Lidström vs Bourque

[Signupnow]

I guess spell check was happening eh?


Becasue he was dominant in the games he did play in?


ES scoring he actually scored at a higher rate than the 3 guys you mention above right?

I had Dahlin as a finalist but then he got injured and wasn't himself when he came back.

Also is you want to micro analyze stats do so for all players not just one here.

I asked you to gauge it. Why do you think Makar was a finalist this year?

The games he played? Its just pace pace pace but no fruit. When i look at the statline at the end of the season i see with my eyes looking at the numbers that he is so far down my scroll finger hurts.

Karlsson scored at an absurd pace in beginning of season pacing for like 130+ points should he have gotten injured then and waited for his norris nominations? (exagerated) It is worse to be injured than playing "decent" because you arent even there. so the 20 games miss is far worse than not scoring in 20 games.

 

[Regal]

Wouldn't you agree that 6 Norrises vs. 1 is a real gap in terms of the level they had in the last 10 years of their career?

It's not like Lidström was chopped liver early in his career either.


Top 3 finishes in the 80s:
Langway 84
Howe 86
Bourque 87
(Bourque 90)

Along with many 4th and 5th place finishes for d-men.

Yeah voting for d-men declined during the 90s, but there's still a clear divide if you look at the 20 years up to 2000 and the 20+ years since.

I think that’s an oversimplification based on wins vs ability and looking at the full 10 years. Bourque finished 2,2,1,3,2 during the first 5 years of this spans and in those years faced better competition on the whole. Lidstrom was better from 36-40, but I think their 30-35 years were quite close despite the Norris win discrepancy.

 

[wetcoast]

I asked you to gauge it. Why do you think Makar was a finalist this year?

I did "gauge it", voters thought he was dominant all around in the 60 games he played and others including Karlsson weren't dominant overall enough that Makar didn't lose votes as much as he might have other years.

for the record I thought Hughes and Miro should ahve gotten more votes but the voters usually go by points and playoff team ect....

The games he played? Its just pace pace pace but no fruit. When i look at the statline at the end of the season i see with my eyes looking at the numbers that he is so far down my scroll finger hurts.

Makar was 9th in Dman scoring but maybe your attention span needs some work here?

he was also a solid 2nd in PPG and was much better defensively than Karlsson was if anything Fox would have been a better choice but he has his Norris and Karlsson had the narrative and Makar is widely considered the best Dman in the league for a reason right?

Karlsson scored at an absurd pace in beginning of season pacing for like 130+ points should he have gotten injured then and waited for his norris nominations? (exagerated) It is worse to be injured than playing "decent" because you arent even there. so the 20 games miss is far worse than not scoring in 20 games.

Karlsson also played with hose money, his team had zero expectations of winning and he had the greenest light for any Dman last year along with the offensive zone starts and he should enjoy his Norris because I think it's probably the last time he will be a finalist with all of the other great Dmen in the league today.

 

[Signupnow]

I did "gauge it", voters thought he was dominant all around in the 60 games he played and others including Karlsson weren't dominant overall enough that Makar didn't lose votes as much as he might have other years.

for the record I thought Hughes and Miro should ahve gotten more votes but the voters usually go by points and playoff team ect....

Makar was 9th in Dman scoring but maybe your attention span needs some work here?

he was also a solid 2nd in PPG and was much better defensively than Karlsson was if anything Fox would have been a better choice but he has his Norris and Karlsson had the narrative and Makar is widely considered the best Dman in the league for a reason right?

Karlsson also played with hose money, his team had zero expectations of winning and he had the greenest light for any Dman last year along with the offensive zone starts and he should enjoy his Norris because I think it's probably the last time he will be a finalist with all of the other great Dmen in the league today.

I wanted to hear your opinions ,not the 'voters thought' And did Miro not have more points by the end of the season regardless of pace ? How was Karlssons and Dahlins Pace around the 60th mark?

