Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[CC Chiefs*]

It's clearly an opinion (and opinions are allowed here).

So yesterday when I said scoring was higher in the 80's it shouldn't have been met with such resistance.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So yesterday when I said scoring was higher in the 80's it shouldn't have been met with such resistance.

You're confusing "expressing an opinion" (which you did) with "misusing quasi-facts and innuendo to support your opinion" (which you also did). People were getting on your case for the latter.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Gotta go with Bourque on this one but only slightly.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

You're confusing "expressing an opinion" (which you did) with "misusing quasi-facts and innuendo to support your opinion" (which you also did). People were getting on your case for the latter.

It was my opinion that scoring was up in the 80's and backed with Fuhr's HHOF 3.38 gaa. That's not opinion that's fact.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No, you claim Bourque was among the top 2 or 3 defenseman in the league right away when he first entered the NHL while Lidstrom wasn't ranked that high at the start of his career. You also claim Bourque had much tougher competition for the Norris in his prime due to Chelios, Stevens, MacInnis, Leetch etc. (the very same prime years when Lidstrom entered the league). My question is was Bourque's competition when he entered the league as good and as deep as Lidstrom's when he entered the league? You seem to want to compare competition during their prime years but not when they first entered the NHL. I smell bias.

You know, you prolly have a point there, Lidstrom prolly did enter the league at what arguably might of been the height of the dman class for talent and depth in the history of the NHL.
I mean the late 80's/early 90's sported a hell of a group of dmen.

That being said though, you could also more than reasonably argue that the last 10 years have sported what might be the weakest class of dmen since the '67 expansion. The depth is there sure but the overall level of talent by comparison....I don't think so.

So in the end Bourque basically won his Norris' as the best of the best and Lidstrom won his as the best of the worst.

Now I'm not saying that Lidstrom wouldn't of won any Norris if he started 10 years earlier.
What I am saying is I guarantee you it's no where near 6 of them.

That's why Bourque's 5 will always be more impressive than Lidstrom's 6.

 

[jkrx]

You know, you prolly have a point there, Lidstrom prolly did enter the league at what arguably might of been the height of the dman class for talent and depth in the history of the NHL.
I mean the late 80's/early 90's sported a hell of a group of dmen.

That being said though, you could also more than reasonably argue that the last 10 years have sported what might be the weakest class of dmen since the '67 expansion. The depth is there sure but the overall level of talent by comparison....I don't think so.

So in the end Bourque basically won his Norris' as the best of the best and Lidstrom won his as the best of the worst.

Now I'm not saying that Lidstrom wouldn't of won any Norris if he started 10 years earlier.
What I am saying is I guarantee you it's no where near 6 of them.

That's why Bourque's 5 will always be more impressive than Lidstrom's 6.

If Lidström started his career 10 years earlier he would probably have different playstyle and we just don't know what Lidström would do if he sacrifized a bit of defense like the 80s D did and instead tried to score. No, Im not saying he wouldve been the new Orr but I doubt he would be any less significant than Bourque.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If Lidström started his career 10 years earlier he would probably have different playstyle and we just don't know what Lidström would do if he sacrifized a bit of defense like the 80s D did and instead tried to score. No, Im not saying he wouldve been the new Orr but I doubt he would be any less significant than Bourque.

That is what I was getting at.. it is quite possible Lidstrom adapted his game as he developed to do the best job in the current circumstances.

Each of them at age 35 are almost identical.

 

[jkrx]

That is what I was getting at.. it is quite possible Lidstrom adapted his game as he developed to do the best job in the current circumstances.

Each of them at age 35 are almost identical.

Both adapted their game. It was seperates them from Leetch for example. Lidström during the 70s or 80s wouldve been an intresting thing to watch.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Both adapted their game. It was seperates them from Leetch for example. Lidström during the 70s or 80s wouldve been an intresting thing to watch.

Honestly I didn't notice much change in Bourque.. the guy was so consistent his whole career.. what did he change about it?

 

[Regal]

That is what I was getting at.. it is quite possible Lidstrom adapted his game as he developed to do the best job in the current circumstances.

Each of them at age 35 are almost identical.

Although that season for Lidstrom was also when there was a ridiculous amount of PPs called after the lockout due to the crackdown on obstruction and it inflated a lot of totals. That year Lidstrom scored 50 of his 80 points on the powerplay. Of course, I'm not sure how many of Bourque's points were on the PP.

It would be great if someone had the PP points and estimated TOI for both players for their whole careers. Lidstrom has been an elite PP quarterback in his careeer, as was Bourque, and I'm willing to bet that their numbers are similar in that regard. I think where Bourque probably separates himself offensively is at even strength, where he pushed the puck more often than Lidstrom. Part of Lidstrom's slight defensive edge is due to his mistake-free game, but I'm not sure if this would actually have been an edge if he was trying to create offense at even strength as much as Bourque was.

 

[matnor]

You know, you prolly have a point there, Lidstrom prolly did enter the league at what arguably might of been the height of the dman class for talent and depth in the history of the NHL.
I mean the late 80's/early 90's sported a hell of a group of dmen.

That being said though, you could also more than reasonably argue that the last 10 years have sported what might be the weakest class of dmen since the '67 expansion. The depth is there sure but the overall level of talent by comparison....I don't think so.

So in the end Bourque basically won his Norris' as the best of the best and Lidstrom won his as the best of the worst.

Now I'm not saying that Lidstrom wouldn't of won any Norris if he started 10 years earlier.
What I am saying is I guarantee you it's no where near 6 of them.

That's why Bourque's 5 will always be more impressive than Lidstrom's 6.

I agree that Bourque had a better career than Lidström but I don't thing this reasoning is entirely correct. Just because Lidström had weak competition doesn't mean he wasn't great. However, if he should be comparable to Bourque and we believe he faced worse competition, we would expect him to have a higher share of Norris trophies' votes. And here they are, sorted by the share of 1st place votes out of the first 3 place votes:

|Season|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Share
Bourque| 89/90|63|0|0|-|-| 100%
Bourque|86/87|52|2|0|-|-| 96%
Lidström|07/08|127|5|1|1|0| 95%
Lidström|00/01|56|5|1|0|0| 90%
Lidström|05/06|91|28|8|2|0| 72%
Lidström|02/03|42|20|0|0|0| 68%
Lidström|06/07|87|44|5|4|2| 64%
Bourque|87/88|36|20|5|-|-| 59%
Bourque|90/91|35|27|1|-|-| 55%
Lidström|01/02|29|20|7|2|1| 52%
Bourque|93/94|26|21|6|-|-| 49%

As can be seen Bourque has two standout seasons but then Lidström got a consistently higher share of the Norris vote. The difference is not huge and I favor Bourque for his extreme longevity but this coupled with the fact Lidström won six Norrises in seven years suggest he is at least close in peak value.

Just out of curiousity, how come Niedermayer stole so many 1st place votes from Lidström in 05/06 when Lidström scored 17 more points and was generally considered to be a better defensive player?

 

[jkrx]

Honestly I didn't notice much change in Bourque.. the guy was so consistent his whole career.. what did he change about it?

He played more D. Didn't sacrifize it to put up giant offensive numbers. Anyways that how I saw. I bet someone will reply soon to tell me otherwise.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He played more D. Didn't sacrifize it to put up giant offensive numbers. Anyways that how I saw. I bet someone will reply soon to tell me otherwise.

His offensive numbers were between 80-90 for most of his career though..

 

[BraveCanadian]

|Season|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Share
Bourque| 89/90|63|0|0|-|-| 100%
Bourque|86/87|52|2|0|-|-| 96%
Lidström|07/08|127|5|1|1|0| 95%
Lidström|00/01|56|5|1|0|0| 90%
Lidström|05/06|91|28|8|2|0| 72%
Lidström|02/03|42|20|0|0|0| 68%
Lidström|06/07|87|44|5|4|2| 64%
Bourque|87/88|36|20|5|-|-| 59%
Bourque|90/91|35|27|1|-|-| 55%
Lidström|01/02|29|20|7|2|1| 52%
Bourque|93/94|26|21|6|-|-| 49%

As can be seen Bourque has two standout seasons but then Lidström got a consistently higher share of the Norris vote. The difference is not huge and I favor Bourque for his extreme longevity but this coupled with the fact Lidström won six Norrises in seven years suggest he is at least close in peak value.

Just out of curiousity, how come Niedermayer stole so many 1st place votes from Lidström in 05/06 when Lidström scored 17 more points and was generally considered to be a better defensive player?

That's really interesting matnor

 

[jkrx]

His offensive numbers were between 80-90 for most of his career though..

Not when the eras changed. He went down a couple of notches (he was quite old though) and started to prioritize his defensive game more. That alone helped him to have a career well beyond his prime.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Not when the eras changed. He went down a couple of notches (he was quite old though) and started to prioritize his defensive game more. That alone helped him to have a career well beyond his prime.

Oh you mean in his very late 30s yes I could see that.

I didn't watch him a lot during that time but I know he was still very effective despite his offense starting to tail off from that steady 80 he used to do.

I don't know about eras though.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree that Bourque had a better career than Lidström but I don't thing this reasoning is entirely correct. Just because Lidström had weak competition doesn't mean he wasn't great. However, if he should be comparable to Bourque and we believe he faced worse competition, we would expect him to have a higher share of Norris trophies' votes. And here they are, sorted by the share of 1st place votes out of the first 3 place votes:

|Season|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Share
Bourque| 89/90|63|0|0|-|-| 100%
Bourque|86/87|52|2|0|-|-| 96%
Lidström|07/08|127|5|1|1|0| 95%
Lidström|00/01|56|5|1|0|0| 90%
Lidström|05/06|91|28|8|2|0| 72%
Lidström|02/03|42|20|0|0|0| 68%
Lidström|06/07|87|44|5|4|2| 64%
Bourque|87/88|36|20|5|-|-| 59%
Bourque|90/91|35|27|1|-|-| 55%
Lidström|01/02|29|20|7|2|1| 52%
Bourque|93/94|26|21|6|-|-| 49%

What is the logic behind this metric? Why is taking the total number of first place votes they received and dividing it by the total number of votes they received significant?

For example, Lidstrom in 2006. If those last 10 voters just left him off the ballot instrad of voting for him 3rd or 4th, then he'd have actually done worse in voting, but he'd score 76% by your metric instead of 72%.

 

[matnor]

What is the logic behind this metric? Why is taking the total number of first place votes they received and dividing it by the total number of votes they received significant?

For example, Lidstrom in 2006. If those last 10 voters just left him off the ballot instrad of voting for him 3rd or 4th, then he'd have actually done worse in voting, but he'd score 76% by your metric instead of 72%.

No reason other than that total number of voters are not readily available and since when Bourque was the winner voters only voted for three instead of five later on. If you have the total number of voters that would obviously be better.

 

[norrisnick]

No reason other than that total number of voters are not readily available and since when Bourque was the winner voters only voted for three instead of five later on. If you have the total number of voters that would obviously be better.

We do. Check the stickied post.

 

[matnor]

We do. Check the stickied post.

Where? I only looked at page 5 but I couldn't find it. Of course one could back it out by looking at the total number of votes cast but the results are only shown for the top 10, right?

 

[CC Chiefs*]

It was my opinion that scoring was up in the 80's and backed with Fuhr's HHOF 3.38 gaa. That's not opinion that's fact.

Interesting scoring stats from 1983-1984 vs. 2009-2010.

In 1984
6586 goals scored with 21 teams
313/team
3.9/team/game

2010
6987 goals scored with 30 teams
232/team
2.8/team/game

 

[revolverjgw]

Interesting scoring stats from 1983-1984 vs. 2009-2010.

In 1984
6586 goals scored with 21 teams
313/team
3.9/team/game

2010
6987 goals scored with 30 teams
232/team
2.8/team/game

Of course scoring was up, and you can't take Bourque's raw numbers and puts them up against Lidstrom's without taking this into consideration. But I've seen a lot of analysis into their stats, from many different angles, and Bourque always comes out on top no matter how you adjust/spin/contextualize the numbers. Does this make him better, maybe, maybe not. But that's the math.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Interesting scoring stats from 1983-1984 vs. 2009-2010.

In 1984
6586 goals scored with 21 teams
313/team
3.9/team/game

2010
6987 goals scored with 30 teams
232/team
2.8/team/game

The rest of us moved on from this point a few days ago.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He played more D. Didn't sacrifize it to put up giant offensive numbers. Anyways that how I saw. I bet someone will reply soon to tell me otherwise.

I don't think Bourque ever sacrificed defense for offense. Because he pretty much carried the Bruins for most of his career, he always had to do everything he could to win games. I often thought he didn't rush the puck enough when the B's were down a goal or two in the third period.

When overtime came into regular season games, Cheevers was coaching. He'd play Bourque, somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes in call timeout, and play Bourque the rest of the overtime. Poor guy could barely make it off the ice if the OT went full five minutes.

 

[matnor]

What is the logic behind this metric? Why is taking the total number of first place votes they received and dividing it by the total number of votes they received significant?

For example, Lidstrom in 2006. If those last 10 voters just left him off the ballot instrad of voting for him 3rd or 4th, then he'd have actually done worse in voting, but he'd score 76% by your metric instead of 72%.

Just to be clear. While it would be preferable to use the ratio of 1st place votes to total votes it's unlikely to make any real difference since both players finished top-3 for almost all voters when they won their norrises.