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

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,849
4,698
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
R71 seems to be confusing offense with overall play. Lidstrom was a better defenseman, by far, it's not even negotiable. The fact that he played for a loaded team made his services upfront superfluous. The fact that he scored as many points as he did, while playing a significantly better defensive game, puts him easily over Bourque in my eyes. His job was to prevent Sakic and Lindros from scoring. Which he did.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
R71 seems to be confusing offense with overall play. Lidstrom was a better defenseman, by far, it's not even negotiable. The fact that he played for a loaded team made his services upfront superfluous. The fact that he scored as many points as he did, while playing a significantly better defensive game, puts him easily over Bourque in my eyes. His job was to prevent Sakic and Lindros from scoring. Which he did.

Except of course that Bourque was also known as one of the best defensive Dmen in the League and when it actually came to preventing goals against, their numbers are virtually even.

In other words, pretty much everything you just said here is not supported by the eye test or by the stats.

And I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call anti-Canadian bias on you on this one.













:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
Ya, absolutely. I think ultimately though and while its never been publicly stated, Bowman very likely felt that Coffey simply by approach to the game far too much of a Free~Lancer and Opportunist. I suppose on some levels maybe even puck selfish at times. Refused to be saddled & bridled. Certainly the divide was fairly substantial between the two and eventually the split acrimonious. Well documented. Coffey's not said much about it in intervening years but he did talk of Lidstrom in a 2012 article on Kuklas Korner that was fairly illuminating.





Dont believe the posters suggesting the bolded above Rhiess. Ray Bourque wouldve bought into Bowmans system in a heartbeat without any problems whatsoever. In fact its too bad he didnt get that opportunity though if your a Bruins fan, maybe not huh? Rip him out of the Boston line~up through those years not so good for Bean Town. Bourque to Bowman, Im sure if Detroit had somehow managed to acquire him the comparisons to Orr would be like a river, a torrent, with that kind of supporting cast? Absolutely. Imagine he & Lidstrom paired? Or Salming & Orr on Detroits back end during Scottys reign & into the 00's?

Same sort of dynamic. Lidstrom did everything well, was bigger, longer reach than Coffey, Chelios & Bourque and played the angles like a Professor that negated his need for the kind of physicality of a guy like Bourque or Orr at times. Nick did everything well in using his size advantage & playing in reverse triangulations. He didnt need to step into anybody because he had the wheels combined with the size, was just tremendous with his stickwork, positioning. They couldnt beat him to the outside & if forced inside to the boards he'd just sort of gently ride them into the boards forcing a turnover & collecting the puck himself or forcing a harmless shot from the perimeters. He in fact did almost everything to the reverse of how Defenceman are taught in North America, certainly in Canada. Personally I preferred playing with mobile, smart & savvy guys like Lidstrom on my Defence as they werent the type who fully committed with physicality & checks. Got tied up, then caught out of position. Scramble back.

The other interesting thing about Lidstrom, and there are many, was his shot. 98% of the players you face as as you know as a Goalie yourself have a Sweet Spot on their blades, mid~way point. Lidstrom, this guy was just plain "out there" using the tip of his blade, sometimes the heel, points in between. For a Goalie facing such, total Nightmare. You cant get a bead or read on where that puck might be headed. Lidstrom could zing one in at you at 100mph from the tip of his blade which had a slight sharp hook on it (unusual) doing obviously very strange things to the pucks flight path. I faced Orrs' & Napiers, plenty of others Howitzers, Slapshots, Flick & Wristers, all of them with the exception of a very very few always shooting from the Sweet Spot on their blades.

