Player of the decade poll #8: 1990s

[NigerianNightmare]

Using that leetch and bourque argument, so I guess with that reasoning Roy ahead of hasek because Roy had 2 cups and a smythe and hasek had no postseason hardware?

You have a point. However, Hasek beats him 5-2 at Vezinas, and he defeated Roy in the Olympic showdown. That's a huge difference in comparison to Bourque vs Leetch who as far I remember are tied with 2 Norrises each.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

 

[centipede2233]

You have a point. However, Hasek beats him 5-2 at Vezinas, and he defeated Roy in the Olympic showdown. That's a huge difference in comparison to Bourque vs Leetch who as far I remember are tied with 2 Norrises each.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

Bourque had 3 norris’s, 1990, 1991, 1994 in the 90’s

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Bourque had 3 norris’s, 1990, 1991, 1994 in the 90’s

Thank you.
So Bourque beat him at Norrisses 3-2.
Leetch beat him at Smythes 1-0.

Pretty close. Winning a Smythe is pretty difficult for a defenceman, so I think Leetch beats Bourque here by an inch

 

[centipede2233]

Thank you.
So Bourque beat him at Norrisses 3-2.
Leetch beat him at Smythes 1-0.

Pretty close. Winning a Smythe is pretty difficult for a defenceman, so I think Leetch beats Bourque here by an inch

Bourque Offensive stats in 90’s - 174 goals 720 pts
Leetch offensive stats - 152 goals 671 pts

Bourque was named to first team all star 6 times in 90’s, Leetch 2 times

 

[tarheelhockey]

Thank you.
So Bourque beat him at Norrisses 3-2.
Leetch beat him at Smythes 1-0.

Pretty close. Winning a Smythe is pretty difficult for a defenceman, so I think Leetch beats Bourque here by an inch

What you're saying is... Bourque may have been better over the course of the decade, but Leetch was better over the course of 2 months, therefore Leetch is the player of the decade?

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Bourque Offensive stats in 90’s - 174 goals 720 pts
Leetch offensive stats - 152 goals 671 pts

Bourque was named to first team all star 6 times in 90’s, Leetch 2 times

What about their defensive stats? They're blueliners afterall

 

[NigerianNightmare]

No, you are saying this. One can't win 2 Norriss trophies for 2 months

What you're saying is... Bourque may have been better over the course of the decade, but Leetch was better over the course of 2 months, therefore Leetch is the player of the decade?

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, you are saying this. One can't win 2 Norriss trophies for 2 months

So by reducing this equation, you're still saying 2 months > a full season?

Bear in mind, Bourque absolutely, beyond any question whatsoever, would have won the Smythe in 1990 if the Bruins win that Final.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

No, you are saying this. One can't win 2 Norris trophies for 2 months

What you're saying is... Bourque may have been better over the course of the decade, but Leetch was better over the course of 2 months, therefore Leetch is the player of the decade?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

What about their defensive stats? They're blueliners afterall

The argument for Bourque over Leetch defensively would be some combination of:

• The eye test. I feel confident saying that most objective fans (ie excluding Bruins and Rangers fans, who could be biased) who watched both of them play would rank Bourque ahead defensively. I actually think that Leetch was underrated defensively, but I see a clear gap between them.
• Polls of peers. Bourque was named the best defensive defenseman in the NHL in a January 1994 survey of coaches. He finished 2nd in the February 1993 survey of coaches. And he was 5th in a January 1990 poll of players. Leetch never got votes for best defensive defenseman in these (or similar) polls.
• Plus/minus. This is a very limited stat, and it tells you at least as much about offense as it does defense. With that disclaimer -Bourque was +157 in the 1990's (first on the Bruins by a wide margin) and Leetch was +47 in the 1990's (4th on the Rangers). Again, this would be the least persuasive argument out of these four.
• Goals against. During the 1990's Bourque was on the ice for 686 non-PK goals against in 735 games, while Leetch was on the ice for 740 goals against in 722 (that's 0.93 per game for Bourque vs 1.02 per game for Leetch). During that decade, the Rangers only allowed slightly more goals than the Bruins (2,377 vs 2,362 - a difference of less than 1%), so I don't think the strength of their teams made a significant difference. I'm doubtful there was a significant difference in their ice time to explain this difference and I suspect that, if anything, Bourque's matchups were slightly tougher.

I think it's important to consider defensive play, but it only increases the gap between them.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

This should be Jagr.

Mario was great but did not play for most of the 90's.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

The argument for Bourque over Leetch defensively would be some combination of:

• The eye test. I feel confident saying that most objective fans (ie excluding Bruins and Rangers fans, who could be biased) who watched both of them play would rank Bourque ahead defensively. I actually think that Leetch was underrated defensively, but I see a clear gap between them.
• Polls of peers. Bourque was named the best defensive defenseman in the NHL in a January 1994 survey of coaches. He finished 2nd in the February 1993 survey of coaches. And he was 5th in a January 1990 poll of players. Leetch never got votes for best defensive defenseman in these (or similar) polls.
• Plus/minus. This is a very limited stat, and it tells you at least as much about offense as it does defense. With that disclaimer -Bourque was +157 in the 1990's (first on the Bruins by a wide margin) and Leetch was +47 in the 1990's (4th on the Rangers). Again, this would be the least persuasive argument out of these four.
• Goals against. During the 1990's Bourque was on the ice for 686 non-PK goals against in 735 games, while Leetch was on the ice for 740 goals against in 722 (that's 0.93 per game for Bourque vs 1.02 per game for Leetch). During that decade, the Rangers only allowed slightly more goals than the Bruins (2,377 vs 2,362 - a difference of less than 1%), so I don't think the strength of their teams made a significant difference. I'm doubtful there was a significant difference in their ice time to explain this difference and I suspect that, if anything, Bourque's matchups were slightly tougher.

I think it's important to consider defensive play, but it only increases the gap between them.

Thank you for the thorough analysis.
So Bourque beats Leetch at defense. I guess I'm biased because Leetch had an incredible run in the 1994 postseason while Bourque was golfing

 

[tabness]

such a good decade man coulda added so many other greats

and right after we have Crosby and Ovechkin and crew lol... sad

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

such a good decade man coulda added so many other greats

and right after we have Crosby and Ovechkin and crew lol... sad

Crosby is better than every player there besides lemieux n ovechkin is in that discussion as well

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Fedorov still isn't included?

Interesting:
I heard he won the KHL Cup as a coach a couple days ago

 

[toothlessgoon]

Fedorov still isn't included?

Interesting:
I heard he won the KHL Cup as a coach a couple days ago

Fedorov was talented but generally squandered his gifts by being lazy.

 

[NigerianNightmare]

Fedorov was talented but generally squandered his gifts by being lazy.

1. He was extremely talented

2. Lazy players don't become best 2-way forwards in the game and don't score 20 or more points in multiple postseasons