Agree on Park, but I also think that Stevens was robbed of the Norris for the 93-94 season. IMO, he was clearly the best d-man in the league that year, scoring nearly a point-per-game on an undergunned offensive team while playing dominating defense and carting away with the +/- lead while facing opponents top players for 30+ mins a night.
Bourque had a good year, but I think the "name" factor is the only reason he took home the prize over Stevens.
I`ll have to disagree with you here. As stated earlier, Jersey had the 2nd top offence in the league that year; Boston was 8th. So the fact that Bourque had more points in 10 less games on a team with less offence says something.
Defensively, the edge would go to Stevens; but I emphasize the word
edge. Bourque was outstanding defensively as well. Stevens +/- was more impressive looking, but when you look at the rosters you`ll notice that the Devils had 5 players +30 or over; Boston none. Stevens was far and away Jersey`s best, but he was still getting far more help than Bourque. Stevens was on the ice for 47% of NJs GF and 42% of their GA for a net of +5%. Bourque was on the ice for 45% of Boston`s GF but only 34% of their GA for a net of +11%.
Stevens had plenty of name recognition back then. If anything, Bourque`s previous Norris dominance may have worked against him. When a player is that consistently good, his play can be taken for granted. Voters are often looking to give awards to new faces when they become contenders. For example from `76 to `80 every Norris went to either Potvin or Robinson. In `81 Randy Carlyle led defencemen in points and they gave him the award, ignoring the fact that he was mediocre at best defensively. Potvin was far more deserving that year.
Stevens and Bourque were both outstanding that season. I wouldn`t have a problem if Stevens had won the award, but everybody calling it a robbery are selling Bourque short.
God Bless Canada said:
I don't think the voting for the Norris is as bad as some make it out to be. It's not like Phil Housley was a perennial threat for the trophy. (Housley's lone second team all-star selection came in 1992. He wasn't a finalist in 1993, when he had a confounding 97 points and a -14).
You know I respect you GBC, but as somebody who watched a lot of Sabre games in the 80s, I think you really exaggerate how bad Housely was defensively. Early in his career he was an easy mark, but he got better. Was pretty decent at playing the angles on 2-on-1s, wasn`t very physical but used his speed well. -14 on Winnipeg isn`t that bad compared to Coffey`s marks in Pittsburgh. They were both about equal defensively. It wasn`t the expected role from either of them; smart coaches paired them with rock- solid stay-at-home guys who would create the turnover then let Housely or Coffey start the rush back.
Housely wasn`t a Langway or a Ramsey. But he wasn`t a Delmore or Berard either.