In reading, projecting trajectory from your crease in the split second youve got before release, usually not hard to tell where that pucks headed. As an old Goalie once said of Bobby Hulls Slapshot; "the puck on his blade upon moment of impact looks like the size of pea then vanishes". Quite a common phenomena in fact when you hit Major Jr through Pro. You dont always see the puck in flight, it does in fact vanish and not just from screens. You could have a clear view but the speed combined with dips or risers, plays optical tricks, can screw you up big time like the odd Whiffer you see going in from a shot from behind Center & almost every Goalie who's ever played has had that happen.... So theres that & more when considering Lidstrom, and indeed some pundits have claimed Nik Lidstrom was the Greatest Red Wing of All Time, ranking him 3rd Greatest Defenceman All Time behind Orr & Doug Harvey, some though putting him ahead of Harvey. Personally I put Lidstrom in the #3 Spot BUT interchangeable with Bourque who simply wasnt (with the exception of Colorado but there, entirely different set of circumstances, end of career, Mercenary act) ever provided with the kind of Bench Boss & Supporting Cast his talent deserved. So absent that, history being what it is, I do rank Nikki Lidstrom over Ray Bourque. For Lidstrom, the perfect storm. For Bourque, well, you know that story.

I think Bourque would've looked better as a part of the russian 5 (if he could learn russian). It would allow him more freedom to rush the puck in deep than playing with Lidstrom would.
 

Wrath

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
2,184
186
R71 seems to be confusing offense with overall play. Lidstrom was a better defenseman, by far, it's not even negotiable. The fact that he played for a loaded team made his services upfront superfluous. The fact that he scored as many points as he did, while playing a significantly better defensive game, puts him easily over Bourque in my eyes. His job was to prevent Sakic and Lindros from scoring. Which he did.

Doesn't the existence of the contentious debate that is Lidstrom vs. Bourque automatically make the bolded statement negotiable false? (i.e. that it is not negotiable).
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
15
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Except of course that Bourque was also known as one of the best defensive Dmen in the League and when it actually came to preventing goals against, their numbers are virtually even.

In other words, pretty much everything you just said here is not supported by the eye test or by the stats.

And I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call anti-Canadian bias on you on this one.

I know everyone loves adjusting stats based on scoring era because in fairness, Bourque played in a higher scoring era for a good portion of his career.

But has anyone ever bothered to adjust their goals against based on era?

For instance, in Bourque's arguably best seasons, 1986-87 and 1989-90(The two Hart Runner up years), the average goals per game was 7.35 and 7.36. In those seasons, Bourque was on the ice for 98 goals against and 97 goals against.

Adjusted to Lidstrom's Norris era with larger goalie pads, team defense, etc, those numbers drop substantially.

In fact, it is surprising. If we penalize Bourque's offensive production due to era, should we not also look at Lidstrom's goals against and adjust it for a higher scoring era?

At the peak of the dead puck era, Lidstrom had several years where he was on the ice for over 100 goals against. Adjusted the other way, they work out to 140+ goals against per season:laugh:

Hard to also factor in the adjustments Lidstrom would have to make to compensate for smaller goalie pads. You had to aggressively confront and go after the puck carrier far more in the snapshot scores on the standup goalie era(Which made you more prone to the Forsberg undresses him out of his socks treatment) and odd man rushes were extremely common.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
So you're basicially saying that's the way it's gotta be without adding any substance to the debate.

Offensively, Bourque outscored Lidstrom but Lidstrom outscored Harvey - both raw and adjusted in both cases. What did Harvey do better than the other two? Was his defensive game that much more superior?

I honestly don't think there is a whole lot that separates them defensively, Bourque, Harvey or Lidstrom. I mean, you wouldn't care which of them was on the ice in the dying minute protecting a one-goal lead.

Offensively, you have to remember what defensemen did back then. Harvey was scoring when defensemen didn't do this. The fact that people would take him as more important to the Habs dynasty than Beliveau should tell you all you need to know about Harvey. I don't think I'd take Lidstrom over Yzerman during the Wings Cup years with the two of them. I know Lidstrom did some other things after that, but still, it is just to compare the two.

Like I said before, the ability to control the game is what separates Harvey and Bourque from Lidstrom. That's the meat of the discussion right there I think. Harvey quarterbacked a Hall of Fame cast. So did Lidstrom, but he didn't stand out amongst his stars the way Harvey did.

Maybe not in this thread but in general. I have always felt that his cup victory is over-glorified and seems to be such a big part of the evaluation of his career making it very tough for me to put him that much ahead of Lidström to be honest.

