Was Raymond Bourque a generational talent?

[Moose Head]

Probably Nick Lidström was. He and Coffey were kind of blessed with great teammates, though in Coffey's case only up to about 1997.

Tough to beat Coffey. I think this is the list of HoFers he played with:

Gretzky
Messier
Kurri
Anderson
Lowe
Fuhr
Lemieux
Recchi
Francis
Mullen
Barrasso
Trottier
Murphy
Robitaille
Blake
Robinson
Yzerman
Fedorov
Ciccarelli
Mark Howe
Larionov
Fetisov
Lidstrom
Vernon
Lindros
Hawerchuk
Gilmour
Chelios
Thornton


Then there are guys with Hof talent and/or near HoFers:

Nillson
Brindamour
Moog
Konstantinov
Leclair
Desjardins
K Stevens

 

[The Panther]

Tough to beat Coffey. I think this is the list of HoFers he played with:

Gretzky
Messier
Kurri
Anderson
Lowe
Fuhr
Lemieux
Recchi
Francis
Mullen
Barrasso
Trottier
Murphy
Robitaille
Blake
Robinson
Yzerman
Fedorov
Ciccarelli
Mark Howe
Larionov
Fetisov
Lidstrom
Vernon
Lindros
Hawerchuk
Gilmour
Chelios
Thornton


Then there are guys with Hof talent and/or near HoFers:

Nillson
Brindamour
Moog
Konstantinov
Leclair
Desjardins
K Stevens

Coffey has the most impressive list of names, but I wonder how it compares if you look at players-per-season at one time (esp. players in their primes).

Lowe and Vernon are not legit Hall of Famers, of course. Coffey barely overlapped with Nilsson, Recchi, Blake, Robinson, Larionov, Hawerchuk, Gilmour, Thornton, etc. Mark Howe way past his prime, etc.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Coffey was more physical than Bourque...? I'd like to see this.

IMO Coffey was more chippy when times called for it, but I think Bourque played the man more consistently game in and game out.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

This thread proves that the word "generational" needs to be shot into the sun.

 

[The Panther]

This thread proves that the word "generational" needs to be shot into the sun.

That was obvious about 15 years ago. Unfortunately, it's one of the few multi-syllabic words the under-20's know.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Probably Nick Lidström was. He and Coffey were kind of blessed with great teammates, though in Coffey's case only up to about 1997.

Only up to 1997?

You mean only after 16 seasons with prime Gretzky, Messier, Mario, Lindros, Yzerman or Fedorov?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

As soon as Thornton is eligible it will be 2, but agreed, those mid to late 90’s teams weren’t very good.

The 85 and 86 teams looked good on paper, and anybody who watched would say Kluzak and Pederson were HOF talents with very unfortunate circumstances.

Kluzak didn't play on the 84-85 team and Pederson only played 22 games.

But you are losing sight of the discussion.

Clearly Bourque did not play with players as talented as Coffey and Lindstrom did.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Gord Kluzak was a HOF talent? Like, I think he was going to be a good player...but HOF is strong.

 

[MadLuke]

but I wonder how it compares if you look at players-per-season

The peak Gretzky-Mario-Lindros, end of prime Yzerman, peak Fedorov alone make it really hard to beat that Gretzky was just something else, only the version of Lemieux he played with will be compared with.

Lidstrom could be the best candidate (I think it is the player that won the most game ever), a lot of Lidstrom name will be post their prime (soviet player or the 2000s elderly super squad) as well, that was old Hasek and for a short time and so on. Some were still playing really well Chelios-Hull even if it was not their peak version.

If we go players-per-seasons, Forsberg, did not spent much time on non star heavy squad in his career, even if we just remove Kariya-Selanne has a false start in there, it was more than just never missing the playoff going on.

I imagine some dynasties Habs defenseman (the double 50s or 70s) would not be bad in that regard either.

Bourque seem not in the same conversation of those kinds of players, but he played all of his career on serious organisation at least, and dropped on a team that went round 3-finals-finals-round 3 before his rookie season and teh Bruins did lead the whole league with him missing games quite fast in his career.

 

[Moose Head]

Gord Kluzak was a HOF talent? Like, I think he was going to be a good player...but HOF is strong.

I think he had the talent to be a dominant defenseman. Unfortunately we only saw flashes because of his injuries, but coming into the NHL he was rated higher than Stevens and Housley, drafted in the same year, and both in the Hall of Fame. Obviously you need to play the games, but he looked really good.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I sort of liked him - to my recollection - on tape. But I felt more like...I don't know...super Dallas Smith (?), as opposed to Scott Stevens. I'm not gonna claim expertise on him though. @Dennis Bonvie what was your thought about Kluzak?

 

[Neutrinos]

I love Ray but no. Imho there's only 5 "generational" players in history...

Howe
Orr
Gretzky
Lemieux
McDavid

I don't consider Richard, Beliveau, Hull, Lafleur, Bourque, Yzerman, Jagr, Lindros, Crosby, etc. generational. The tough one is Ovechkin.

If you have Ovechkin right on the border, then that would mean Crosby is on the side of being generational...

