Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[quoipourquoi]

You're probably right. Thinking back on it Messier was likely regarded as a nominally "better" player than Bourque during their respective primes (by "better", I mean more impactful, not necessarily more talented). When looking at my all time top 12/15, it seemed strange and somewhat unbalanced to only have three defencemen (Orr, Harvey, Bourque). To remove Bourque from the top 12 and replace him with Messier/Richard would make it seem even more unbalanced. Part of the difficulty of ranking all positions together, I guess. Regardless, I voted for Bourque being in the Top 15, and I'm sticking to it!

Definitely hard to keep positional balance and generational balance.

Consider my top-25:

I feel like it's a tight-25, but there's still enough white space in eras that make me second guess myself - particularly on early Wingers and Goaltenders.

 

[Killion]

Re Don Cherry and the above. As a teammate, regardless of your background you would be certain he would have your back all the time.

Oh ya, absolutely. Loyal but to a fault though that more a product of his upbringing, during his formative years in Kingston as a boy WW2 raging, Kingston with Royal Military College, training camps, his Mom a seamstress & tailor reliant on the industry that created along with just about everyone else in one way or another... the town steeped in military history... Canadas' 1st Capital City pre-dating Ottawa....

So heres this kid in Kingston growing up believing loyalty to King & Country (and in miniature, his hockey team mates, going to battle on the ice together) the most important thing in life... and all over the radio, in the papers, debate raging about Conscription in Quebec, the Bloc Populaire & Montreal Mayor Camille Houde.... deciding Quebecers', French Canadiens are feckless, gutless and doing so at so young an age without fully understanding what was going on & why, no real context, but once committed to that belief harboring it, a grudge...

So there he is, 40-50yrs later he see's a Francophone player wearing a visor, taking liberties, "refusing to man-up & fight" all over again & he's triggered, goes off like an ICBM.... I mean, when you break it all down its actually pretty hysterical. Get your head outta the 40's already, and maybe you should go back there, read your history, begin to understand & learn why the Bloc Populaire & Houde (who was interned for his beliefs & actions) took the positions they did. That no, French Canadians are not feckless, most assuredly NOT gutless... and you'd think he'd have understood that, learned it in playing with & against French Canadians over his many years in the minors, certainly as a Coach. He saw the Rocket beat Hell out of all comers; Boom Boom. You name it. I mean, what the Hell are you thinking Man?

His favorite player as a kid was Montreals' Kenny Reardon, tough as nails Winnipeg Boy. A fearless hard hitting Defenceman, oft injured as a result, slamming people around like there was no tomorrow, Hell bent for leather, an Enforcer who was usually in the top 5 PIM's.... Puck went into Reardons side, you werent coming out unscathed.... Real Bad News Dude... the Boogeyman... even he checked under his bed to make sure Kenny Reardon wasnt hiding there.. ultimate team player, loyalty everything & of course, one of the first NHL players to enlist. And this was Don's hero. Kenny a HHO Famer btw.... And thats fine. Nuff said. Just have to understand where a guy like Don Cherrys coming from. Product of his time, socio-economic & political-religious environment.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Don Cherry must be a figment of my imagination. And if he isn't, he must be speaking for himself only, and not for a large chunk of the population. Canadians never chanted "this is our game" in 1972. And so on, and so forth.

Is Don Cherry representative of the average Canadian? Does Cherry tell you much about the average Canadian?

Yeah, I agree with your general point.

Look at the Canada Cup '87 - Canada vs Soviets:

5 of the Canadian players are in the top 100 on HF.
4 of the players cut from the Canadian team are in the top 100 on HF.
1 of the players who declined an invitation is in the top 100 on HF.

Compared to only 2 of the Russians - both of whom are ranked much lower than they should be, in my opinion.

The same teams' HHOF members:

12 of the Canadian players are in the HHOF.
Compared to only 3 of the Russians, after Makarov was finally named after many, many years of being ignored.

All of this even though many people thought the Soviets were the better team overall.

Look, those players are always going to suffer when it comes to rankings and HHOF because of accomplishment. Tretiak was a superbly talented goalie, but he never got to play in the best league in the world. We can only judge those Soviet players based on their play in a very queer situation. That's not their fault, but it's the same reason Marian Czercawski isn't the greatest hockey player of all time.

Just to clarify, some may argue that the NHL-centric focus of North Americas is largely due to bias, but I'd objectively claim it's been the best league in the world for a very long time.

 

[MXD]

...queer?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Oh ya, absolutely. Loyal but to a fault though that more a product of his upbringing, during his formative years in Kingston as a boy WW2 raging, Kingston with Royal Military College, training camps, his Mom a seamstress & tailor reliant on the industry that created along with just about everyone else in one way or another... the town steeped in military history... Canadas' 1st Capital City pre-dating Ottawa....