We cant presume the pace to continue all the way through.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Would you say a Norris in 1955 is worth exactly the same as a Norris in 2023? I doubt it, because you recognize that competition levels matter.

So yes, there certainly can be a context where that gap looks a lot smaller than it superficially appears — such as finishing 2nd and 3rd during a historically difficult period, as opposed to finishing 1st against Dion Phaneuf.

He also finished 1st against Ray Bourque, in dominant fashion. Was that part of the "easy" competition or not? Stevens was 3rd, Blake 4th, Leetch 5th, Gonchar 6th, Macinnis 7th, Zubov 8th, Rafalski 9th, Pronger (the previous year's Hart winner) 10th.. terrible competition.

At the end of the day he would have won most of those Norrises against most competition, and certainly would have dominated the even weaker ~2011-2020 era. For example, his 05-06 season remained a top 3 scoring season for 15 years in the cap era. The reason he dominated was that he was simultaneously the best offensive d-man and the best defensive d-man, something extremely few d-men in history can claim to have been.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I think that’s an oversimplification based on wins vs ability and looking at the full 10 years. Bourque finished 2,2,1,3,2 during the first 5 years of this spans and in those years faced better competition on the whole. Lidstrom was better from 36-40, but I think their 30-35 years were quite close despite the Norris win discrepancy.

3 of those years he was nowhere near winning the award though, while Lidström dominated voting several times.
Like essentially you are saying "2nd place is quite close to 1st place", when in reality you are comparing getting 4% of 1st place votes vs. getting 90% of 1st place votes.

In a way it's like the Hart trophy race this season - there's a bunch of guys who could have finished 2nd or 3rd. But it doesn't mean any of them were close to McDavid.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I think the offensive gap is being understated here. Lidstrom only surpassed 30 ES points 3 times in his career, which is good but 2 times fewer than Keith, for example.

 

[Pavels Dog]

I think the offensive gap is being understated here. Lidstrom only surpassed 30 ES points 3 times in his career, which is good but 2 times fewer than Keith, for example.

5 times

 

[bambamcam4ever]

5 times

No, he got 30 points exactly on two occasions.

 

[wetcoast]

I wanted to hear your opinions ,not the 'voters thought' And did Miro not have more points by the end of the season regardless of pace ? How was Karlssons and Dahlins Pace around the 60th mark?

We cant presume the pace to continue all the way through.

I'm not talking about pace I'm talking about impact in actual games played even if it's only 60 games he scored at a rate of 1.10 PPG and has a historical record of being a top scorer.

Personally I probably would have voted for Hughes and Miro ahead of Makar last season but I also wouldn't have had Karlsson at #1, Fox, Hughes or even Miro were better all around Dmen last season and played full seasons.

But then again I don't make as big a deal as some do about the Norris or any other trophy, guys either way Norris worthy seasons or they don't, the actual difference in terms of historical significance or utility in an all time rating isn't as large as the voting results indicated this season or in most seasons.

Which takes us back to the OP, both guys are extremely close all time and it's a matter of preference one isn't really any better than the other in any overall significant way.

 

[Signupnow]

I'm not talking about pace I'm talking about impact in actual games played even if it's only 60 games he scored at a rate of 1.10 PPG and has a historical record of being a top scorer.

Personally I probably would have voted for Hughes and Miro ahead of Makar last season but I also wouldn't have had Karlsson at #1, Fox, Hughes or even Miro were better all around Dmen last season and played full seasons.

But then again I don't make as big a deal as some do about the Norris or any other trophy, guys either way Norris worthy seasons or they don't, the actual difference in terms of historical significance or utility in an all time rating isn't as large as the voting results indicated this season or in most seasons.

Which takes us back to the OP, both guys are extremely close all time and it's a matter of preference one isn't really any better than the other in any overall significant way.

What historical records does he have In that regard? I know his ppg is nice but he joined a perfect storm waiting until he grew out of puberty before even playing In nhl. Karlsson is however on a different tier when it comes to offense and u can't deny this. He has om the other hand a "record of being top scorer" for more than one season.

