Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[Nick Hansen]

So where do people ultimately stand on Ovechkin vs. Jagr?

 

[sr edler]

So where do people ultimately stand on Ovechkin vs. Jagr?

I haven't been presented a convincing argument here so far that Ovechkin has been the better player, so Jagr is still slightly but firmly ahead on ehhedler's ballot.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So where do people ultimately stand on Ovechkin vs. Jagr?

I’m probably more open to Jagr’s case against Crosby, honestly. That’s not a slam on Ovechkin; I just think highly of Jagr, who in terms of our European players, I’d have just over Hasek, Ovechkin, and Lidstrom.

To me, Jagr is too good to keep in his lane of vs. Winger or vs. Forward comparisons when we probably have four or five players on Defense or in Goal whose resumes would also be vulnerable in a head-to-head comparison.

I came in with Jagr as a coin flip above Bourque. I’ve made a lot of arguments over the years against his somewhat inflated numbers based on ES/PP TOI relative to other forwards in his generation, but I can’t see how he’d not be middle of the ballot or higher.

 

[daver]

Lidström vs. Crosby- The Largest Possible Stage

It's not too long ago- about a decade, in fact, that two of our nominees, Sidney Crosby & Nicklas Lidström, faced off- back-to-back, on the same sheet of ice, in many cases at the same time, on the largest possible stage- the 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Stanley Cup Final. From the standpoint of Team Success, they battled to a stalemate... they split. But I was thinking... how often are we going to have nominees where we can make a comparison as direct as this one?!

They were at different points in their careers, those two: Crosby was the 20-21 year-old wunderkind who helped turn everything around for Pittsburgh. Lidström the 37-38 year-old... not exactly at the peak of his powers, but still a highly effective veteran who remained arguably the best in the game at what he did. I don't think it would be too controversial to say they were the best players for their respective teams.

The first series, Crosby (the 20 year old) and his Penguins lost to the better team. Absolutely no shame in that. The very next year, like Yzerman before him, he immediately rinsed the taste out of his mouth with a 4-3 series win. Curiously, Detroit outscored Pittsburgh in that Final, too-- but (as they say) that's not what they pay off on.

Highlights for Crosby in '08: tied for second in the Final in scoring (6 pts, even with Zetterberg and 1 point behind teammate Hossa), +1 with a power-play goal. For Lidström: he was good for 3 points, was a -1 (no PP points) but averaged a freakish 29.75 minutes a game [one of the games was 3-OT]. He played more than a quarter-hour more than the next closest man. [178:27 vs. teammate Rafalski's 162:49.]

The seeds of that victory appear to have been based on that most reliable of formulas, possession and shot-suppression. I have little doubt that, for all of what we might read on the stat-line, Lidström contributed significantly to both.

Now, in the follow-up series, Lidström's stat-line looks better, Crosby's looks worse-- but Crosby prevailed in that stat that counts most. His team won. 2009 Cup final highlights for Lidström: 3 assists, +4, and again lapped the field in ice-time [175:40, well ahead of Gonchar's 158:43]. Crosby, by comparison, was even more "scoreboard-neutralized" than peak Lindros was a dozen years earlier- 3 points in 7 games, -3. Crosby did score a game-winning goal, he was NOT a non-contributor... but one could have reasonably expected more.

I'll say this about Crosby, though- he added some value here, even though it looks he was stymied. Detroit was very effective at snuffing out Plan A, but that allowed Pittsburgh to launch Plan B- a coming-of-age Malkin, who wound up leading everybody in scoring. A dozen years before, when Lidström and Detroit held the Legion of Doom to two goals, total, there was no Plan B, as the Flyers scored NO even-strength goals outside that paltry pair.

And (anachronistically enough), that allows me to circle back to a point I'd like to make about our old-time-Hockey nominee: Howie Morenz. In his back-to-back Cup runs, Morenz was outscored by teammates in the Final... but it's easy for me to see the likelihood of extra attention to him opening up opportunities for said teammates.

