Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[jason1919spezza]

The title says it all. I personally rank him 2nd in defensemen behind Orr, and top 10 among all players (including goaltender).

His career was not just “longevity”, but he was consistently one of the top defensemen’s in the league from the day he put on his uniform to raising the cup in Colorado. He also had a great peak, with couple MVP-calibre seasons (one in which he should have won over Messier).

I think he is somewhat underrated in hfboards (maybe not underrated but he seems to not get the recognition that he deserves). Discuss!

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Second best defenceman ever, maybe top 10 all time but definitely top 15.

 

[The Panther]

He also had a great peak, with couple MVP-calibre seasons (one in which he should have won over Messier).

Why should he have won over Messier?

 

[brachyrynchos]

I have him at least in the top 20. I guess a North American version of Lidstrom, and what I mean is that Bourque wasn't flashy, he didn't dazzle, he didn't excel in one area, he just went about his business playing the way he did. Down by a goal, you have him out there, up by a goal, same thing, a model of consistency and class. Not one to badmouth or point fingers. He got my respect when he gave up #7 for Esposito. Would've rather seen him raise the Cup with Boston than Colorado.

 

[bobholly39]

Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr. That's easy

Other names I can argue above Bourque are:

Beliveau. Crosby. Hull. Richard. Harvey. Hasek. Roy. Jagr. Morenz. Maybe a cpl of others.

Bourque at top 15 seems a safe bet. Can argue top 10 - but i wouldn't.

 

[Sentinel]

Behind Lidstrom.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Something like:

...
10. Doug Harvey
11. Sidney Crosby
12. Jacques Plante
13. Mark Messier
14. Ray Bourque
15. Eddie Shore
16. Jaromir Jagr
17. Frank Nighbor
18. Alex Ovechkin
...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

19 years old, first team all-star.

40 years old, first team all-star. And played more minutes than anyone else in the league.

13 time first team all-star, more than anyone else.

19 time all-star, only Mr. Hockey with more.

+528, 3rd behind Robinson and Orr.

Top 10? Certainly can make an argument for it. Top 15 for sure.

 

[psycat]

Second best defenceman of all time. Anywhere from 6->10 really.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Not sure.I'd need a better grasp on just how great his 5 years peak was, in terms of everything up to star power adjusted for everything.As of today I'm not comfortable with him in the Top 10, even if I rank him 3rd or 4th (probably 3rd) among defensemen.My gut feeling tells me there is a non-negligible gap between him and Doug Harvey, big enough so that many forwards can be ranked in-between.

Anyway, he is a lock for the Top 20 obviously, but that's not telling much.

Among his contemporaries, I have Gretzky, Lemieux and Roy definitely ahead.Then you have guys like Hasek, Jagr and Messier to consider.Potvin and Lidstrom are other contemporaries (to the extent that Potvin is a contemporary) that have a case, though I prefer Potvin's case since the bullet points in his favor are more advantageous than Lidstrom's when compared to Bourque (peak, leadership and prototypical franchise player with crazy success).

Random question: Can Bourque be ranked above Crosby as of today? Gut feeling tells me Crosby is a more important player.

 

[Big Phil]

Behind Lidstrom.

Oh, you're one of those guys huh............haha

Okay in all seriousness I have him top 15, but at the worst. You can argue he is the 2nd best defenseman of all-time. You really can. No defenseman in NHL history was great for that long. None are even close to the 19 year end all-star nods. That will simply never be touched. In comparison, here are the next best ones:

Lidstrom - 12
Harvey - 11
Earl Seibert - 10

Everyone else is under 10, of course, there is context with that. Orr didn't play long enough, guys like Kelly, Robinson, Coffey and Potvin were better than someone like Seibert. Shore was an actual contemporary of Seibert and considered better.

That being said how many guys will even reach 8 at the end of their careers as defensemen? Chara is the highest current one with 7 and that is how he'll finish. Weber has 4 but is getting older. Karlsson might be your best bet just to get to 8. This just goes to show you how good Bourque was for so long.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not sure.I'd need a better grasp on just how great his 5 years peak was, in terms of everything up to star power adjusted for everything.As of today I'm not comfortable with him in the Top 10, even if I rank him 3rd or 4th (probably 3rd) among defensemen.My gut feeling tells me there is a non-negligible gap between him and Doug Harvey, big enough so that many forwards can be ranked in-between.

Anyway, he is a lock for the Top 20 obviously, but that's not telling much.

Among his contemporaries, I have Gretzky, Lemieux and Roy definitely ahead.Then you have guys like Hasek, Jagr and Messier to consider.Potvin and Lidstrom are other contemporaries (to the extent that Potvin is a contemporary) that have a case, though I prefer Potvin's case since the bullet points in his favor are more advantageous than Lidstrom's when compared to Bourque (peak, leadership and prototypical franchise player with crazy success).

Random question: Can Bourque be ranked above Crosby as of today? Gut feeling tells me Crosby is a more important player.

Phrased in this context the Top 100 undergoes a major shake-up.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Phrased in this context the Top 100 undergoes a major shake-up.

Would be interesting to see such a Top 100, keeping in mind ''importance'' is an ambiguous concept.

 

[Sentinel]

Oh, you're one of those guys huh............haha

Okay in all seriousness I have him top 15, but at the worst. You can argue he is the 2nd best defenseman of all-time. You really can. No defenseman in NHL history was great for that long. None are even close to the 19 year end all-star nods. That will simply never be touched. In comparison, here are the next best ones:

Sure, he was great for a very long time. But during that time he was simply not as great AT DEFENSE as Nicklas Lidstrom. To keep the puck out of your net you needed Lidstrom more than you needed Bourque.