Ovechkin through his age 36 season:
1410 points, +83 in 1274 games for an average of 91 points per 82 games (20:52 minutes per game)

Crosby's career stats:
1552 points, +229 in 1236 games for an average of 103 points per 82 games (20:43 minutes per)

 

[Neutrinos]

Bourque was a 9/10 level player for 2 decades, but being labelled generational requires a perfect score

 

[Moose Head]

Bourque was a 9/10 level player for 2 decades, but being labelled generational requires a perfect score

I think the right term for him might be ‘once in a generation’ defenseman.

Shore
Harvey
Orr
Bourque
Lidstrom
Makar?

Other than Orr, I think generational talents are for the most part used at forward during their development.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Bourque was a 9/10 level player for 2 decades, but being labelled generational requires a perfect score

This is kind of how I see it.. unless you want to call his freak longevity at a top level generational, he doesn't quite make it.

 

[Boxscore]

No, it's pretty easy...

Generational players don't go an entire decade in the middle of their careers below a point-per-game and with a negative +/-

Fair point, but here's why Ovechkin could be an exception to the rule -- he could quite possibly be considered the "greatest goal scorer in NHL history." I think it's fair to say that the greatest goal scorer the sport has ever seen comes around every 40-50 years, if that. By that criteria alone, Ovechkin is a rare "once in a generation (if not lifetime)" talent. He was so dominant in that (very important) aspect of the game, it would be like diminishing Babe Ruth's homerun superiority because he was average at fielding grounders.

That's why I only consider 5 players to be truly generational. At least in my book, to carry that tag you need to be an extremely unique player who surpasses all other greats in ways. In the case of Bourque -- all-time legend for sure, but didn't we see similar greats in Potvin, Robinson, Lidstrom, Chelios, Coffey, etc.? Imho, Orr was the only true generational defenseman in history -- there was nobody on earth who could touch him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, then we gotta decide what counts as a generational worthy talent...

Brett Lebda was one of the greatest skater I've ever seen...but...I don't know...do we want that?

 

[Neutrinos]

Fair point, but here's why Ovechkin could be an exception to the rule -- he could quite possibly be considered the "greatest goal scorer in NHL history." I think it's fair to say that the greatest goal scorer the sport has ever seen comes around every 40-50 years, if that. By that criteria alone, Ovechkin is a rare "once in a generation (if not lifetime)" talent. He was so dominant in that (very important) aspect of the game, it would be like diminishing Babe Ruth's homerun superiority because he was average at fielding grounders.

That's why I only consider 5 players to be truly generational. At least in my book, to carry that tag you need to be an extremely unique player who surpasses all other greats in ways. In the case of Bourque -- all-time legend for sure, but didn't we see similar greats in Potvin, Robinson, Lidstrom, Chelios, Coffey, etc.? Imho, Orr was the only true generational defenseman in history -- there was nobody on earth who could touch him.

Ruth is MLB's all-time leader in SLG%, OPS, and OPS+, his career .474 OBP is 2nd all-time to Ted Williams' mark of .478, and his .342 career AVG is 13th best in history

Ruth wouldn't be viewed as the legendary player he is today if he'd been a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP to go along with all those home runs

And that's what Ovechkin's been for the majority of his career... a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP who leads the league in home runs every season as a subpar OF

He's closer to being Sammy Sosa than he is to Babe Ruth

 

[Matsun]

I think it depends on what you think it means to be a generational talent. If there was a draft to pick 1 d-man from history for a fully healthy peak season to win a championship? I'm not sure I would pick Bourque in my top 5 which doesn't sound like a generational talent to me. On the other hand in an all time d-man draft I would probably pick Bourque first because he would be a no 1 d-man for 20 seasons. So I guess it depends on what you think makes a generational talent.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yeah, I sort of liked him - to my recollection - on tape. But I felt more like...I don't know...super Dallas Smith (?), as opposed to Scott Stevens. I'm not gonna claim expertise on him though. @Dennis Bonvie what was your thought about Kluzak?

Had high hopes.

Hall of Famer? That's a reach.

 

[Boxscore]

Ruth is MLB's all-time leader in SLG%, OPS, and OPS+, his career .474 OBP is 2nd all-time to Ted Williams' mark of .478, and his .342 career AVG is 13th best in history

Ruth wouldn't be viewed as the legendary player he is today if he'd been a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP to go along with all those home runs

And that's what Ovechkin's been for the majority of his career... a .280 hitter with a .350 OBP who leads the league in home runs every season as a subpar OF

He's closer to being Sammy Sosa than he is to Babe Ruth

The NHL has been around 100+ years and there's only three players in history with 800+ goals -- Ovechkin, Gretzky, and Gordie. You don't flub your way to 800 goals by being "just another star player." Sure, Ovechkin is not a 200 foot titan... and we can pick holes in his game all day if we choose to... but when you're the only player in hockey history who has a chance to surpass Gretzky in goals, you probably need to be considered generational imho. Hell, the closest active player to Ovie in career goals is Sid and he's 250+ behind him in 21st place all-time. So, in terms of goal scoring, Ovechkin has left his generation in the dust. The scary thing is, I still have him on the fence of generational. But if I'm grading on a curve and loosening admission, Ovie probably gets the nod over guys like Bourque, Lidstrom, Crosby, Yzerman, etc. For me at least.

