Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[Sentinel]

Trophy counting only gets you so far, kindof like career stats. Lidstrom does have the edge on Norrises, but Bourque was a Hart finalist twice, in an era where this was basically unheard of for a defenseman. Now obviously no one is beating out Wayne in '87 but in 1990 he loses by a coinflip to Messier, who had the much sexier media narrative in his favour(not to say he didn't deserve it, that's a whole other thread).

Now does all that mean that Bourque was the better player? Not necessarily, but it certainly helps his case.

I dunno, Bourque's media narrative was also pretty sexy. Plus, being a lonely superstar (with an exception of several Oates and Neely years) will place you higher on a Hart's ballot than being on a stacked team.

A better way to compare Lidstrom's and Bourque's value would be to see how they placed in Hart votes on their team. Other than the Fedorov's superseason, Lidstrom was always #1 on the Wings (there was also one truly bizarre season when Shanahan somehow charted higher). It's every bit as impressive as Bourque's domination on the Bruins.

I am willing to concede that Bourque was a better offensive defenseman. But Lidstrom was a hands down better defensive defenseman. Add to that his Norrises and his wins... and he places higher than Bourque.

 

[Sentinel]

Oh really? Funny because I'm thinking the same about Lidstrom.

Can you please provide the quote that compares Lidstrom to Wayne Gretzky and Gordie Howe?

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Can you please provide the quote that compares Lidstrom to Wayne Gretzky and Gordie Howe?

I've seen enough of "Lidstrom is the greatest defenseman of all time even before Bobby Orr" to know how overrated he is.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Trophy counting only gets you so far, kindof like career stats. Lidstrom does have the edge on Norrises, but Bourque was a Hart finalist twice, in an era where this was basically unheard of for a defenseman. Now obviously no one is beating out Wayne in '87 but in 1990 he loses by a coinflip to Messier, who had the much sexier media narrative in his favour(not to say he didn't deserve it, that's a whole other thread).

Now does all that mean that Bourque was the better player? Not necessarily, but it certainly helps his case. Just as Lidstrom's two extra Norrises help his.

Bourque also has a career Norris record of:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4

15x finalist, 19x top 5

as mentioned before against a far tougher group of defensemen like Chelios, Coffey, Potvin, Leetch, MacInnis

 

[Spirit of 67]

Tough call.

I think he's maybe around 15.

This is why I always feel he's over rated. Ya, he was excellent but I think people get carried away with how excellent.

 

[scott clam]

I dunno, Bourque's media narrative was also pretty sexy. Plus, being a lonely superstar (with an exception of several Oates and Neely years) will place you higher on a Hart's ballot than being on a stacked team.

A better way to compare Lidstrom's and Bourque's value would be to see how they placed in Hart votes on their team. Other than the Fedorov's superseason, Lidstrom was always #1 on the Wings (there was also one truly bizarre season when Shanahan somehow charted higher). It's every bit as impressive as Bourque's domination on the Bruins.

I am willing to concede that Bourque was a better offensive defenseman. But Lidstrom was a hands down better defensive defenseman. Add to that his Norrises and his wins... and he places higher than Bourque.

Well in 93/94 Bourque did finish above oates and neely in hart voting when oates finished 3rd in points and neely got his 50 in 50. Lidstrom's 7 Norrises are obviously ridiculous, but it's important to remember that He didn't win his first Norris until what was Bourque's last season. Bourque was the runner up that year at the age of 40. So aside from that year the two players aren't really "competing" for Norrises against eachother.

Within context of their respective eras Bourque's five are the most for his and Lidstrom's seven are the most for his era. So for me that pretty much makes them even in that department. If not for that, than the fact that Bourque has more first team allstar selections than any other player.

So I tend to side with Bourque with regards to peak and longevity, but Lidstrom definitely has the edge in playoffs. Both players excelled in all these areas.

 

[The Macho King]

Lidstrom's 7 Norrises are obviously ridiculous, but it's important to remember that He didn't win his first Norris until what was Bourque's last season. Bourque was the runner up that year at the age of 40. So aside from that year the two players aren't really "competing" for Norrises against eachother.

