You don't think that a reasonable person would consider Wayne Gretzky to be an outlier?

It's amazing the lengths you will go in order to defend your position.

So Doc are you saying scoring wasn't higher in the 80's vs now?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Better than Hart-trophy winning Pronger? Eh...

The only debatable Norris is the 1998 one IMO, and there have been lots of threads on it. I can see both sides. Pro Lidstrom - put up more points while being better defensively. Okay, that's a pretty strong case.

But the arguments for Blake: more goals, big intimidating hitter, and perhaps most important, the MVP of a surprising LA Kings team.

I don't think many would blink an eye if Lidstrom won the Norris in '98, 00, 09 and if there was a season in 05.

I have Bourque ahead of Lidstrom as well, but not by nearly as much as many here.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So Doc are you saying scoring wasn't higher in the 80's vs now?

The standards are higher on the History board. If you want to participate on this particular forum, do not put words in other posters' mouths.

(You can imply my answer to your question from what I've written here).

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Personally, you can take all the stats and throw them out the window. It's obvious both were/are offensively gifted.

However, neither player is/was and offensive "force" compared to a defense man like a Coffey. Bourque & Lidstrom earned their points largely from the QB position (point, breakout, PP, etc..)

The debate for me is DEFENSE. Who is the better defense man?

Again, throwing stats out the window, I pick Bourque for the mere fact that he was the more physical of the two. Both are/were great defensively but both great in different defensive modes. Bourque mucked it up. He got dirty in the corners, in front of the net, and in open ice. This is the difference for me.....even though I'm still pissed that he jumped ship in Boston and went to Colorado.

If others in this thread took this approach rather than the stats approach there would be no argument. So based on your assessment I'd go with Bourque also.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Personally, you can take all the stats and throw them out the window. It's obvious both were/are offensively gifted.

However, neither player is/was and offensive "force" compared to a defense man like a Coffey. Bourque & Lidstrom earned their points largely from the QB position (point, breakout, PP, etc..)

The debate for me is DEFENSE. Who is the better defense man?

Again, throwing stats out the window, I pick Bourque for the mere fact that he was the more physical of the two. Both are/were great defensively but both great in different defensive modes. Bourque mucked it up. He got dirty in the corners, in front of the net, and in open ice. This is the difference for me.....even though I'm still pissed that he jumped ship in Boston and went to Colorado.

Where does this perception Lidstrom does not go into the corners come from? Sure he does not hit too often but he is a big guy and plays physical. He is excellent at pinning opposing forwards into the boards and never shies away from covering the crease. Bourque was great defensively, but I think Lidstrom has a clear edge on him in that department, just like Bourque has a clear edge offensively - though the margin of difference either way is not large.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't think many would blink an eye if Lidstrom won the Norris in '98, 00, 09 and if there was a season in 05.

I have Bourque ahead of Lidstrom as well, but not by nearly as much as many here.

Not that you're directing that solely at me or anything but for the record, overall, I don't have Bourque that far out in front of Lidstrom.
Only on the offensive side do I have Bourque with a decided advantage.

Someone mentioned Coffey, so lets look there for a second.
I think it's safe to say that Coffey is the best offensive Dman we have seen in the last 30 years and saying that he was a lot more than just slightly better than Lidstrom offensively would not get any arguments.

So we have two players that played at pretty much the exact same time, where era adjustments don't matter.
Bourque actually has 50 more points in 200 more games.
Now taking into account that Coffey played the majority of his career with the two greatest offensive players in history, I submit that Bourque is a hell of a lot closer to Coffey than Lidstrom is.

Yet somehow, Bourque is only slightly better than Lidstrom offensively....sorry but that doesn't make any sense and is just downright confusing to me.