So heres this kid in Kingston growing up believing loyalty to King & Country (and in miniature, his hockey team mates, going to battle on the ice together) the most important thing in life... and all over the radio, in the papers, debate raging about Conscription in Quebec, the Bloc Populaire & Montreal Mayor Camille Houde.... deciding Quebecers', French Canadiens are feckless, gutless and doing so at so young an age without fully understanding what was going on & why, no real context, but once committed to that belief harboring it, a grudge...

So there he is, 40-50yrs later he see's a Francophone player wearing a visor, taking liberties, "refusing to man-up & fight" all over again & he's triggered, goes off like an ICBM.... I mean, when you break it all down its actually pretty hysterical. Get your head outta the 40's already, and maybe you should go back there, read your history, begin to understand & learn why the Bloc Populaire & Houde (who was interned for his beliefs & actions) took the positions they did. That no, French Canadians are not feckless, most assuredly NOT gutless... and you'd think he'd have understood that, learned it in playing with & against French Canadians over his many years in the minors, certainly as a Coach. He saw the Rocket beat Hell out of all comers; Boom Boom. You name it. I mean, what the Hell are you thinking Man?


His favorite player as a kid was Montreals' Kenny Reardon, tough as nails Winnipeg Boy. A fearless hard hitting Defenceman, oft injured as a result, slamming people around like there was no tomorrow, Hell bent for leather, an Enforcer who was usually in the top 5 PIM's.... Puck went into Reardons side, you werent coming out unscathed.... Real Bad News Dude... the Boogeyman... even he checked under his bed to make sure Kenny Reardon wasnt hiding there.. ultimate team player, loyalty everything & of course, one of the first NHL players to enlist. And this was Don's hero. Kenny a HHO Famer btw.... And thats fine. Nuff said. Just have to understand where a guy like Don Cherrys coming from. Product of his time, socio-economic & political-religious environment.

The best thing aboot Don Cherry is how much he still loves the game.

 

[The Panther]

I really tire of these endless player ranking-comparisons (even though I often contribute to them). It's really a fruitless exercise and I think there are more important team-things to discuss.

Ray Bourque is always going to be thought of in either the 2nd-tier, or maybe the 3rd-tier, of all-time great players (the probable "big four" being the 1st tier). I think we all agree on that.

Beyond that -- how he compares to Lidstrom, Messier, etc. -- is just us blowing hot air.

Just be glad we got to see him play.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just be glad we got to see him play.

Worth the price of admission - even in his 50s.

 

[reckoning]

Yeah, I agree with your general point.

Look at the Canada Cup '87 - Canada vs Soviets:

5 of the Canadian players are in the top 100 on HF.
4 of the players cut from the Canadian team are in the top 100 on HF.
1 of the players who declined an invitation is in the top 100 on HF.

Compared to only 2 of the Russians - both of whom are ranked much lower than they should be, in my opinion.

The same teams' HHOF members:

12 of the Canadian players are in the HHOF.
Compared to only 3 of the Russians, after Makarov was finally named after many, many years of being ignored.

All of this even though many people thought the Soviets were the better team overall.

The U.S. team that won the gold medal in 1980 had zero HHOFers. The Soviet team that won the silver medal had four. The discrepancy is even larger when looking at IIHF inductees. Should American fans be outraged over this?

In the mid-70s, the Flyers and Leafs each had 3 on their team. Yet the Flyers were the far more successful team. New Jersey swept Detroit in the '95 Final despite the Wings having a 6-3 Hall of Fame lead.

Some teams are more than the sum of their parts.

And yes, players who had their peak years in Europe are underrepresented in the Hall. But that's more voters not giving consideration to leagues they're unfamilar with more than an anti-European bias. It's not applicable to the Bourque-Lidstrom debate because Lidstrom played his best years in the NHL.

I'd personally rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque, but it's very close and there's good arguments to be made for both of them. There's lots of good reasons why someone would take Bourque that have nothing to do with his nationality.

 

[Staniowski]

The U.S. team that won the gold medal in 1980 had zero HHOFers. The Soviet team that won the silver medal had four. The discrepancy is even larger when looking at IIHF inductees. Should American fans be outraged over this?

In the mid-70s, the Flyers and Leafs each had 3 on their team. Yet the Flyers were the far more successful team. New Jersey swept Detroit in the '95 Final despite the Wings having a 6-3 Hall of Fame lead.

Some teams are more than the sum of their parts.