Wouldn't Zetterberg be the better comparison directly with Crosby given he was shadowing him the whole series.

I would say a more accurate description of the 2009 SCF is Detroit's Plan A was to hope it's B Team could beat Pittsburgh's B team by throwing all of it's A defensive players at Crosby.

It's worth noting that Crosby had 2 ES points vs. Zetterberg's 3 ES points. The fact that Crosby could tie up Detroit's #1 line somewhat helped the Pens cause.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Fair enough.I do believe the dynasty years is a prolongement of his reign as the top D in the league, and I do value playoffs, hence I prefer Potvin.

Potvin is the only one in that group who had everything:

Playoffs (check)
Physicality (check)
Offense (check)
Defense (check)
PK (check)
PP (check)
Leadership (check)

He had it all.A perfect prototype of a #1 defenseman.Harvey and Orr are somewhat unattainable.Shore is a special case and I won't go there now.Otherwise, he is the one with everything.He's the true prototype IMO.

I would put him on the same level with Larry Robinson. Potvin would win the tie-breaker because Big Bird had more help on defense. In my intial Top 120 list, I had Potvin at 24 and Robinson at 29. For the purposes of this list I have him behind Bourque and Shore but ahead of Lidstrom (Lidstrom was number 22 on my initial top 120, but as is the purpose of these discussions, I have been swayed slightly here and there).

 

[DannyGallivan]

It's worth noting that Crosby had 2 ES points vs. Zetterberg's 3 ES points. The fact that Crosby could tie up Detroit's #1 line somewhat helped the Pens cause.

Hence, a lot of what Malkin accomplishes with Crosby in the lineup can be credited to Crosby occupying the other team's top pairings and top defensive line.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I don't know - I'm probably stupid, but I see Robinson as just... the scariest mother ****er out there.

Potvin liked to hurt people. Robinson could hurt people (and sometimes did), and everybody knew it. He was the great equalizer against the Flyers and Bruins. The Habs had guys who would fight effectively - Trembley and Risbrough were tazmanian devils, and Guy Lapointe was underrated as a fighter (he was tough). Pierre Bouchard was the champ until Stan Jonathon beat him up. But nobody got the better of Big Bird. We can expand on this when Robinson's name comes up officially.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Let's not excuse Potvin or Lafleur for their dip after their dynasty team success.

I'll always take being the best in the world for a few years over being near the best for several (of course, I'll take being the best in the world for a few years PLUS being near the best for several years).

 

[Michael Farkas]

So where do people ultimately stand on Ovechkin vs. Jagr?

Thoughts haven't changed from Monday...

Jagr was a much more well-rounded offensive threat than Ovechkin. Jagr could not only carry it across the line and make it work against a defender 1 on 1 or 1 on 2, but he was also a far better puck distributor in the attack zone and the NZ and he could generate offense off the cycle and out of corners much better than Ovechkin.

Adaptation goes to Jagr too...came in during the firewagon days (in the NHL, the 1980's last until 1993...maybe in terms of style and culture, that's true as well...) and did work. The league tightened up and then he was the best player in the world for about half a decade and then the league opened up again, and barring one of the worst trades in NHL history happening, he wins an MVP immediately past his prime with a ton of miles on him...and not for nothing, 34 year old Jagr out-points Ovechkin in 2007 to boot...Jagr played through three very distinct eras and shot out the lights in all of them...

I'll take Jagr and I don't see a great case for Ovechkin to be over him right now...unless you maybe had Hull AND Richard 1-2 last vote, then I could say you have a major bias (not in a negative way) towards goal scorers...but the lack of first or second place votes for Mario means that person probably doesn't exist...

I think Ovechkin has a shot to beat him one day, but that day is not this Sunday...

 

[DannyGallivan]

This is why he was so intimidating, no one wanted to poke him, he was one of the most respected players ever. I remember a video of him when he tried to calm down Tiger Williams when the latter chased a referee, nobody else in an opponent team could have done that except him.