I would say his career was 98% complete before his last season. It is almost like a cherry on top. It's a way of saying, "oh look, he was a 1st team all-star in his final season as well, AND he won the Cup." By the way, Bourque was important in doing this as well. There was a "big three" on Colorado with Bourque, Blake and Foote in 2001. This never happened before, they were a much different team with Bourque there for a full season. You know how sometimes you get the feeling a team is winning the Cup on opening day? I got that feeling with Colorado in 2000-'01. It was just there. They were so driven.

But basically his Colorado days make up for about 2% of his career. The bulk of it was with Boston.
 

Wrath

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
2,184
186
Would people feel different if Bourque won his cup in a similar manner to how Jagr won his first cup?

I.e. Bourque is a promising star his rookie year and wins the cup with the Bruins, never wins another cup again.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Bourque was only a budding star his rookie year (which, obviously by norris and all-star team votes, was not true), and he won the cup, would we still give Bourque crap for never winning in Boston???

Jagr never won in his prime, but nobody ever says "he never won the cup", "he never carried a team to the cup as the best player".
 

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
I honestly don't think there is a whole lot that separates them defensively, Bourque, Harvey or Lidstrom. I mean, you wouldn't care which of them was on the ice in the dying minute protecting a one-goal lead.

Offensively, you have to remember what defensemen did back then. Harvey was scoring when defensemen didn't do this. The fact that people would take him as more important to the Habs dynasty than Beliveau should tell you all you need to know about Harvey. I don't think I'd take Lidstrom over Yzerman during the Wings Cup years with the two of them. I know Lidstrom did some other things after that, but still, it is just to compare the two.

Like I said before, the ability to control the game is what separates Harvey and Bourque from Lidstrom. That's the meat of the discussion right there I think. Harvey quarterbacked a Hall of Fame cast. So did Lidstrom, but he didn't stand out amongst his stars the way Harvey did.



I would say his career was 98% complete before his last season. It is almost like a cherry on top. It's a way of saying, "oh look, he was a 1st team all-star in his final season as well, AND he won the Cup." By the way, Bourque was important in doing this as well. There was a "big three" on Colorado with Bourque, Blake and Foote in 2001. This never happened before, they were a much different team with Bourque there for a full season. You know how sometimes you get the feeling a team is winning the Cup on opening day? I got that feeling with Colorado in 2000-'01. It was just there. They were so driven.

But basically his Colorado days make up for about 2% of his career. The bulk of it was with Boston.

They did. Red Kelly reached 40 points when Harvey was trying to break 30.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
I honestly don't think there is a whole lot that separates them defensively, Bourque, Harvey or Lidstrom. I mean, you wouldn't care which of them was on the ice in the dying minute protecting a one-goal lead.

Offensively, you have to remember what defensemen did back then. Harvey was scoring when defensemen didn't do this. The fact that people would take him as more important to the Habs dynasty than Beliveau should tell you all you need to know about Harvey. I don't think I'd take Lidstrom over Yzerman during the Wings Cup years with the two of them. I know Lidstrom did some other things after that, but still, it is just to compare the two.

Like I said before, the ability to control the game is what separates Harvey and Bourque from Lidstrom. That's the meat of the discussion right there I think. Harvey quarterbacked a Hall of Fame cast. So did Lidstrom, but he didn't stand out amongst his stars the way Harvey did.

I would take Lidstrom over any other Wing on those 4 Cup winning teams.


@Dark Shadows. There are just far too many variables at play to do any kind of adjusting that doesn't leave too much error to be truly useful. Off the top of my head:

*Schedules (unbalanced)
*Eastern time zone team in Western conf + travel
*Equipment
*European content
*Number of teams & Players
*Parity or lack thereof, aka, higher/lower scoring eras & quality of competition (which also shows up in other areas)


I just wouldn't know you possibly start adjusting.
 

Wrath

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
2,184
186
I would take Lidstrom over any other Wing on those 4 Cup winning teams.