Also Lidstrom is competing against arguably the darkest time in modern-league history when it comes to quality Dman.

There's him - a top 5 defender, and then....

Pronger (1 Norris, zero times runner up - I'm in a minority here but I have him as an incredibly overrated player. Maybe top 25 Dman of all-time)
Niedermayer (talk about overrated...)
Chara?
ermmm... Mike Green?
Zubov?
Weber?
Some Keith?

The level of Norris competition between the two is miles apart. And Lidstrom never had Langway's 30 points taking back-to-back Norris trophies that could have easily ended up with Bourque.

 

[scott clam]

Also Lidstrom is competing against arguably the darkest time in modern-league history when it comes to quality Dman.

There's him - a top 5 defender, and then....

Pronger (1 Norris, zero times runner up - I'm in a minority here but I have him as an incredibly overrated player. Maybe top 25 Dman of all-time)
Niedermayer (talk about overrated...)
Chara?
ermmm... Mike Green?
Zubov?
Weber?
Some Keith?

The level of Norris competition between the two is miles apart. And Lidstrom never had Langway's 30 points taking back-to-back Norris trophies that could have easily ended up with Bourque.

you can add Rob Blake and a veteran Al MacInnis to that list. Lidstrom and Bourque were both finalists the years those guys won. Amazingly a 40 year old MacInnis came close to winning another Norris in 2003 but outside of him and Bourque those are the only old timers still in Norris contention during Lidstrom's heyday.

 

[Sentinel]

I've seen enough of "Lidstrom is the greatest defenseman of all time even before Bobby Orr" to know how overrated he is.

Citation from the forum needed, if you please.

I haven't seen anything of the sort. But this very thread has the ridiculous Howe and Gretzky comparisons I was talking about.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I dunno, Bourque's media narrative was also pretty sexy. Plus, being a lonely superstar (with an exception of several Oates and Neely years) will place you higher on a Hart's ballot than being on a stacked team.

A better way to compare Lidstrom's and Bourque's value would be to see how they placed in Hart votes on their team. Other than the Fedorov's superseason, Lidstrom was always #1 on the Wings (there was also one truly bizarre season when Shanahan somehow charted higher). It's every bit as impressive as Bourque's domination on the Bruins.

I am willing to concede that Bourque was a better offensive defenseman. But Lidstrom was a hands down better defensive defenseman. Add to that his Norrises and his wins... and he places higher than Bourque.

Lidstrom: 10,9,8,7,6,4
Fedorov: 1,5,9
Yzerman: 7,8,8
Datsyuk: 9,3
Shanahan: 9
Zetterberg: 10

Bourque: 10,8,6,5,5,4,2,2
Middleton: 4,8
Oates: 4
Neely: 9

Relative to their teammates, Bourque was actually superior with his Hart voting record than his teammates.....and much more significant than Lidstrom.

Lidstroms first significant Hart voting year was ‘98. Yzerman finished 19th that same year. His first year within the top ten came in ‘00 where he finished 9th and Yzerman finished 8th. His biggest years in voting came from ‘06-‘08 which included a 4th place finish. No doubt Lidstroms value to his team was not debatable, but I have a hard time seeing him being better based on that, especially when Bourque has a better Hart Record.

 

[scott clam]

Citation from the forum needed, if you please.

I haven't seen anything of the sort. But this very thread has the ridiculous Howe and Gretzky comparisons I was talking about.

Well, comparing Bourque and Howe isn't all that ridiculous with regards to longevity at an elite level and as players who were the "total package". Of course nobody in their right mind thinks Ray Bourque is on the same level of greatness as Howe. Or Gretzky.

But like Gretzky-who is less than a month younger than him and debuted in the same season-Ray Bourque was the best player at his position for that generation. So in that regard calling him the "Wayne Gretzky of defenceman" isn't entirely off base. Whether or not that was the poster's intention I have no idea....