Man, I can't wait for Larry's name to come up. Perhaps I had him too low compared to Potvin initially.

 

[DannyGallivan]

According to hockeyfights.com, Robinson had 24 NHL fights. Potvin had 16. Bourque had 17. Lidstrom had zero. Scott Stevens had 111!

Although I watched him as a rookie until he retired, I can't for the life of me remember a Ray Bourque fight. I gotta UTube it.

 

[VanIslander]

Adjusted plus/minus per game...

Crosby 33.75
Bourque 31.51
Jagr 30.9
.
.
.
Mikita 23.18
Potvin 22.8
Lidstrom 21.99
.
.
Ovechkin 18.56
.
.
.
.
.
Messier 6.2

 

[Michael Farkas]

I wonder how that changes if you do it for just primes...or if that's even fair...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wrapped into Potvin's relative lack of longevity is the fact that he was already suffering significant injury problems during the dynasty years (luckily in the regular season), and IMO they were largely due to the style of play that made him so dominant while on the ice.

I don't want to double dip - Potvin's injuries are the main reason he doesn't have a better Norris record in the early 1980s, so they are already counted against him by looking at awards recogntion.

But it isn't just longevity that Bourque and Lidstrom had on Potvin - it was health. And IMO, playing styles that were more conducive to health.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Thoughts haven't changed from Monday...

Jagr was a much more well-rounded offensive threat than Ovechkin. Jagr could not only carry it across the line and make it work against a defender 1 on 1 or 1 on 2, but he was also a far better puck distributor in the attack zone and the NZ and he could generate offense off the cycle and out of corners much better than Ovechkin.

Adaptation goes to Jagr too...came in during the firewagon days (in the NHL, the 1980's last until 1993...maybe in terms of style and culture, that's true as well...) and did work. The league tightened up and then he was the best player in the world for about half a decade and then the league opened up again, and barring one of the worst trades in NHL history happening, he wins an MVP immediately past his prime with a ton of miles on him...and not for nothing, 34 year old Jagr out-points Ovechkin in 2007 to boot...Jagr played through three very distinct eras and shot out the lights in all of them...

I'll take Jagr and I don't see a great case for Ovechkin to be over him right now...unless you maybe had Hull AND Richard 1-2 last vote, then I could say you have a major bias (not in a negative way) towards goal scorers...but the lack of first or second place votes for Mario means that person probably doesn't exist...

I think Ovechkin has a shot to beat him one day, but that day is not this Sunday...

Well, Ovechkin has the distinction of tying Bobby Hull with seven goal-scoring titles, and he now has the Conn Smythe and Stanley Cup. When Jagr was THE man in Pittsburgh, they didn't win anything. Now, you can say that Ovechkin's Capitals won the Stanley Cup. In other words, last year put Ovie over Jagr for me. In my original top 120 list, I actually had Ovechkin at 13 and Jagr at 14. For the sake of this voting round, there is more space between the two because guys I had further on my original list are still in play (Shore, Morenz).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Man, I can't wait for Larry's name to come up. Perhaps I had him too low compared to Potvin initially.

Potvin blows Robinson out of the water as a PP QB; it isn't even close. Thats the main difference there...

Now lets stop talking about Robinson

 

[VanIslander]

Although I watched him as a rookie until he retired, I can't for the life of me remember a Ray Bourque fight. I gotta UTube it.

Six fights as a rookie.
Six fights as a sophomore (beat DAVE TAYLOR).

THEN (RED WINGS GOON) POLONICH BROKE BOURQUE'S JAW IN A FIGHT (RAY WON THE FIGHT) AND BOURQUE LOST NEARLY A MONTH OF PLAY. BOSTON MANAGEMENT ASKED HIM TO QUIT FIGHTING.

One fight a year for four years after.
One fight a couple of years after that.
Two fights in 90-91, winning both, including against CARBONNEAU.
His last fight in March 1998, the 37 year old had a draw against Mats SUNDIN!