 

[tjcurrie]

Typically I have him as the 2nd best defenseman, at worst 3rd. Definitely above Lidstrom.

Top 15 player best bet.

 

[Big Phil]

Sure, he was great for a very long time. But during that time he was simply not as great AT DEFENSE as Nicklas Lidstrom. To keep the puck out of your net you needed Lidstrom more than you needed Bourque.

The margin between the two defensively is so thin that it hardly makes a difference. On the other end of the coin Bourque beats him in pretty much every other category. Peak value? Check. Longevity? Check. Offense? Check. Ability to carry a team? Check.

There is no way Lidstrom carries a team on his back and is the defensive and offensive leader that Bourque had to be. It makes it even more incredible that he had that on his plate.

 

[tony d]

Option 2 for me. I have it as: Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Beliveau, Harvey, Hull. So probably #8. 3rd best defenseman ever.

 

[The Panther]

You can flip a coin with Lidstrom/Bourque, but I'm inclined to put Bourque higher because (a) prime value for longer (19 1st/2nd All Star is completely ridiculous, and 17 in a row), and (b) for much of his career, he had to carry the whole team offensively and defensively, which Lidstrom never did. But each's performance is very even.

Anyway, Bourque had got to be top-15 I think.

 

[Sentinel]

The margin between the two defensively is so thin that it hardly makes a difference. On the other end of the coin Bourque beats him in pretty much every other category. Peak value? Check. Longevity? Check. Offense? Check. Ability to carry a team? Check.

There is no way Lidstrom carries a team on his back and is the defensive and offensive leader that Bourque had to be. It makes it even more incredible that he had that on his plate.

Playoff performance: check, Lidstrom
Number of Norrises: check, Lidstrom
Number of Cups: check, Lidstrom
Number of Conn Smythes: check, Lidstrom
Captaining his team to a Cup (and being the first European to do it): check, Lidstrom.
Olympic gold: check, Lidstrom
Making Ian White a first-pair defenseman: check, Lidstrom

And the difference in defence is not negligible at all! In fact, it's pretty tangible.

 

[The Panther]

Playoff performance: check, Lidstrom
Number of Norrises: check, Lidstrom
Number of Cups: check, Lidstrom
Number of Conn Smythes: check, Lidstrom
Captaining his team to a Cup (and being the first European to do it): check, Lidstrom.
Olympic gold: check, Lidstrom
Making Ian White a first-pair defenseman: check, Lidstrom

And the difference in defence is not negligible at all! In fact, it's pretty tangible.

The only one of these points that's legit is the number of Norris trophies. The rest are team-accomplishments or things contextualized by strength of team (i.e., "captaining team to a Cup").

But let's see:
Number of 1st/2nd team All Stars = Bourque (19 to 12)
Calder trophy = Bourque
Times leading team in scoring = Bourque
Career plus/minus = Bourque

It's not taking anything away from Lidstrom to simply point out that for his entire career, he was playing on deep, often 'All Star' teams. By contrast, Bourque led a team to the Finals where the top scorers (besides him) were past-prime Ken Linseman and Steve Kasper.

Was Bourque caught out of position more often than Lidstrom? Yes, because he had to play both the leading offense and the leading defence positions on his team. Yet, he still ends up with a better plus/minus.

They're very close, but I'd take Bourque.

 

[Plural]

Just to make sure I voted top-15 but I think I could have him in top-10 too. He's one of the few who are "on the cusp" so to speak.

 

[Sentinel]

Times leading team in scoring = Bourque

Which team was it easier to lead in scoring: Bruins or Wings?

Also it's not like Bourque did not have good players on his team: Neely and Oates come to mind.

But the overall list of accomplishments is too one-sided. After a certain point you simply can't ignore it. Add to that Lidstrom's decisive advantage in DEFENSE, and he is clearly a notch above Bourque.

 

[Doctor No]

Which team was it easier to lead in scoring: Bruins or Wings?

Also it's not like Bourque did not have good players on his team: Neely and Oates come to mind.

Having your cake and eating it too...nice.

The Bruins were apparently easy to lead in scoring, but also had HHOF scoring talent on the roster.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

Bourque had the better peak and better longevity. One could make the argument that Lidstrom might've had the better 8 year or so stretch, I suppose. (Not sure what we're qualifying as "prime.) I still think Bourque was the better all-around dman for a longer period of time and his run from '86 to '91 is unparalleled (with the one obvious exception) in the modern era.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

But the overall list of accomplishments is too one-sided. After a certain point you simply can't ignore it. Add to that Lidstrom's decisive advantage in DEFENSE, and he is clearly a notch above Bourque.

I don't see a decisive defensive advantage for Lidstrom at all.

In fact, if you look at the number of goals against each player was on the ice for, over the course of their careers, adjusted for league-wide scoring levels, they're virtually even (both in total, and when you separately look at ES and SH situations).

The fact that they're virtually even is impressive given that Bourque generally had higher ice time than Lidstrom (so he was on the ice for fewer goals against per minute - a lower personal GAA, so to speak), and he generally played on weaker teams.

Numbers aside, I agree with The Panther. Bourque was more likely to be caught out of position (relative to Lidstrom). But he was a better rusher and was able to maintain puck possession for longer, so his opponents spent less time on the attack. I also think Bourque was more effective at getting the puck out of his team's end quickly.

Overall, when looking at their effectiveness at stopping opponents from scoring, I don't see a big advantage either way. You may have a stylistic preference for one over the other, but defensively the results are similar.