I don't mean to say kale is bad but everyone have a memory of a duckling so when we look back in a couple of years from now people will think he was deserved to be top 3 because they forgot the context. Do you think someone from Kazakstan who miss 20 percent of a season who also was underwhelming on 5on5 during the Injured time for his teammates where he should produce more of we going by the karlsson narrative which is equally stupid. That more people that pass the Puck around, as a defenseman you set up the entire play usually.

Makar should get praise but it has been a bit unwarranted as Canadian media put him up on the top spot as the best defenseman who ever walked this earth basically after 1 good season? Now he had more than 1 but there was no proving himself before the hype started.

And that is a little bit of my point. He gets more props and excuses than he deserve because they want to buile a legacy around him and hey, I don't blame them, must be tiresome to watch lid and Karl picking up Norris every year they weren't injured for so long.

 

[GhostfaceWu]

It's Bourque for both.

Lidstrom can't match the 8 year run of:

5x Norris
7x AS-1, 1x AS-2
2,2 Hart finishes

Or a career of:

1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4 Norris finishes
13x AS-1
6x AS-2

In 22 seasons he was outside the top 4 in Norris only 3x. His 1st year and his 22nd year, he was AS-1 and 4th/2nd in Norris respectively.

He was the Howe of defensemen and won his Norris trophies against Coffey/Chelios/Leetch/Stevens

Lol yea all lidstrom did in an 11 year period was win 7 norris trophies and a conn smythe.

 

[Cup or Bust]

In my opinion Ray Bourque is the best defenseman of the past 40 years. One of the most dominant d-man I have seen play.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Lol yea all lidstrom did in an 11 year period was win 7 norris trophies and a conn smythe.

After Bourque, Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, etc were 40 years old / retired.

He didn't win his first Norris until Bourque was 40. And Bourque still finished 2nd in voting.

When Lidstrom won his second Norris, a 40-year-old Chelios finished 2nd in voting.

When Lidstrom won his third Norris, a 39-year-old MacInnis finished 2nd in voting.

If those guys were finishing 2nd in Norris voting just before retirement, it demonstrates how dominant they were during their primes.

It also demonstrates that the competition had significantly weakened. Lidstrom doesn't win 7 Norris trophies if you swap his active years with Bourque's. He would've had to face those guys head-to-head in their primes.

Instead of winning Norris trophies against guys like Dion Phaneuf.

Even guys like Niedermayer couldn't hold a candle to prime Chelios or Leetch.

 

[Albatros]

If those guys were finishing 2nd in Norris voting just before retirement, it demonstrates how dominant they were during their primes.

MacInnis was at his best that year, he never was significantly better. Especially his defensive game was significantly worse in his 20s, several of his best seasons only after 35. Likewise Chelios only really regressed after 40. Bourque was at least as good at 35 as at 25.

 

[Voight]

Equally? Lidstrom was easily better than Bourque defensively. A no contest.


He wasn’t on Lidstrom’s level defensively though. That’s my point.

That’s why people are trying to bring up his offensive game when comparing him to Lidstrom.

Why doesn’t Erik Karlsson get that treatment when compared to his peers?

 

[wintersej]

I know that +\- has it’s obvious faults as it’s really non predictive of future results. But we are talking about what *actually happened* over their 20 year careers. I don’t really know how the guy that played on worse teams with significantly better +\- and significantly more points could not be the better player. Like the amount of mental twisting you have to do to argue otherwise is bonkers.

 

[Regal]

I know that +\- has it’s obvious faults as it’s really non predictive of future results. But we are talking about what *actually happened* over their 20 year careers. I don’t really know how the guy that played on worse teams with significantly better +\- and significantly more points could not be the better player. Like the amount of mental twisting you have to do to argue otherwise is bonkers.

