RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens
- Thread starter OzzyFan
- Start date
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,148
Career +/-
Bourque +528
Lidstrom +450
Not a whole lot of difference but in the history of hockey there are two players - Bobby Orr and Larry Robinson - who have a higher +/- than Bourque. While I don't use this stat as a be-all-and-end-all stat, it is telling. The things we Bourque supporters have been saying isn't just something we pulled out of thin air. I've said before that he played on lesser teams with less support than Lidstrom had. That he was more of the engine that drove the bus for teams that he took deep into the postseason often. That he didn't have the offensive players to pass the puck to as much and he had to do more of it himself. That he played in every situation and faced the best players night in and night out his whole career. This is all true, and if you look at the top 10 career leaders in plus/minus you'll notice one thing. They were either on great teams their entire careers, and by great I mean often dynasty teams, or else they were insanely good offensively (Gretzky). Bourque sticks out quite a bit on that top 10 list. Only Bobby Clarke is somewhat comparable to him when it comes to not being on great teams his WHOLE career.
Yet there is Bourque #3 all-time on a team who had Rick Middleton as their best forward until Adam Oates arrived in the early 1990s during Bourque's time. Even Lidstrom supporters have got to question why he has those gaudy numbers. There is a very good reason for that. He was just that good at controlling the game.
Bourque +528
Lidstrom +450
Not a whole lot of difference but in the history of hockey there are two players - Bobby Orr and Larry Robinson - who have a higher +/- than Bourque. While I don't use this stat as a be-all-and-end-all stat, it is telling. The things we Bourque supporters have been saying isn't just something we pulled out of thin air. I've said before that he played on lesser teams with less support than Lidstrom had. That he was more of the engine that drove the bus for teams that he took deep into the postseason often. That he didn't have the offensive players to pass the puck to as much and he had to do more of it himself. That he played in every situation and faced the best players night in and night out his whole career. This is all true, and if you look at the top 10 career leaders in plus/minus you'll notice one thing. They were either on great teams their entire careers, and by great I mean often dynasty teams, or else they were insanely good offensively (Gretzky). Bourque sticks out quite a bit on that top 10 list. Only Bobby Clarke is somewhat comparable to him when it comes to not being on great teams his WHOLE career.
Yet there is Bourque #3 all-time on a team who had Rick Middleton as their best forward until Adam Oates arrived in the early 1990s during Bourque's time. Even Lidstrom supporters have got to question why he has those gaudy numbers. There is a very good reason for that. He was just that good at controlling the game.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
This is one of the worst uses of plus/minus I've ever seen. Of course the superstar who played in a higher scoring era is going to have a higher raw plus/minus than the superstar who played in a lower scoring era.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,148
Yes, but a higher scoring era when a defenseman is getting 30 minutes a game also means he's on the ice for more goals too. It evens out. Even if you want to adjust it, how can you not look at it in context that Bourque didn't have the offensive support his whole career to get these numbers. It shows just what I've been saying for a long time, that he had to do a lot of the leg work himself. This is why he led the Bruins in scoring so often. All of this, and he's still 3rd all-time in +/-.
You have to take into account that he is the only player on the top 10 here that wasn't on all-time great teams either.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
No, it doesn't even out. It would even out for a player who is allowing as many goals as he is creating, but that's not who we are talking about. Guys like Bourque and Lidstrom drive the play into the other team's zone, so they are going to rack up more goals for than goals against.
Much easier to rack up extremely high or low plus/minuses in an era of great disparity (the 1970s) or a high scoring era (the 1980s).
That is very impressive for Bourque. I mean, he's not winning this poll by accident.
But also notice that Lidstrom at #10 with +450 has the highest career plus/minus of any player who didn't play a single game before 1985. Jagr at #30 would be next with +294. I realize that's a somewhat arbitrary cutoff.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
#1...
#2
I don't see #5 in this highlight package and if you believe Lidstrom played a possession game anything close to what we're watching there {Mod}.....
#3
Find me a single professional coach, whether a proponent of possession or not, that says puck possession isn't a defensive tool first and foremost.
I will guarantee that you find none. There will be no argument on whether possession is a defensive tool or not, the argument you will find between coaches is whether or not it's the best defensive tool.
Whether it's better to play a possession game or it's better to have your opponent starting from 200' away as often as possible.
Bowman vs Lemaire if you will.
Here's a study I read a few years ago. It's a good read imo.
https://www.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/25542/Thesis Rollins.pdf?sequence=1
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,148
Alright fine, but the main point was that Bourque played on the "worst" teams that anyone else played on who is on the top 10 in plus/minus. Not saying the Bruins were bad, but they weren't a dynasty team, and were not Lidstrom's Red Wings either. Still very impressive. My earlier comments were that to get a good idea of the teams Bourque was on his whole career would be like looking at the 2002-'03 to 2007 or so Red Wings. Wouldn't you agree this ties into this whole theory that Bourque did more with less his whole career?