And yes, players who had their peak years in Europe are underrepresented in the Hall. But that's more voters not giving consideration to leagues they're unfamilar with more than an anti-European bias. It's not applicable to the Bourque-Lidstrom debate because Lidstrom played his best years in the NHL.

I'd personally rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque, but it's very close and there's good arguments to be made for both of them. There's lots of good reasons why someone would take Bourque that have nothing to do with his nationality.

My point was that there are obviously other players on the '87 Soviet team who deserve to be in the HHOF. That's why I mentioned them specifically. It's not about a team being more than the sum of its parts. Obviously nobody on the US '80 team belongs in the Hall.

Regarding the HHOF, unfamiliarity is not a good reason to keep deserving players out of the Hall. Players like Firsov, Mikhailov, Vasiliev, Martinec, etc. should be inducted members.

I don't think I mentioned Lidstrom. I think what others were referring to about Lidstrom was not concerning the HHOF, but rather personal player rankings by fans.

 

[Big Phil]

Playoff performance: check, Lidstrom
Number of Norrises: check, Lidstrom
Number of Cups: check, Lidstrom
Number of Conn Smythes: check, Lidstrom
Captaining his team to a Cup (and being the first European to do it): check, Lidstrom.
Olympic gold: check, Lidstrom
Making Ian White a first-pair defenseman: check, Lidstrom

And the difference in defence is not negligible at all! In fact, it's pretty tangible.

How many of these are advantages? With context or without. With context there is no way Lidstrom wins 7 Norrises playing in Bourque's era. There is a reason he "only" won 5. There is also no way Bourque doesn't win more than 5 or even 7 in Lidstrom's era. This sort of logic is like saying Brad Park is inferior to Randy Carlyle.

The Olympic gold thing is nice, but Bourque has two best-on-best wins in Canada Cups to Lidstrom's 1.

Also, the Cups are something else that needs context. Think about the playoff success Lidstrom had after 2002 and then prior to 2008. Not great was it? There was a lull in his career where he didn't have Yzerman and Fedorov and before Datsyuk and Zetterberg hit their stride. You see some early playoff exits there. Detroit was still good, but not what we were used to. That was Ray Bourque's Bruins EVERY year. This is what he had to deal with. This is why he was the leader, no one else was good enough to be. Considering what he had to work with compared to Lidstrom, I think it is fair to say that Bourque's 180 playoff points are quite similar to what Lidstrom accomplished.

Besides, he wins in peak value. Lidstrom was never as good at his best as Bourque. And he wins in longevity. Lidstrom was great for a long time, but Bourque was great for a longer period of time rivalled only by Gordie Howe all-time. No one was that good for that long.

 

[VMBM]

Yeah, I agree with your general point.

Look at the Canada Cup '87 - Canada vs Soviets:

5 of the Canadian players are in the top 100 on HF.
4 of the players cut from the Canadian team are in the top 100 on HF.
1 of the players who declined an invitation is in the top 100 on HF.

Compared to only 2 of the Russians - both of whom are ranked much lower than they should be, in my opinion.

The same teams' HHOF members:

12 of the Canadian players are in the HHOF.
Compared to only 3 of the Russians, after Makarov was finally named after many, many years of being ignored.

All of this even though many people thought the Soviets were the better team overall.

Still, even as a fan of Soviet hockey I find it a bit hard to find many deserving players from that team; Krutov and Kasatonov certainly, but after that? Bykov, Khomutov, Pervukhin and Kamensky are the next best group, but at least there should be a couple of other Soviet/European players getting in before them, like Firsov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Vasiliev, Pospisil and Martinec. (EDIT: Okay, you obviously agree.)

And yes, I think the '87 Soviets were a somewhat better team overall, and would have won if the games had been played in Europe. Not one of my favourite Soviet teams on paper, but their performance was very impressive actually, since the team was so heavily dependent on their two top lines/units. Then again, Canada was heavily dependent on Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

[Fire Benning]

4th best defenseman ever.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

4th best defenseman ever.

Could be.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm gonna say something completely crazy: There might be a clearer path from which someone could convince me that Sprague Cleghorn has more all-time value than Bourque than someone convincing me Lidstrom does.

Do not take this as me implying I rank Cleghorn above Lidstrom (unless I'd be convinced of the above, in which case I'd have no choice).

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm gonna say something completely crazy: There might be a clearer path from which someone could convince me that Sprague Cleghorn has more all-time value than Bourque than someone convincing me Lidstrom does.

Do not take this as me implying I rank Cleghorn above Lidstrom (unless I'd be convinced of the above, in which case I'd have no choice).

Elephant in the room with Sprague Cleghorn is his departure from Ottawa in 1920 and how the Senators effectively became a better team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Elephant in the room with Sprague Cleghorn is his departure from Ottawa in 1920 and how the Senators effectively became a better team.

Yeah, we could use a throughout chronological bio of Cleghorn.I'd read that to get a better year by year read on him.

He still participated to two cups out of four with Ottawa.It's easier for Ottawa not to miss a beat when they still had two very top defensemen.Actually, for a while the top pairing was Cleghorn-Cameron in 1920 (edit: nevermind this was in 18-19), so Ottawa actually lost its ''top two defensemen'', even if Gerard was not really a ''3rd defenseman'', but just the most natural choice as a ''every-role guy''.

 

[Thenameless]

You're not alone. I certainly would rank Messier over Bourque. Do the vast majority really rank Bourque over Messier?

I think if you look at both of them at their best (which is probably around the same time), you have to take Messier. Messier at his best was incredibly good.

Bourque was one of my favourite players, though. I would cheer for Bourque over Messier.

This is almost exactly how I feel, right down to whom I'd cheer for. The slightly better player was no class act.

 

[Thenameless]

I went with Top 20 all-time, which is probably a lot lower than most of you have him. He is certainly greatness over an extended period, but he never struck me as enough of a game-changer.

 

[The Panther]

This is almost exactly how I feel, right down to whom I'd cheer for. The slightly better player was no class act.

Respectfully, I disagree with this. They were both class-acts in my opinion (though Bourque had that nasty DUI in 2016....).

 

[Thenameless]

Respectfully, I disagree with this. They were both class-acts in my opinion (though Bourque had that nasty DUI in 2016....).

Panther, I know you're an Oilers fan, but you do not want to do a poll of which player is "classsier" between Bourque and Messier. For full disclosure, one of the reasons I would choose guys like Bobby Clarke and Mark Messier over players of comparable ability is because I would not want these guys on the opposing team, and ending up injuring my players (I'd rather my team do the injuring, thanks, as bad as that may sound).

 

[The Panther]

Panther, I know you're an Oilers fan, but you do not want to do a poll of which player is "classsier" between Bourque and Messier. For full disclosure, one of the reasons I would choose guys like Bobby Clarke and Mark Messier over players of comparable ability is because I would not want these guys on the opposing team, and ending up injuring my players (I'd rather my team do the injuring, thanks, as bad as that may sound).

Ah, I see! You were talking about their mutual conduct on the ice. Yes, okay then. I can agree with you. Messier was a nasty SOB on the ice some of the time (not most of the time) for sure -- as was Gordie Howe.

 

[Killion]

Ah, I see! You were talking about their mutual conduct on the ice. Yes, okay then. I can agree with you. Messier was a nasty SOB on the ice some of the time (not most of the time) for sure -- as was Gordie Howe.

.... though unlike Howe, Messier was considerably more volatile, much more the instigator though equally methodical when it came to revenge actions. Be it he that was the victim of a dirty hit or play or to one of his teammates. Some of the stuff he pulled over the years more akin to the Eddie Shack meets Bobby Clarke play book than anything Gordie Howe ever pulled or wouldve even dreamed of pulling. Very edgy guy, player; and obviously very effective.

 

[Boxscore]

Raymond Bourque was phenomenal. I have him in my top 15, without question and have him as my 2nd or 3rd best defenseman ever to play the game, definitely ahead of Lidstrom. Bourque and Lidstrom were similar in ways but Bourque was thicker and way more physical. He was also more potent offensively. He also had insane stamina. IMO the battle for 2nd best defenseman behind Orr comes down to Bourque, Harvey and Potvin. After them, I have no problem adding Lidstrom ahead of guys like Shore, Fetisov, Robinson, Kelly, etc.

Ray Bourque was an absolutely gem. Put him on a team loaded with Elite talent - like Lidstrom had - and he would have Cups and Norris' out the wazoo.

 

[Fenway]

Ray Bourque was a tremendous player yet I could make the case he is the 4th best Bruins defenseman of all time.

Orr is #1 and then the fun begins. Eddie Shore was the dominant NHL player in the late 20's and most of the 30's. Today you have Zdeno Chara - and all three won the Cup as a Bruin.

Shore was borderline insane - the story of him missing a train and then taking a car from Boston to Montreal in a blizzard is legendary.

 

[HenrikW]

3rd defenseman behind Orr and Lidstrom in my book. Orr goes without saying. For Lidstrom it has to come down to achievements

Bourque
1x Stanley Cup, 1x Calder, 5x Norris

Lidstrom
4x Stanley Cup, 7x Norris, 1x Conn Smythe, 1x World Championship gold, 1x Olympic Gold