@Dark Shadows. There are just far too many variables at play to do any kind of adjusting that doesn't leave too much error to be truly useful. Off the top of my head:

*Schedules (unbalanced)
*Eastern time zone team in Western conf + travel
*Equipment
*European content
*Number of teams & Players
*Parity or lack thereof, aka, higher/lower scoring eras & quality of competition (which also shows up in other areas)


I just wouldn't know you possibly start adjusting.

So how is it fair to adjust Bourque's offensive point production down to DPE levels?

Since all those same factors come into play as well.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
I know everyone loves adjusting stats based on scoring era because in fairness, Bourque played in a higher scoring era for a good portion of his career.

But has anyone ever bothered to adjust their goals against based on era?

For instance, in Bourque's arguably best seasons, 1986-87 and 1989-90(The two Hart Runner up years), the average goals per game was 7.35 and 7.36. In those seasons, Bourque was on the ice for 98 goals against and 97 goals against.

Adjusted to Lidstrom's Norris era with larger goalie pads, team defense, etc, those numbers drop substantially.

In fact, it is surprising. If we penalize Bourque's offensive production due to era, should we not also look at Lidstrom's goals against and adjust it for a higher scoring era?

At the peak of the dead puck era, Lidstrom had several years where he was on the ice for over 100 goals against. Adjusted the other way, they work out to 140+ goals against per season:laugh:

Hard to also factor in the adjustments Lidstrom would have to make to compensate for smaller goalie pads. You had to aggressively confront and go after the puck carrier far more in the snapshot scores on the standup goalie era(Which made you more prone to the Forsberg undresses him out of his socks treatment) and odd man rushes were extremely common.

It's not this simple. If you look at Hockey Reference they lay this all out in terms of top 10 league finishes for each season. Both Lidstrom and Bourque are very impressive here, of course, considering how much they both played. To me, what's surprising are the finishes Bourque had in those two years you mentioned, and how high Lidstrom often finished in Total Goals On-Ice For, considering some have claimed he didn't "drive the offense" for his team.

Total Goals On-Ice Against:

Lidstrom
1999-00 NHL 103 (2)
2000-01 NHL 106 (5)
2010-11 NHL 98 (9)
Career NHL 1718 (13)

Bourque
1991-92 NHL 122 (1)
1995-96 NHL 127 (2)
1996-97 NHL 111 (6)
1999-00 NHL 97 (10)
Career NHL 2144 (3)

Total Goals On-Ice For:

Lidstrom
1993-94 NHL 174 (2)
1995-96 NHL 150 (9)
1997-98 NHL 126 (1)
1998-99 NHL 129 (8)
1999-00 NHL 148 (1)
2000-01 NHL 147 (4)
2001-02 NHL 129 (1)
2002-03 NHL 161 (1)
2003-04 NHL 120 (5)
2005-06 NHL 161 (1)
2006-07 NHL 143 (4)
2007-08 NHL 140 (3)
2008-09 NHL 138 (5)
2009-10 NHL 125 (9)
2010-11 NHL 122 (9)
Career NHL 2679 (6)

Bourque
1979-80 NHL 162 (5)
1983-84 NHL 187 (3)
1984-85 NHL 167 (6)
1985-86 NHL 169 (9)
1986-87 NHL 168 (2)
1987-88 NHL 163 (5)
1989-90 NHL 170 (4)
1990-91 NHL 173 (5)
1991-92 NHL 160 (5)
1992-93 NHL 187 (5)
1993-94 NHL 171 (3)
1994-95 NHL 82 (10)
1995-96 NHL 176 (4)
2000-01 NHL 142 (5)
Career NHL 3257 (2)
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
So how is it fair to adjust Bourque's offensive point production down to DPE levels?

Since all those same factors come into play as well.


I don't like making the adjustments in any direction, truth be told. I also feel that the farther apart players are in time, the more impossible it is to do any meaningful comparisons. (I touched on some of the mathematical side of this earlier.)

