1980 Norris Trophy

[Dennis Bonvie]

Larry Robinson won the Norris in 1980 with these numbers:

72-14-61-75 +38

Rookie Ray Bourque was a first-team all-star with these numbers:

80-17-48-65 +52

Question:

If the stats were reversed, would Robinson still win the Norris Trophy, based on the fact that he was Larry Robinson of the Dynasty Canadiens and Bourque just a 19 year-old rookie?

I contend Robinson would win with Bourque's numbers also.

Click to read more...

 

[danincanada]

Larry Robinson won the Norris in 1980 with these numbers:

72-14-61-75 +38

Rookie Ray Bourque was a first-team all-star with these numbers:

80-17-48-65 +52

Question:

If the stats were reversed, would Robinson still win the Norris Trophy, based on the fact that he was Larry Robinson of the Dynasty Canadiens and Bourque just a 19 year-old rookie?

I contend Robinson would win with Bourque's numbers also.

Hopefully the voters weren't only looking at statistics but I realize your point. It does seem that most players need to earn their first Norris over time so I think as long as it's close you're right and it would go to Robinson.

The statistics are fairly similar to 20 years later with two veterans. Pronger had the gaudy +52 like Bourque, Lidstrom had 11 more points to Robinson's 10, and Lidstrom's +/- was half of Robinsons, which is probably what killed him vs. Pronger. Obviously Pronger won the Hart that year as well.

2000 Norris Trophy:

Chris Pronger 79-14-48-62 +52 92 PIM

Nicklas Lidstrom 81-20-53-73 +19 18 PIM (tied for 17th in points)

 

[reckoning]

If the stats were reversed, would Robinson still win the Norris Trophy, based on the fact that he was Larry Robinson of the Dynasty Canadiens and Bourque just a 19 year-old rookie?

I contend Robinson would win with Bourque's numbers also.

I don't think the stats would've made a difference. Their offensive numbers were fairly comparable, and plus/minus was still viewed as a trivial novelty by many at the time.

Robinson probably was recognized for holding things together in Montreal defensively. Savard and LaPointe both missed significant chunks of the season, there was no stability in goal, and the team also went through a coaching change mid-season. But they remained one of the leagues top teams, with Robinson being a huge factor in that.

There was an interesting quirk in the voting. Although Bourque made the 1st All-Star Team, he finished a distant 4th in the Norris voting behind Robinson, Salming and Schoenfeld.

Of course, if Denis Potvin didn't miss 49 games that season, then he almost certainly would've won the trophy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't think the stats would've made a difference. Their offensive numbers were fairly comparable, and plus/minus was still viewed as a trivial novelty by many at the time.

Robinson probably was recognized for holding things together in Montreal defensively. Savard and LaPointe both missed significant chunks of the season, there was no stability in goal, and the team also went through a coaching change mid-season. But they remained one of the leagues top teams, with Robinson being a huge factor in that.

There was an interesting quirk in the voting. Although Bourque made the 1st All-Star Team, he finished a distant 4th in the Norris voting behind Robinson, Salming and Schoenfeld.Of course, if Denis Potvin didn't miss 49 games that season, then he almost certainly would've won the trophy.

I wasn't aware of that (or more likely just forgot it).

Yeah, the young guys really had to earn it in those days.

 

[canucks4ever]

Was mark howe a forward this season? Surprised he got very little consideration.

 

[seventieslord]

Was mark howe a forward this season? Surprised he got very little consideration.

yep, he was a forward.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

The stats aren't comparable when you consider Robinson missed 8 games. He was averaging over a point a game. Had he played all 80 games, he might have had 84-85 points, 20 points more than Bourque. His plus/minus would have likely improved as well.

 

[reckoning]

Howe played at both defence and left wing during that season. Going by the google news timeline it looks like he started the year at defence, went back to LW after the first few games, then in mid-January he was switched back to defence.

 

[BM67]

Was mark howe a forward this season? Surprised he got very little consideration.

yep, he was a forward.

He was 5th in Norris voting and all-star voting for defensemen.

 

[Big Phil]

I think Robinson still wins it with Bourque's numbers. Here is why. As a rookie do you think Bourque had rounded out his game fully? We know Robinson had by now and we also know that if you were up a goal you'd want Robinson on the ice to protect the lead over Bourque in 1980. That's important to me as well and another reason why I think Mike Green hasn't won the Norris yet. So I think regardless Robinson's game was more mature and well rounded than the younger Bourque's. But we all know Raymond quickly changed that

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Robinson was more physical, this definitely has an effect on voters.