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,913
- 2,272
No, now you changed "what you meant" again when called out. This is getting ridiculous.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
I have, have I?
By all means, explain how my contention that Bourque controlled a game and played a more dominant individual possession game than Lidstrom has changed what so ever. (Supported by GA/60 despite numerous disadvantages in this regard)
Explain how my contention that Bourque was much better at pushing the play and producing at even strength than Lidstrom was. (Once again, also supported by ES points, ES PpG and % of team ES scoring).
Nothing I have said has changed one iota and what's even more important, nothing I have said has been countered what so ever.
No, the only thing that has happened has been once again being accused of Lidstrom bashing despite not having done so even once in this thread.
Or do I have to remind everyone again that stating that Bourque was better than Lidstrom at one thing or another does NOT mean I'm saying that he sucks at those things.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Bourque definitely had a lot less to work with on average. I think it's debatable whether he "did more" though. Did more what? Winning? Definitely not. Personal contribution to team success? Probably.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
The Lidstrom detractors seem more aggressive and in their approach than the once preferring him over Bourque.
Naw, that's just the way its made to look.
Anytime a poster even suggests that this player or that player might have been better than Lidstrom at something, there's an extreme response as if Lidstrom has just been shot/suffered some gross injustice.
Gets pretty comical at times really.
Sentinel
Registered User
I'd say it's pretty much the opposite. It's Bourque that "suffered gross injustice by being on sucky teams." Nobody claims that Lidstrom "suffered." His career certainly didn't. Four Cups, seven Norrises, Olympic Gold, the most decorated man in Sweden, etc.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
I think in one All-Star Skills Challenge, Bourque went four-for-four on shooting at the targets. And in another year, it took him 5 shots to hit all 4 targets. The guy had mad skills.
Last edited:
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,843
- 3,799
That one bakes in a factor for how the team did when a player was not on the ice.
It makes guys like Bourque and Jagr look really good because their teams were had little depth during their prime years and they carried their teams.
So it does reflect well on guys like that but it doesn't necessarily tell you who was "better" between a couple of players.
Lidstrom doesn't get as good a boost because his teams had depth. Similarly a guy like Larry Robinson who has the highest raw +/- gets knocked down a notch for the same reason. The players he is being compared against were stronger so it is more difficult to separate oneself.
The other problem with this is if you're going to use it for the regular season then what happened in the playoffs?
Bourque was +528 in 1,612 regular season games, which is good for +0.33 per game. In the playoffs Bourque was +8 in 214 playoff games, which equals +0.04 per game for a 0.29 drop.
Lidstrom was +450 in 1,564 regular season games, which is good for +0.29 per game. In the playoffs Lidstrom was +61 in 263 playoff games, which equals +0.23 per game for a 0.06 drop.
Before the 2001 playoffs Bourque was a -1 in his playoff career, despite being # 3 all-time for regular season +/-. If someone is going to put a lot of weight into the +/- stat then Brouque comes out looking like a poor playoff performer while Lidstrom appears to play at a consistently high level come playoff time.
I agree with this. That kind of "adjusted +/-" has some benefits, but it also have some disadvantages, like the ones you mention. It should preferably be looked at within context (like "all" stats).
A problem with ES+/- is that it basically makes all defencemen as good as all forwards (on the team), and all wingers as good as all centers.
The average ES+/- of the left wings will be the same as the centers, no matter if the centers are Sakic/Forsberg and the left wings themselves in reality all are below-average players.
The "average" ES+/- of the defencemen will be the same as the sum of the forwards, no matter the forwards are weak while the defencemen are the best ones in the league.
This is a basic fact that is important to keep remember.
The rOn/rOff thus mostly tells us how good a player performed compared to the other teammates playing on the same position as him. In other words, the player(s) that step onto the ice to replace him when he goes for a rest.
If Bourque had poor teammates, his rOn/rOff would be compared to that poor defenceman replacing him. It could be the 2nd best defenceman on the team, but it could also be the 3rd, 4th or even 5th.
It is thus no wonder that Bourque would have a significantly better rOn/rOff than the other defencemen on the team.
For example, Borje Salming was in a similar situation in Toronto. In his case, I think he also often played with the clearly best forward line on the team.
A player "hurt" by the stat might be the 3rd and 4th centers on Colorado, who even if being above-average players in reality, would have to see themselves compared to Sakic and Forsberg (who also often had better wingers).
Along with the above also comes the other often mentioned weaknesses of +/-.
I wrote about this in 2011. The idea might behind the rOn/rOff might seem good, but in reality it doesn't really help as much as one would think. (If one wants to adjust +/-, a better starting approach would for example be to try to adjust the "raw" +/- for goalie influence.) I think points scored and icetime are more "reliable" stats. Defensive performance is unfortunately difficult to measure.
Last edited:
Dark Shadows
Registered User
For the record, Bourque was +22 in the playoffs. If you manually add them up at NHL.com. They just did the addition/subtraction wrong.