Not looking to derail from Bourque, but how would we consider Housley if he scored 2,000 points as a defenseman, even with his defensive shortcomings and softish play? Although flawed, wouldn't we likely consider him generational if his offense was that astounding?

But as someone else said... I guess we need to agree on the definition of "generational."

 

[Neutrinos]

The NHL has been around 100+ years and there's only three players in history with 800+ goals -- Ovechkin, Gretzky, and Gordie. You don't flub your way to 800 goals by being "just another star player." Sure, Ovechkin is not a 200 foot titan... and we can pick holes in his game all day if we choose to... but when you're the only player in hockey history who has a chance to surpass Gretzky in goals, you probably need to be considered generational imho. Hell, the closest active player to Ovie in career goals is Sid and he's 250+ behind him in 21st place all-time. So, in terms of goal scoring, Ovechkin has left his generation in the dust. The scary thing is, I still have him on the fence of generational. But if I'm grading on a curve and loosening admission, Ovie probably gets the nod over guys like Bourque, Lidstrom, Crosby, Yzerman, etc. For me at least.

Not looking to derail from Bourque, but how would we consider Housley if he scored 2,000 points as a defenseman, even with his defensive shortcomings and softish play? Although flawed, wouldn't we likely consider him generational if his offense was that astounding?

But as someone else said... I guess we need to agree on the definition of "generational."

Shouldn't players be judged based on the overall impact of their play, and not just their yearly goal total?

From age 26 - 35, Ovechkin had 706 points in 722 games, winning 7 Richard trophies, but he was also -13 over that span despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

Now compare that to the production that other stars had during that age range:

From 26 - 35, Crosby had 802 points in 686 games while being +102

From 26 - 35, Jagr had 864 points in 692 games while being +129

From 27 - 36, Datsyuk had 715 points in 684 games while being +220

From 26 - 35, Thornton had 838 points in 776 games while being +149

From 26 - 36, Sakic had 863 points in 729 games while being +139

From 26 - 34, Forsberg had 445 points in 362 games while being +135


So, if you want to say Ovechkin is a generational goalscorer because he has a generational one-timer, fine... but it doesn't make sense that a generational talent would go an entire decade in the middle of his career producing below a point-per-game and having a negative +/-

 

[VanIslander]

Bob Stewart was an OHL all star 1st round NHL pick who went on to captain for three years the NHL 1970's expansion California Golden Seals, then Cleveland Barons. Despite his best efforts, the pride of PEI hard-checking defensive defenseman was on terrible expansion teams and he recorded the lowest career plus-minus in NHL history with -257 despite praise for his play.

Your +/- is not YOUR production.
Slapping the puck top corner is.

 

[MadLuke]

Your +/- is not YOUR production.

Was Warren young scoring 40 achieving 30% in 1985 his production or a bit part Mario has well ? Outside maybe shootout performance, there is nothing similar to an individual sport in hockey stats. Faceoff could be if it would be only clean win-loss and removed when a winger support was involved in the process.

The

despite being on a playoff team in 9 of those 10 seasons

part was important here. The capitals had the third most points in the league during that time frame and scored 278 more goal for than against, the player on an expension team reference, young Sakic, etc... are not really valid here.

Carlson was +55 during the same time frame, Kuznetsov +68.

Ovechkin play a lot of power play which does not help him in that regard, but even limiting it too what could be said has a more fair-better to express what people have in mind EV GD it is not spectacular, worst GF% among Caps with 500 game played:

Player	On-Ice EV GD	On-Ice EV GF%
Evgeny Kuznetsov	93​	56.1​
Dmitry Orlov	83​	54.5​
John Carlson	79​	53.1​
Nicklas Backstrom	64​	53.2​
Alex Ovechkin	43​	51.8​
Tom Wilson	29​	52.3​

Goal differential out of context is a quite flawed value (like all of them

Now, the fact the Caps were third in points in the nhl during that window and were a nice +278 in goals open the door to the idea that it was maybe a good way to play for him and his team.

There is a finite amount of energy to be spent and the Capitals were the best team on the powerplay during that decade of play in good part because of number 8.

Has for the best of all time make you a generational player or not, we would never say that for faceoff, skating, etc... but for something as important and more general that involve many different facet like scoring goal the argument would be stronger, not as much but a bit like the best a stopping puck ever for a goaltender would be a stronger argument than the best puck handler ever for a goaltender.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

He may not have been "generational", whatever that word truly means, but during the 1990 Bruins' playoff run, I saw him play some of the best hockey I have ever seen.
He was everywhere... scoring, defending, laying on the body and soaking up ice time like it was going out of style. Somehow he'd manage to lead the rush and and if they didn't score, he'd somehow manage to also be the last man back to break up the play when it went the other way.

I love it in those odd instances when see a very good guy, play like the best player in the World for a stretch of time. Doug Gilmour's 1993 playoff run was similar.