 

[WingsFan95]

The Bruins improved by a hair in the standings.

That's what kills the Bourque argument really.

At the time I also believe some would think Middleton aided Bourque's numbers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Considerations

Larry Robinson won the Norris in 1980 with these numbers:

72-14-61-75 +38

Rookie Ray Bourque was a first-team all-star with these numbers:

80-17-48-65 +52

Question:

If the stats were reversed, would Robinson still win the Norris Trophy, based on the fact that he was Larry Robinson of the Dynasty Canadiens and Bourque just a 19 year-old rookie?

I contend Robinson would win with Bourque's numbers also.

Up thread it was stated that Savard and Lapointe had missed time due to injury. True but it should also be mentioned that Brad Park missed time, more than half the season, before returning in late January.

Larry Robinson anchored the Canadiens defense with a steady, solid performance from start to finish.

Ray Bourque without Brad Park in the line-up was impressive for a rookie but he also had to go thru the rookie learning process. Once Park returned his numbers and performance improved drastically 10 of his 17 goals were scored after Park returned being one example.

The voting reflected this, Robinson and two others receiving greater Norris consideration whi;e Bourque recived greater 1st AST consideration. Norris voting tends to reflect value and consistency. like the Hart while AST consideration reflects the raw numbers to a greater degree.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Norris voting tends to reflect value and consistency. like the Hart while AST consideration reflects the raw numbers to a greater degree.

Interesting theory - could you elaborate?

 

[reckoning]

I always assumed any differences between Norris and All-Star voting results were because the voters were voting groups of two for each of the three spots on the ballot for the All-Star team. For example, a writer may feel that one defenceman was conclusively better than the second-best blueliner, and that would be reflected on his Norris ballot; but in the All-Star voting both players would get an equal number of points from that writer.

I believe Potvin, Howe and Lidstrom have each had a season where they led all defencemen in All-Star voting but didn't win the Norris.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The Bruins improved by a hair in the standings.

That's what kills the Bourque argument really.

At the time I also believe some would think Middleton aided Bourque's numbers.

The Canadiens went down in the standings. So what?

Middleton aided Bourque's numbers, but Lafleur didn't aid Robinson's?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Observations

Interesting theory - could you elaborate?

Observation not a theory.

Norris 1967. Howell wins while Pilote gets more AST votes reflecting Harry Howell's value to the Rangers who made the playoffs for the first time since 1961-62.

Norris 1965. Horton 4th. AST Horton 6th, Brewer 4th. Brewer's offense had improved anf Horton had played some forward.Leaf Norris / AST voting for dmen 1960-67 is interesting since they were often competing against each other.

Norris 1962. Talbot 3rd. Pilote 2nd reflecting value and performance.
AST Talbot 1ST with Harvey, Pilote 2nd AST reflecting points as Talbot had a career year.

Hart 1973 Clarke over Espo. AST Espo over Clarke.

Hart 1964 Beliveau by 102-30 over Mikita. Mikita AST 145-117 over Beliveau. Beliveau's value and performance recognized leading the Canadiens to a 1 point first place finish over the Hawks.

Hart 1955 Ted Kennedy wins going away over the two AST centers Beliveau and Mosdell 86-21-4. Leading Leafs to a surprise play-off spot,third overall.

Hart 1948 O"Connor over Lach. Performance and value to the Rangers weighed against Lach winning the Ross and 1st AST.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think the stats would've made a difference. Their offensive numbers were fairly comparable, and plus/minus was still viewed as a trivial novelty by many at the time.

Robinson probably was recognized for holding things together in Montreal defensively. Savard and LaPointe both missed significant chunks of the season, there was no stability in goal, and the team also went through a coaching change mid-season. But they remained one of the leagues top teams, with Robinson being a huge factor in that.

There was an interesting quirk in the voting. Although Bourque made the 1st All-Star Team, he finished a distant 4th in the Norris voting behind Robinson, Salming and Schoenfeld.

Of course, if Denis Potvin didn't miss 49 games that season, then he almost certainly would've won the trophy.

Agree here and it would have been Potvins if he hadn't lost all of those games.

Players and especially Dmen win on reputation when they are older and have to earn it more when they are younger and Bourque is a classic example on both fronts.