I know the HOH board accepts doing them, I'm just not a fan of it.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
I honestly don't think there is a whole lot that separates them defensively, Bourque, Harvey or Lidstrom. I mean, you wouldn't care which of them was on the ice in the dying minute protecting a one-goal lead.

Give me Lidstrom here. And I know hockey is hockey but as great as Harvey was defensively in his era, he usually only had to defend the traditional north-south Canadian game. There were no Russians, Swedes, Czech's, Finn's, etc. and barely any Americans, in the league then. The league wasn't a hybrid of styles like it is today and there were no Lindros' or guys with that type of size to deal with. Howe was big and strong for the time but he wasn't 240 lbs. It's difficult to assume that none of these factors would make it more difficult for Harvey to defend as well as he did in his era while Lidstrom faced all of this.

Offensively, you have to remember what defensemen did back then. Harvey was scoring when defensemen didn't do this. The fact that people would take him as more important to the Habs dynasty than Beliveau should tell you all you need to know about Harvey. I don't think I'd take Lidstrom over Yzerman during the Wings Cup years with the two of them. I know Lidstrom did some other things after that, but still, it is just to compare the two.

Like I said before, the ability to control the game is what separates Harvey and Bourque from Lidstrom. That's the meat of the discussion right there I think. Harvey quarterbacked a Hall of Fame cast. So did Lidstrom, but he didn't stand out amongst his stars the way Harvey did.

This again? Harvey played on teams with not only Beliveau but also The Rocket, Geoffrion, Olmstead, Moore, and with Plante in net. It's extremely similar to Lidstrom's situation, only those Habs teams were even more stacked for their era. Both defenders played the most minutes of any skater and both anchored their bluelines. The same things were said about Lidstrom - Yzerman himself said he was their most important player in the early 2000's. It's a toss up here.

I would say his career was 98% complete before his last season. It is almost like a cherry on top. It's a way of saying, "oh look, he was a 1st team all-star in his final season as well, AND he won the Cup." By the way, Bourque was important in doing this as well. There was a "big three" on Colorado with Bourque, Blake and Foote in 2001. This never happened before, they were a much different team with Bourque there for a full season. You know how sometimes you get the feeling a team is winning the Cup on opening day? I got that feeling with Colorado in 2000-'01. It was just there. They were so driven.

But basically his Colorado days make up for about 2% of his career. The bulk of it was with Boston.

Yes, but at the start of the season they didn't have Blake. They really only had this "big three" after the trade deadline and for the playoffs.
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
15
Canada
www.robotnik.com
It's not this simple. If you look at Hockey Reference they lay this all out in terms of top 10 league finishes for each season. Both Lidstrom and Bourque are very impressive here, of course, considering how much they both played. To me, what's surprising are the finishes Bourque had in those two years you mentioned, and how high Lidstrom often finished in Total Goals On-Ice For, considering some have claimed he didn't "drive the offense" for his team.

Total Goals On-Ice Against:

Lidstrom
1999-00 NHL 103 (2)
2000-01 NHL 106 (5)
2010-11 NHL 98 (9)
Career NHL 1718 (13)

Bourque
1991-92 NHL 122 (1)
1995-96 NHL 127 (2)
1996-97 NHL 111 (6)
1999-00 NHL 97 (10)
Career NHL 2144 (3)

Total Goals On-Ice For:

Lidstrom
1993-94 NHL 174 (2)
1995-96 NHL 150 (9)
1997-98 NHL 126 (1)
1998-99 NHL 129 (8)
1999-00 NHL 148 (1)
2000-01 NHL 147 (4)
2001-02 NHL 129 (1)
2002-03 NHL 161 (1)
2003-04 NHL 120 (5)
2005-06 NHL 161 (1)
2006-07 NHL 143 (4)
2007-08 NHL 140 (3)
2008-09 NHL 138 (5)
2009-10 NHL 125 (9)
2010-11 NHL 122 (9)
Career NHL 2679 (6)

Bourque
1979-80 NHL 162 (5)
1983-84 NHL 187 (3)
1984-85 NHL 167 (6)
1985-86 NHL 169 (9)
1986-87 NHL 168 (2)
1987-88 NHL 163 (5)
1989-90 NHL 170 (4)
1990-91 NHL 173 (5)
1991-92 NHL 160 (5)
1992-93 NHL 187 (5)
1993-94 NHL 171 (3)
1994-95 NHL 82 (10)
1995-96 NHL 176 (4)
2000-01 NHL 142 (5)
Career NHL 3257 (2)
It is not at all surprising. Both goals for and goals against while on the ice have a heavy reliance on the teammates on the ice with you.