+/- tends to not mean a whole lot unless used in context with the team you played with. A good portion of a defenseman's +/- relies on the forwards you are moving the puck to to convert while you are on the ice and play defense even if you do not get a point on the play. If your forwards are not as reliable defensively, then it affects you negatively as well. Especially if you get a lot more icetime than forwards and take shifts with a diverse group.
The team depth matters a lot too as it gets exposed more frequently in the playoffs. A good performer on a team with less depth or worse coaching than an opposing team is suddenly going to have a worse +/-
It is hard to put into words just how different the team was with Bourque on and off the ice. We once glanced at the 1990 Oilers/Bruins finals when someone attempted to say Bourque choked in the finals in one of these arguments, and the numbers were ridiculously good for him compared to the rest of his team.
The 1990 finals for example.
Yes he was -1 in the series, but it was a team best, and ridiculous considering he was playing 30+ minutes a game in a series where they were outscored 20-8. Throw in the fact that he had a team best 3 goals, 2 assists and made the brilliant pass that resulted in another goal but did not get an assist in their game 3. He factored in to 6 of the Bruins 8 goals in the series.
The rest of the team was getting demolished when he was not on the ice that series. Even more amazing was the Oilers were playing a specific strategy in which Bourque was keyed in on as target #1 and not given the chance to jump in the play. The idea was, Bourque is the only bruin who can really carry the puck, don't let him. Dump it in his corner so he has to retrieve and then rush and bang him. Force him to make outlet passes to players who cannot do much with them, and then backcheck on Bourque as if he were a forward to prevent him from getting into the play. Heck, they did not even worry about covering Neely, choosing instead to latch Tikkanen on Janney
If Bourque were on the red wings, that strategy would not have worked whatsoever since he would have an abundance of players who actually can carry the puck to make those perfect outlet passes to. The other difference being when off the ice, the rest of the wings team was pretty respectable due to their depth. The bruins were just creamed when Bourque was not on the ice.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,148
Personal contribution to team success. And better individual success as well.
Right on.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You know, I agree with most of what Dark Shadows is saying in general, but danincanada is right about the specific use of plus/minus - you can't use it to make the case for Bourque in the regular season without also looking at it as a weakness in the playoffs.
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,913
- 2,272
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
No. He has more career value though because he came into the league an elite or at least borderline elite player, while it took Lidstrom several years to hit his stride.
No. He has more career value though because he came into the league an elite or at least borderline elite player, while it took Lidstrom several years to hit his stride.
I have trouble with projecting how X would have done somewhere else. It's one thing to compare what each player did, their local conditions, etc. We can find some data, qualify it for era, rules, officiating, etc., types of differences, and at least we're in the ballpark of relevancy.
When you take 2 of the greatest to ever play, and one is from the current/modern day of hockey (just completed his career a couple years ago), while the other precedes him by starting in the era just prior to that one....It's pretty fair to say we're talking about two defensemen who belong in the top 4-5 of all-time, and maybe since they were so close in time, their comps are much more relevant than trying to throw in guys from the 1950s, for example.
What I find rather unsupportable then is to say that two of the greatest ever would have struggled mightily were they in the other guy's shoes. They may have done it differently, but Bourque probably would have thrived in Detroit, and Lidstrom wouldn't have regressed into some mediocre talent in Boston.
Specifically with Lidstrom hitting his stride, well, he did fairly well as a Rookie, but... even today, veteran players take about a year to adjust to the Wings system, and some never succeed. (That year figure is one I've seen quoted, not something I just made up.)
He came in before Scotty Bowman showed up and completely turned things upside down. Heck, even Yzerman was having some trouble adjusting to the new way to do things there initially. Lidstrom also was European-trained, so adjusting to the NHL style at that time could be another factor, though I've heard his coaches and the GM say that he never skipped a beat.
Main point, since I'm rambling apparently, is that Lidstrom came into a system of "team first" and soon the puck possession concept. Those teams didn't have any hotdogs, selfish players were cast out, players who didn't buy into the system were cast out (no matter the name). He served under Yzerman for most of his career, which probably instilled a certain approach to the game that was more about being selfless while being very responsible.
No. He has more career value though because he came into the league an elite or at least borderline elite player, while it took Lidstrom several years to hit his stride.
Lidstrom obviously started later and seemed to take a step back his second season but their rookie years are extremely comparable:
Lidstrom: 80 GP 53 PTS (adjusted), 3rd in the NHL with a +36
Bourque: 80 GP 55 PTS (adjusted), 3rd in the NHL with a +52
The two players who finished higher than Lidstrom in +/- that season were his defense partner Brad McCrimmon, so they formed a nice pairing, while his teammate Paul Ysebaert (Fedorov's linemate) lead the league. This was a big change from the prior year when McCrimmon was a +7 and Barr and Fedyk lead the team at +20.
Bourque was also 2nd in Norris voting and a 1st team All-Star, and Lidstrom was known at the time for occasional defensive lapses.
I don't see how their rookie seasons are comparable.