Keep in mind that someone can have a higher GF% and a lower goal differential. Playing in a lower scoring environment typically affects plus minus. The DPE in particular was extremely low scoring at ES, and plus minus doesn’t include much of special teams

 

[wintersej]

Keep in mind that someone can have a higher GF% and a lower goal differential. Playing in a lower scoring environment typically affects plus minus. The DPE in particular was extremely low scoring at ES, and plus minus doesn’t include much of special teams

Bringing special teams into it won’t help Lidstrom.

 

[Regal]

Bringing special teams into it won’t help Lidstrom.

I wasn’t bringing their performance on special teams into it, I was talking about the limitations of plus minus and using goal differential rather than goals for percentage. While the Wings were a better team than the Bruins in general, the margin for victory at ES was much smaller in the DPE than in the 80s. Based on the goal data we have, Lidstrom was on for 1633 non-PP GF and 1183 non-PK GA, which makes his plus minus 450. Bourque is at 1982 and 1455 which makes his plus minus a higher 527. But Lidstrom’s GF% is 58.0, slightly above Bourque’s 57.7

 

[wintersej]

I wasn’t bringing special teams into it, I was talking about the limitations of plus minus and using goal differential rather than goals for percentage. Based on the goal data we have, Lidstrom was on for 1633 non-PP GF and 1183 non-PK GA, which makes his plus minus 450. Bourque is at 1982 and 1455 which makes his plus minus a higher 527. But Lidstrom’s GF% is 58.0, slightly above Bourque’s 57.7

Yes, fair, and with much more help. Before the 40 year old Bourque he played with two HoFers and only both of them at them same time for a few seasons of Neely playing half the games. Lidstrom was playing with what, six hall of famers at a time?

 

[traffic cone]

Get over it.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

I wasn’t bringing their performance on special teams into it, I was talking about the limitations of plus minus and using goal differential rather than goals for percentage. While the Wings were a better team than the Bruins in general, the margin for victory at ES was much smaller in the DPE than in the 80s. Based on the goal data we have, Lidstrom was on for 1633 non-PP GF and 1183 non-PK GA, which makes his plus minus 450. Bourque is at 1982 and 1455 which makes his plus minus a higher 527. But Lidstrom’s GF% is 58.0, slightly above Bourque’s 57.7

Goal differential is probably more important for top players than GF percentage though, since the expectation is that your lower lines will get outscored, so you want to create as large of a buffer as possible. Obviously era has an impact on those totals though.

 

[Regal]

Goal differential is probably more important for top players than GF percentage though, since the expectation is that your lower lines will get outscored, so you want to create as large of a buffer as possible. Obviously era has an impact on those totals though.

I agree in general, though like you said you’d have to era adjust that since the Bruins during Bourque’s years had considerably more combined GF and GA not on special teams than the Red Wings in Lidstrom’s years (8398 to 6980). Team quality plays a factor as well, and the Red Wings during Lidstrom’s time has a 56.1 GF% overall in non-special teams time while the Bruins in Bourque’s years had a 52.5 (I didn’t add Colorado). Though part of the Red Wings’ success was depth so I don’t think it necessarily says anything for Lidstrom to have worse relative numbers. I just don’t know if plus minus is going to give a clear answer without a deeper dive.

 

[wintersej]

I agree in general, though like you said you’d have to era adjust that since the Bruins during Bourque’s years had considerably more combined GF and GA not on special teams than the Red Wings in Lidstrom’s years (8398 to 6980). Team quality plays a factor as well, and the Red Wings during Lidstrom’s time has a 56.1 GF% overall in non-special teams time while the Bruins in Bourque’s years had a 52.5 (I didn’t add Colorado). Though part of the Red Wings’ success was depth so I don’t think it necessarily says anything for Lidstrom to have worse relative numbers. I just don’t know if plus minus is going to give a clear answer without a deeper dive.

McCrimmon, Sweeney, McLaren, Gill vs Coffey, Murphy, Schneider, Rafalski is certainly a disparity in most common partner over the years. I’m not even sure if Sweeney, Bourque’s most common partner, would have made the Wings roster.