Bourque and Lidstrom were both on the ice with the best offensive players on their team a lot of the time. But they were also on the ice with the lines out with the job of shutting down the opposing forwards.

So while Bourque had some good scorers on the ice with him half the time in those years, guys like Neely, Janney and Oates, the other half of the time he had some decent more strictly defensive guys like Steve Kaspar and Dave Poulin.

The difference between them and having a two way center the caliber of Fedorov, or Yzerman, or Datsyuk or Zetterberg on the ice with you the other half of the time while holding the other teams top scorers in check is tremendous to both your goals for and against.

In 86-87, Bourque was on the ice for 168 of Boston's 301 goals for, and 98 of Boston's 276 goals against.

In Lidstrom's 2002-03 season he was on the ice for 161 of Detroit's 269 goals for and 100 of the team's 203 goals against.
 

overg

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
1,228
235
Indianapolis, IN
Visit site
So how is it fair to adjust Bourque's offensive point production down to DPE levels?

Since all those same factors come into play as well.

The flaws with era adjusted have been well-discussed, but trying to apply them to defensemen is a whole new can of worms in a ballgame. Especially when it comes to Bourque and Lidstrom, as the end/start of their respective peaks also coincided almost exactly with a radical shift in how hockey was played.

80's and early 90's era hockey allowed for, and expected, offensive defensemen to rush the puck. Not only were Bourque's teams not as concerned with playing "a system" (thus freeing defensemen from the defensive responsibilities of system based hockey), they were also playing opponents who weren't as concerned with systems, allowing for more room for defensemen to do so.

Which is of course a double edged sword for both players. Bourque was expected to press the play more, and his defense suffered some for it. Lidstrom was expected not to press the play more, and his offense suffered some for it.

The really interesting question is how much this change in era affected both players. Lidstrom broke in during the still high flying early 90's, but didn't establish himself as a Norris threat until the game had changed. Was that because he was still developing, or because his game just wasn't as suited to stand out when a more up-tempo game was still in vogue. On the flip side, Bourque's days of truly challenging for the Norris ended right about the same time. Was that because of age, or did the changes in the way the game was played affect his ability to stand out? For both players, it's probably a little bit of this, and some of that. I presume peak Bourque would have been a much bigger threat for the Norris if his peak occurred in the late 90's, and I presume the same is true for Lidstrom if he had peaked in the late 80's, early 90's. But in both players' cases, they were so well-suited to their era that I have to think there would have been at least some dip in their all-time value. But it's hardly an insult to say a player was essentially perfectly suited for their era, so I'm not sure that really gets us anywhere.

In any event, if one were to "adjust" Lidstrom's scoring to account for era, it would only seem fair to adjust his defense too. But given just how different defenseman's roles were between the two era, I'm not sure that most of the standard metrics (which seem to work better for forwards, where even then they get kind of dicey) would work. You'd really have to era adjust for what a sort of offense and defense an All Star level defenseman was expected to bring.

It's just a really tough call all the way around. You've got the two indisputably best defensemen of two indisputably different eras of hockey. Trying to "era adjust" them kind of handicaps them both, as they were both such amazing products of their eras.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I don't like making the adjustments in any direction, truth be told. I also feel that the farther apart players are in time, the more impossible it is to do any meaningful comparisons. (I touched on some of the mathematical side of this earlier.)

I know the HOH board accepts doing them, I'm just not a fan of it.

Not ALL of the History board advocates their use, at least not anything close to the weight some want to use them at.