Note: Polonich had a few years in the NHL as an agitator and fighter for lowly Detroit. He actually captained the Red Wings for a few months three years prior to the Bourque fight. It's easy to find on youtube. If I wasn't on my phone I'd link it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, Ovechkin has the distinction of tying Bobby Hull with seven goal-scoring titles, and he now has the Conn Smythe and Stanley Cup. When Jagr was THE man in Pittsburgh, they didn't win anything. Now, you can say that Ovechkin's Capitals won the Stanley Cup. In other words, last year put Ovie over Jagr for me. In my original top 120 list, I actually had Ovechkin at 13 and Jagr at 14. For the sake of this voting round, there is more space between the two because guys I had further on my original list are still in play (Shore, Morenz).

I think Hull has a shot to add 1 or 2 more if he doesn't jump to the WHA...he has an undeserved Smythe (if Crosby gets slagged for being the 2nd best player in the playoffs in 2016 then Ovechkin should for being 3rd best in 2018)...

To play devil's advocate..."When Hasek was THE man in Buffalo, they didn't win anything" (even though Jagr was a best man in 1992) - yet we're falling all over ourselves to put him in the 10 items or less line...

Jagr's the better player, more dynamic, more adaptable, better playoff resume, better international resume, better longevity, was the best player in the world for half a decade...he could be the best in goals and best in assists...and he played on teams far worse than Ovechkin and dragged them into the playoffs and he could play with inferior linemates to try to push depth to lower lines (Jan Hrdina, Kip Miller, etc.)...Ovechkin always with Backstrom or Kuznetsov, almost never used to bring along young or incomplete talent (like Andre Burakovsky or Jakub Vrana), instead insulated with more defensive conscience players (Mike Knuble, Chris Clark, etc.)...

It's definitely not Ovechkin time for me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

"Deserved" Conn Smythe or not (I think it was deserved), Ovechkin's 2018 was still a "Smythe-worthy" run (so was Kuznetsov's) and it was definitely a signature playoff run. And it is a plus in any comparison with Jagr. It's up to the individual voters to decide how much weight to give a single signature playoff run.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I think Hull has a shot to add 1 or 2 more if he doesn't jump to the WHA...he has an undeserved Smythe (if Crosby gets slagged for being the 2nd best player in the playoffs in 2016 then Ovechkin should for being 3rd best in 2018)...

To play devil's advocate..."When Hasek was THE man in Buffalo, they didn't win anything" (even though Jagr was a best man in 1992) - yet we're falling all over ourselves to put him in the 10 items or less line...

Jagr's the better player, more dynamic, more adaptable, better playoff resume, better international resume, better longevity, was the best player in the world for half a decade...he could be the best in goals and best in assists...and he played on teams far worse than Ovechkin and dragged them into the playoffs and he could play with inferior linemates to try to push depth to lower lines (Jan Hrdina, Kip Miller, etc.)...Ovechkin always with Backstrom or Kuznetsov, almost never used to bring along young or incomplete talent (like Andre Burakovsky or Jakub Vrana), instead insulated with more defensive conscience players (Mike Knuble, Chris Clark, etc.)...

It's definitely not Ovechkin time for me.

It was a razor-thin line for me before this vote. There's definitely a case for both of them (it's kinda like the "Orr versus Howe Junior Edition"). Let's just say that leading the league in goals scored is something I value. Adding three Harts and a Conn Smythe ain't bad either.

 

[Orange Dragon]

Jagr played for horrible Pens that were not far away from bankrupcy in the late 90's, Ovechkin on the multiple president trophy winners. If one Smythe is everything he has on Jagr, well, it doesn't close the gap for me.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Jagr played for horrible Pens that were not far away from bankrupcy in the late 90's, Ovechkin on the multiple president trophy winners. If one Smythe is everything he has on Jagr, well, it doesn't close the gap for me.

...and two more Harts. And the multiple Rocket Richard Trophies. Jagr was an incredible talent and physical specimen, and it's close for me. At the end of the day, I think Ovechkin has done enough. It's an interesting comparison because they played a different style of game - although both were offensive dynamos, they did it a little differently.

 

[K Fleur]

Whether his Smythe was undeserved or not if Ovechkin keeps playing like he did in the 2018 playoffs he’s gonna retire with more than one Conn Smythe trophy.

And I get this is the the history of hockey forum so take that projection for what it’s worth(probably not much)

 

[overg]

Bourque vs. Lidstrom defensively - a numbers-based assessment

- Used the TOI estimates (1967-2006) sheet to get a "total ESTOI" number for Bourque and Lidstrom each season (using known numbers post-98, of course)
- Used historical PPO data to estimate to the best of my ability, total special teams time played by teams in each season, meaning the rest was ES time (used known post-2000 data as a guide)
- This number averaged 7.2 per special team from 1980-2011, with a high of 8.2 and a low of 6.2
- Using this information, was able to estimate the total ES minutes played by their teams in each season without them on the ice (including games they missed)
- Calculated the team's GA/60 and the player's GA/60.
- These numbers are just like R-on and R-off except they completely ignore goals for
- Divided player's GA-on by the team's GA-off... these are the yearly results. A lower ratio is better.

1980	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.28	3.16	0.72
1981	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.19	3.26	0.67
1982	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.29	3.74	0.88
1983	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.02	3.07	0.66
1984	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.49	3.71	0.67
1985	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.85	3.97	0.72
1986	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.12	3.02	1.03
1987	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.41	4.48	0.54
1988	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.84	2.99	0.95
1989	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.63	3.47	0.76
1990	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.39	3.34	0.71
1991	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.59	3.63	0.71
1992	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.57	3.70	0.70
1993	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.55	3.44	0.74
1994	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50	3.23	0.77
1995	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.27	3.02	0.75
1996	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.68	3.44	0.78
1997	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.86	3.72	1.04
1998	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.07	2.54	0.81
1999	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.17	2.27	0.95
2000	k	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.48	2.15	0.75
2001	0	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	1.95	1.97	0.99
1992	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.34	3.20	0.73
1993	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.17	3.04	1.04
1994	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.98	3.04	0.98
1995	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.27	0.98
1996	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.08	2.00	1.04
1997	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.07	2.39	0.87
1998	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.10	2.24	0.94
1999	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.60	2.29	1.13
2000	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.61	2.53	1.03
2001	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.69	1.97	1.36
2002	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.37	1.99	1.19
2003	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.43	0.91
2004	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.05	2.48	0.83
2006	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.34	2.01	1.17
2007	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.70	2.10	0.81
2008	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.72	1.93	0.89
2009	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.19	2.81	0.78
2010	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.71	0.82
2011	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.86	2.64	1.08
2012	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.75	2.33	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Based on this, it appears that Bourque always lowered his team's goals against while on the ice. The exceptions were 1986 and 1997, when he was just barely higher than the team average. His best marks were 54%, 66%, 67%, 67% and 70%. Lidstrom had eight seasons where his personal GAA was higher than the team's, most notably 2001. His best marks are 73%, 75%, 78%, 81% and 82%. Interestingly, his best marks are in his first and last seasons, probably indicating that usage has something to do with it (i.e. less hard-matching against the opposition's best helps your GA stats).

However, it is harder to beat Detroit's off-ice results than Boston's, typically. So if we just go by era-adjusted numbers, this is what we get:

1980	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.87
1981	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.74
1982	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.42
1983	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.55
1984	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.90
1985	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.19
1986	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.44
1987	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.01
1988	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.54
1989	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.28
1990	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.02
1991	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.34
1992	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.38
1993	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.30
1994	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50
1995	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.37
1996	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.80
1997	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.99
1998	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50
1999	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.58
2000	k	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.72
2001	0	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.27
1992	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.17
1993	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.85
1994	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.97
1995	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.31
1996	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.18
1997	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.14
1998	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.53
1999	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.10
2000	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.87
2001	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.14
2002	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.77
2003	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.64
2004	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.54
2006	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.76
2007	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.94
2008	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.02
2009	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.44
2010	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.41
2011	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.12
2012	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.90

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bourque's career average is roughly 2.35. Lidstrom's is roughly 2.54.