 

[BobbyAwe]

Regarding Bourque's defense - we know from several polls of players and coaches that he was consistently regarded as one of the top defensive defensemen in the league:

• January 1990 players' poll: Bourque ranked 5th in the defensive defensemen category (behind Ramsey, McCrimmon, Lowe and Ludwig)
• February 1993 coaches' poll: Bourque ranked 2nd in the defensive defensemen category (behind Chelios, ahead of Stevens)
• January 1994 coaches poll: Bourque ranked 1st in the defensive defensemen category (ahead of Chelios and Stevens)

He wasn't the very best defensive defenseman in NHL history (Harvey, late career Stevens, Langway, etc) but I'm not sure if there are any blueliners who can be described as having a decisive advantage in that category.

Outsider, do you have a link to those player/coaches polls from any years? Thanks.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Citation from the forum needed, if you please.

I haven't seen anything of the sort. But this very thread has the ridiculous Howe and Gretzky comparisons I was talking about.

Not here but I've seen articles where Lidstrom was ranked first. And if you want to see it, google is your friend.

 

[quoipourquoi]

you can add Rob Blake and a veteran Al MacInnis to that list. Lidstrom and Bourque were both finalists the years those guys won. Amazingly a 40 year old MacInnis came close to winning another Norris in 2003 but outside of him and Bourque those are the only old timers still in Norris contention during Lidstrom's heyday.

Chris Chelios at 40 finished a very close 2nd to Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02. Not surprisingly, neither landed on a single Hart ballot because being the best defenseman wasn’t a particularly high threshold compared to other positions at the time. In fairness, that was one of the more obvious lists of top-5 candidates in a season from this century.

 

[scott clam]

Chris Chelios at 40 finished a very close 2nd to Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02. Not surprisingly, neither landed on a single Hart ballot because being the best defenseman wasn’t a particularly high threshold compared to other positions at the time. In fairness, that was one of the more obvious lists of top-5 candidates in a season from this century.

It's funny, I was actually about to list Chelios but for some reason I thought he was a second team allstar that year. didn't realize the difference in voting was so close that year...

 

[Sentinel]

Because of my avid Bruins/Avalanche fandom I suppose?

Because you just trashed every great defender of the 21st Century, providing no evidence other than "overrated," only to bring down Lidstrom. Ni-ice...

 

[MXD]

After the first draft of my list compiled for the Top-100 players project : 3rdD -- 13th total.

 

[Sentinel]

But like Gretzky-who is less than a month younger than him and debuted in the same season-Ray Bourque was the best player at his position for that generation. So in that regard calling him the "Wayne Gretzky of defenceman" isn't entirely off base. Whether or not that was the poster's intention I have no idea....

It is entirely off-base. Gretzky lapped up all competition. In his prime only Lemieux came near once or twice. Bourque routinely lost Norrises to other (inferior) players like Langway and Wilson. Gretzky is Gretzky. Comparing Bourque to him does the former a major disservice and pretty much DEFINES "overrated."

 

[The Macho King]

Because you just trashed every great defender of the 21st Century, providing no evidence other than "overrated," only to bring down Lidstrom. Ni-ice...

You can say that I "trashed" them, but I prefaced it by saying that outside of Lidstrom I think it's a weak era, so the "trashing" is up front. I don't think Pronger wins a single Norris if his career started ten years earlier. Same with Niedermayer. 2001(ish)-2011(ish) is kind of in that soft spot between eras to me. It's defined more by its forwards than its defenders. Maybe nostalgia plays a role in that on my end, but it certainly isn't any bias against Lidstrom.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Because you just trashed every great defender of the 21st Century, providing no evidence other than "overrated," only to bring down Lidstrom. Ni-ice...

What irony with what you said about Bourque in a previous post.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You can say that I "trashed" them, but I prefaced it by saying that outside of Lidstrom I think it's a weak era, so the "trashing" is up front. I don't think Pronger wins a single Norris if his career started ten years earlier. Same with Niedermayer. 2001(ish)-2011(ish) is kind of in that soft spot between eras to me. It's defined more by its forwards than its defenders. Maybe nostalgia plays a role in that on my end, but it certainly isn't any bias against Lidstrom.

62 points and a +52 on a President’s Trophy winner that had injuries to key players is probably going to get attention in any year. It was like 1992-93 Chris Chelios but without Ed Belfour.

When Roman Turek is just 11 voting points back from a 1st Team All-Star, you’re living right.

I don’t disagree that Lidstrom had some years against lesser/injured competition, but Lidstrom’s 20-goal season in 1999-00 would have won a Norris in most surrounding years including many of his own. It’s rare enough to have a Defenseman as good as the 1st Team Center, and we probably had two that year. Really tough draw for Lidstrom.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i tend to think of bourque as most comparable to tim duncan, but without a popovich and an rc buford. of course, that is arguably basketball's second greatest superstar-coach-GM combination ever, and one of the greatest in all of north american team sports history, so a tall order for anyone to reproduce in any situation.

i have bourque somewhere in the 12-20 range. duncan probably squeezes into his sport's top 7-10, imo. but then while bourque cumulatively over his career did maybe as much for his teams than any player ever other than the big four, he didn't have either the command or control of his team's fortunes the way duncan did (to the tune of four championships over three decades). part of that is structural to basketball vs hockey.

the resumes:

19 seasons, 10th all time in regular season games played, 10 time first team all-NBA (including each of his first 8 seasons), 3 second team all-NBAs, 2 third team all-NBAs (only 4 seasons in his entire career that he wasn't both all-NBA AND all-defense). 2 regular season MVPs. won rookie of the year and was one of the best players in the league from day one (1st team all-NBA), was already better than the HHOFer who groomed him (the admiral).

22 seasons, 10th all time in regular season games played, 19 post-season all-star teams (including each of his first 17 seasons), only 3 seasons in his entire career that he wasn't a post-season all-star. 2 regular season MVP runners-up. won rookie of the year and was one of the best players in the league from day one (1st team all-star), was already better than the HHOFer who groomed him (brad park).

of course, where duncan leaves bourque in the dust is the five championships, six finals (with the finals loss as close to winning at all as maybe any team has ever come without winning), and three finals MVPs.

is bourque overrated? if we are saying he's better than harvey and shore, probably. one or the other, i can see that. both? i'm incredulous.

is lidstrom overrated? if we're saying he's better than bourque, probably. not completely unreasonable but it would take a lot to convince me.

 

[scott clam]

It is entirely off-base. Gretzky lapped up all competition. In his prime only Lemieux came near once or twice. Bourque routinely lost Norrises to other (inferior) players like Langway and Wilson. Gretzky is Gretzky. Comparing Bourque to him does the former a major disservice and pretty much DEFINES "overrated."

The point I was trying to make is that a statement like that sounds more like hyperbole than an actual case of someone seriously putting Bourque on Gretzky's plateau. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see it as something to get all butthurt about.

******** as in the feeling one gets when their bum hurts. Stupid censorship.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I dunno, Bourque's media narrative was also pretty sexy. Plus, being a lonely superstar (with an exception of several Oates and Neely years) will place you higher on a Hart's ballot than being on a stacked team.

Yes, the solo superstar who puts a whole team on his shoulders and carries them night after night, is actually more likely to win awards than a guy who is playing on a stacked team with superstars at every position.

I'm not sure I follow the rationale that it should be otherwise.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yes, the solo superstar who puts a whole team on his shoulders and carries them night after night, is actually more likely to win awards than a guy who is playing on a stacked team with superstars at every position.

I'm not sure I follow the rationale that it should be otherwise.

The comparison I usually go to is that the same circumstance didn’t really affect Martin Brodeur’s accumulation of Hart votes in the same period (seven times top-5). Three different Avalanche players were Hart nominees in three-consecutive years. From 2000-2004, only in 2002 was the Hart winner not on a Division winner. From 2006-2008, five of the nine nominees were on Division winners. After that, teammate Datsyuk immediately landed a Hart nomination on the Division-winning defending champion while Lidstrom was still a Norris contender.

Wouldn’t disagree that players benefit from the solo superstar narrative (Yashin and Theodore leapfrogging 1st Team All-Stars on the Hart ballot), but those are usually surprise seasons, right? Boston had pretty sustained success from 1984-1991 - maybe only worse than Edmonton and Calgary in that frame.

I mean, Ray Bourque’s first top-5 Hart finish came when he ranked directly behind a teammate; voters had a perfect excuse to ignore him and didn’t.