You also have to understand that Adjusted stats being used to counter Bourque's offense compared to Lidstrom's has been a heavily used argument on these boards for a long time now.

So if I'm coming off a little sarcastic...ok, I'm always sarcastic, rephrase, if I'm coming even more sarcastic than usual it's because it's almost comical that a lot of the same people that have been arguing the Adjusted Stat line in regards to offense, are all of a sudden balking at the idea of using them for the defensive side.

Personally, I have been asking for the same to be done to Lidstrom's defense as what's been done for Bourque's offense for a long time now.
Shockingly enough :sarcasm: I never seem to get any responses when myself or others mention it.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Not ALL of the History board advocates their use, at least not anything close to the weight some want to use them at.


You also have to understand that Adjusted stats being used to counter Bourque's offense compared to Lidstrom's has been a heavily used argument on these boards for a long time now.

So if I'm coming off a little sarcastic...ok, I'm always sarcastic, rephrase, if I'm coming even more sarcastic than usual it's because it's almost comical that a lot of the same people that have been arguing the Adjusted Stat line in regards to offense, are all of a sudden balking at the idea of using them for the defensive side.

Personally, I have been asking for the same to be done to Lidstrom's defense as what's been done for Bourque's offense for a long time now.
Shockingly enough :sarcasm: I never seem to get any responses when myself or others mention it.

I think you'll have a hard time finding any posts from me where I say that is an effective or even good way to do it. I play along with the board since it's an accepted approach, so sure, adjust in any direction if you like. I think Hockey Outsider did some interesting comparisons for just the eras, but these obviously cannot be taken as having taken into consideration all the other factors that I touched on, and which overg quite eloquently summarized.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've been saying on my rare visits here that I don't like the cross-era comparisons much at all, and would just like to pick the best guy for whichever "era" is defined. I think my Lidstrom and your Bourque would do very well in their own apples to apples comparisons. :)
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
considering some have claimed he didn't "drive the offense" for his team.

NO SIR!
That has NOT been the claim.
The claim has always been that Bourque was better at driving the offense than Lidstrom was and that is 100% supported even when using Adjusted Stats only.


Never fails though, anytime someone says that they think Bourque did something better, it's always taken as Lidstrom sucked at it.
It's really getting old and tiresome to have go through this every freakin time.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I think you'll have a hard time finding any posts from me where I say that is an effective or even good way to do it. I play along with the board since it's an accepted approach, so sure, adjust in any direction if you like. I think Hockey Outsider did some interesting comparisons for just the eras, but these obviously cannot be taken as having taken into consideration all the other factors that I touched on, and which overg quite eloquently summarized.

In fact, I'm pretty sure I've been saying on my rare visits here that I don't like the cross-era comparisons much at all, and would just like to pick the best guy for whichever "era" is defined. I think my Lidstrom and your Bourque would do very well in their own apples to apples comparisons. :)

No, no, I wasn't directing any of that at you (the ones I am directing it at know exactly who they are ;) ).

And I agree 100%, Adjusted Stats have so many factors not being accounted for even beyond the ones you cited.
How AS's treat outliers or how it doesn't account for the different levels of drop off between top tier and lower tier scoring just to name two.


Adjusted Stats are meant to be a guide, not a replacement. A part of the equation, not THE solution.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,215
That was an excellent analysis by Killion. I watched his whole career and never really noticed this until I read an article where a player pointed to this same thing about Lidstrom's shot. I think it was Chelios and he said Lidstrom never wanted the puck in his wheelhouse for the one-timer like most because of the part of the blade he used.... They weren't always low and heavy deflected shots. Two of his most memorable goals were top corner one-timers against Irbe in the '02 finals and Niittymaki for the gold medal in the '06 Olympics. Nightmare shots for butterfly goalies like those two.