Bourque's best are 1.55, 1.74, 1.87, 1.90 and 2.01. Lidstrom's best are 1.90, 1.94, 2.02, 2.14 and 2.17.

If there are any glaring issues with these calculations as described, please bring them to my attention. I will do my best to account for them.

One thing that does bother me a little, is that overpass' adjusted numbers apparently inflate post-93 numbers (relative to 80-92) a little more than anyone is completely comfortable with. This would mean that Lidstrom's goals against figures are inflated more than they need to be. While overpass' adjustments are mathematically sound, IIRC there has been some talk in the past about why they come out looking the way they do and what kind of mental adjustments may need to be made to these kinds of numbers. I estimate it to be as much as 10%, which could put Lidstrom ever-so-slightly ahead of Bourque by this metric, though they'd be within the margin of error. Note that this concern does not apply to the first table (which uses raw numbers in each individual season), only the second table (which uses era-adjusted numbers).

Nice work Seventieslord. I'm not sure those are the same stats I was originally talking about, but they're telling a very similar story, which is that Bourque was roughly Lidstrom's equal, if not better, when it comes to the defensive side of the ice. Would it be possible to add Potvin to the mix and see how he fares?

I'm not sure this is the place for it, but it might be an interesting deep dive discussion some day to try and explain why Bourque compares so well to Lidstrom defensively. Just watching them, Lidstrom appeared to be more conservative and more positionally sound, so I think Lidstrom is generally considered a step up from Bourque in their own zones. But these results don't seem to match that narrative. Why not?

Are we misusing the stats? Is there something off about the stats themselves? If the stats are correct and we're interpreting them correctly, where is the eye test failing? Is the best defense actually a good offense (see also, Orr)? Was Bourque better in his own end than we give him credit for? Lidstrom worse? Were they situationally used much differently? What differences were there between how they defended, and which of those differences gave better or worse results? Is a body check worth more than a poke check? Mobility superior to positioning?

I freaking love stuff like this, when new statistical information just opens the door to so many more questions. Thanks again for doing the math, Seventieslord.

 

[seventieslord]

Nice work Seventieslord. I'm not sure those are the same stats I was originally talking about, but they're telling a very similar story, which is that Bourque was roughly Lidstrom's equal, if not better, when it comes to the defensive side of the ice. Would it be possible to add Potvin to the mix and see how he fares?

I'm not sure this is the place for it, but it might be an interesting deep dive discussion some day to try and explain why Bourque compares so well to Lidstrom defensively. Just watching them, Lidstrom appeared to be more conservative and more positionally sound, so I think Lidstrom is generally considered a step up from Bourque in their own zones. But these results don't seem to match that narrative. Why not?

Are we misusing the stats? Is there something off about the stats themselves? If the stats are correct and we're interpreting them correctly, where is the eye test failing? Is the best defense actually a good offense (see also, Orr)? Was Bourque better in his own end than we give him credit for? Lidstrom worse? Were they situationally used much differently? What differences were there between how they defended, and which of those differences gave better or worse results? Is a body check worth more than a poke check? Mobility superior to positioning?

I freaking love stuff like this, when new statistical information just opens the door to so many more questions. Thanks again for doing the math, Seventieslord.

I could do the same thing for Potvin, the only problem I see with it is he wasn't always at his very best, particularly in his last few seasons. When it came to Bourque and Lidstrom, I truly think they were excellent players from the start to the end, which allowed for career-long comparisons to not be wacky. But with Potvin, I can give the same kinds of numbers and averages, but I probably have to cut it off around 1984 and present them with the caveat that they were achieved in only about 60% of the sample size that Bourque and Lidstrom did it.