Thanks, and oh ya. Lidstrom could top shelf with the best of them and in fact when it came to threading a needle through traffic the guy was a Master Tailor from Saville... Bond Street or wherever. Amazing really considering that wonky fish hook on his blade. He just had a natural gift, vision for taking just the right shot at the right time. Anticipation, critical thought, patience, as inevitably with the Butterfly, that style, the Giants in the crease commit early & go down, head back, and I dont care how tall & overstuffed they might be you simply do not have the mobility to snare a top stick side or high trapper shot while falling backwards or forwards with a Humpty Dumpty faceplant. Its an un-natural position physiologically, that BF. Its a farce. Its a "save selection" to be used only in certain situations yet here we are, and its a full time "style". Its absurd.

MacInnis might have been the most feared player from the point but Bourque was the most dangerous.

... ooo. scared. c'mon. just get in yer crouch & buck up Rhiess. whats the worst thing that could happen? ha? take yer arm clean off if you accidentally caught it? see, that was the thing with yer 2 guys there. they could be suckered to put the puck exactly where you wanted them to put it. susceptible to goaltenders trickery.

R71 seems to be confusing offense with overall play. Lidstrom was a better defenseman, by far, it's not even negotiable. The fact that he played for a loaded team made his services upfront superfluous. The fact that he scored as many points as he did, while playing a significantly better defensive game, puts him easily over Bourque in my eyes. His job was to prevent Sakic and Lindros from scoring. Which he did.

Ok. K. Now, just play along here for a minute cuz were going into Fantasyland..... "imagine Ray Bourque Drafted by the Wings, playing his career in Motown contemporaneously to Lidstrom". Ok? See what Rhiess & others saying in comparing the two? HOWEVER, unfortunately for Raymond Bourque as we well know he was not Drafted by Detroit, didnt have the luxury of Ilitch, Bowman & supporting cast. Im quite certain he wouldve excelled and probably exchanged Norris Trophies with Nik Lidstrom every other year. An embarrassment of riches really had that happened BUT IT DIDNT. And as a result of that NOT HAPPENING and in light of the facts on the ice & in the books, Lidstrom, not Raymond Bourque was the leading Defenceman of his Generation.

I think Bourque would've looked better as a part of the russian 5 (if he could learn russian). It would allow him more freedom to rush the puck in deep than playing with Lidstrom would.

Exactly, I agree completely.

Absolutely. GD shame it never happened. We was robbed. Ray was robbed.

And I agree 100%, Adjusted Stats have so many factors not being accounted for even beyond the ones you cited.... Adjusted Stats are meant to be a guide, not a replacement. A part of the equation, not THE solution.

Ya, and I wonder what Scotty Bowman might think about "adjusted stats" huh? :rolleyes:
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
15
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Are you suggesting anyone is recruiting? :laugh:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1739273

I'll be honest here. I do not think that is what you were trying to do, but I was told specifically not to do this by another moderator years ago.

A few years back, A heated discussion was going about Lidstrom and Bourque(Surprise surprise) and some people were arguing over a particular Bourque fact. I made a post in the Boston section telling them the discussion was going on in the History section and trying to jog some memories because at the time because some Bruins fans have access to archived news subscriptions for details.

Of course, the thread got a few hundred views in the Bruins section, and promptly, many of those few hundred views came and voted on the poll. At which point Norrisnick or Rabbins(can't remember which. I get along with both those chaps, but it was a heated discussion) childed me for trying to pad the vote by garnering the attention of Boston fans who do not normally visit the history section.

At which point, my thread was deleted and the mod told me not to try to rig the poll by doing that. I professed that was not my intent(Bourque was handily winning the poll and there was no need), but I was told if I did it again, I would get an infraction.

So while it was not your intent, the thread you created specifically mentioned arguing a fact about Lidstrom on the history section board, has over 1000 views, and Bourque had a much larger lead a few days ago before that thread snagged a few voters.

No disrespect intended, but it inadvertently had that effect of "recruiting"
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
35 members viewed that thread in the last three days. I can send you the list and you can compare to see if they voted.

:laugh:


And well, whichever mod told you whatever, and whatnot, I declare it null and void. The intent really was to discuss Lidstrom and Forsberg, and as you can see, the Wings fans were rather complimentary to Foppa.


(It sounds like NN, but Rabbins gets fussy too sometimes.)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad