Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[seventieslord]

...that said, I'm pretty sure Gordie Howe has more seasons in the top-5 in points than anyone else even has in the top-20, so it's not like Bourque's longevity is unprecedented.

 

[scott clam]

...that said, I'm pretty sure Gordie Howe has more seasons in the top-5 in points than anyone else even has in the top-20, so it's not like Bourque's longevity is unprecedented.

Absolutely. That's basically my whole argument in a nutshell that only Gordie Howe has more seasons at the elite superstar level (and over a 20+ year spread). Obviously Howe is the better player with the better peak(s) but Bourque peaked pretty damn high too.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I understand the argument that all-star selections for defenseman are easier to come by.

But there are not any other defensemen with 19 all-star selections, or 13 first team selections, are there?

If you’re perceiving my argument to be one that frames Ray Bourque as any less than one of the best dozen or so players of all-time, you’re probably making more of my disagreement of the Bourque=Gretzky or Bourque=Howe posts than I intended anyone to.

However, I do think that if some of his contemporaries at other positions were competing against Bourque’s same Norris competition for awards instead of their own competition at their position, Bourque may not necessarily look as unique as he does in retrospect.

Gretzky was better than Bourque’s best competition in at least 16 seasons, Mario Lemieux in likely 10 seasons (1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2001), Patrick Roy in likely 7 seasons (1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, 2002), Mark Messier in likely 7 seasons (1982, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1997), and Dominik Hasek in likely 6 seasons (1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001).

If we go further down and see how these five players would fare against Bourque’s 2nd best competition or 3rd best competition or 4th best competition (the final threshold for Bourque to make the 2nd Team selection), we might not have anyone with the equivalent of Bourque’s raw quantity of 19 seasons (maybe Gretzky), but I don’t see them embarrassing themselves in that regard either, considering four of them had high-level seasons spanning 15+ seasons, and quite a few were also major playoff stars.

It’s not uncommon to see any of these five players from 1960-1965 ranked above Bourque. So attaching Bourque to the best of the five by saying he is the Wayne Gretzky of Defensemen probably should be called out when it happens because if Bourque really was the Wayne Gretzky of Defensemen, he’d probably have 16 Norris Trophies instead of five.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Absolutely. That's basically my whole argument in a nutshell that only Gordie Howe has more seasons at the elite superstar level (and over a 20+ year spread). Obviously Howe is the better player with the better peak(s) but Bourque peaked pretty damn high too.

What are we considering “elite superstar level” though? I don’t know that he was a top-15/20 player before 1983-84 or especially after 1995-96, picking up those All-Star selections in 1999 and 2001 because of injuries to other defensemen.

Even in the years in-between, we’re basically celebrating his 60 GP season in 1988-89 as “elite superstar level” because the threshold that year was being better than Steve Duchesne. Take a #25-35 guy with good health like Joe Sakic and count how many times he was better than Steve Duchesne and you might get a similar total to Bourque’s.

Probably a good 9 or 10 healthy seasons there where Ray Bourque was something special no matter what position or competition you’re looking at, but I do think a lot of the rest (like those four seasons in the 1980s where he played just 60-67 games) is very good filler that benefits from an All-Star bulletpoint.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What are we considering “elite superstar level” though? I don’t know that he was a top-15/20 player before 1983-84 or especially after 1995-96, picking up those All-Star selections in 1999 and 2001 because of injuries to other defensemen.

Even in the years in-between, we’re basically celebrating his 60 GP season in 1988-89 as “elite superstar level” because the threshold that year was being better than Steve Duchesne. Take a #25-35 guy with good health like Joe Sakic and count how many times he was better than Steve Duchesne and you might get a similar total to Bourque’s.

Probably a good 9 or 10 healthy seasons there where Ray Bourque was something special no matter what position or competition you’re looking at, but I do think a lot of the rest (like those four seasons in the 1980s where he played just 60-67 games) is very good filler that benefits from an All-Star bulletpoint.

Or because he played at an elite superstar level, period.

As for Duchesne, it was his career year. 25 goals, 75 points, +31.

 

[scott clam]

What are we considering “elite superstar level” though? I don’t know that he was a top-15/20 player before 1983-84 or especially after 1995-96, picking up those All-Star selections in 1999 and 2001 because of injuries to other defensemen.

Even in the years in-between, we’re basically celebrating his 60 GP season in 1988-89 as “elite superstar level” because the threshold that year was being better than Steve Duchesne. Take a #25-35 guy with good health like Joe Sakic and count how many times he was better than Steve Duchesne and you might get a similar total to Bourque’s.

Probably a good 9 or 10 healthy seasons there where Ray Bourque was something special no matter what position or competition you’re looking at, but I do think a lot of the rest (like those four seasons in the 1980s where he played just 60-67 games) is very good filler that benefits from an All-Star bulletpoint.

Sakic is a good comparison to Bourque, was scoring at around the same clip in his late thirties as he was in his early 20s. Bourque still has him comfortably beat in longevity though by 260ish games. Also Bourque had a better start to his career, winning the calder. Peak is pretty much equal for both players, they both take their game to the next level around the same age.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Sakic is a good comparison to Bourque, was scoring at around the same clip in his late thirties as he was in his early 20s. Bourque still has him comfortably beat in longevity though by 260ish games. Also Bourque had a better start to his career, winning the calder. Peak is pretty much equal for both players, they both take their game to the next level around the same age.

The Calder and a buck fifty will get you a small coffee at Tim Horton's. That award means very little (unless you're a Steve Vickers fan).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The Calder and a buck fifty will get you a small coffee at Tim Horton's. That award means very little (unless you're a Steve Vickers fan).

How about first team all-star with 65 points and a +52 as a 19 year-old defenseman?

 

[DannyGallivan]

How about first team all-star with 65 points and a +52 as a 19 year-old defenseman?

yeah, that's a little more descriptive than "Calder winner".

 

[quoipourquoi]

How about first team all-star with 65 points and a +52 as a 19 year-old defenseman?

4th in Norris voting - which allowed for more distinction in 1st-2nd-3rd than the All Star ballot’s 1st-1st-2nd-2nd-3rd-3rd which guarantees that one of Bourque, Salming, or Schoenfeld would be treated as Robinson’s equal. Norris voting had him with less than half of Salming’s share and another 50% behind Schoenfeld. Again, something that could literally only happen to a defenseman because of the unusual 1-1-2-2-3-3 ballot.

Followed up with All-Star selections the next three seasons with 67, 65, and 65 GP because that’s something we see with much greater frequency at the defensive position in this period than any other because of the extra spots to fill and the lack of four truly amazing seasons each year to fill them (meaning great per-game seasons are more often recognized on defense than other positions that more often demand greatness and 75+ games because any more missed time would tank a scoring race). Meanwhile Trottier, Stastny, and Hawerchuk have top-5 Hart seasons that go without All-Star attribution in these three seasons because Center is consistently deeper than Defense on the high-end.

Like I said, comes down to what we mean by “elite superstar level”. If we’re ballparking it as a top-10 season from any position in the league, we’ve seen All-Stars who aren’t that and non-All-Stars who are. For Bourque, I’d probably start the clock at 1983-84 while recognizing that he was better in his non-prime filler years (let’s say 8th, 9th, or 10th best season onward) than all but a few players have been in theirs; I just disagree that he’s on an island with Gordie Howe in that regard.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

4th in Norris voting - which allowed for more distinction in 1st-2nd-3rd than the All Star ballot’s 1st-1st-2nd-2nd-3rd-3rd which guarantees that one of Bourque, Salming, or Schoenfeld would be treated as Robinson’s equal. Norris voting had him with less than half of Salming’s share and another 50% behind Schoenfeld. Again, something that could literally only happen to a defenseman because of the unusual 1-1-2-2-3-3 ballot.

Followed up with All-Star selections the next three seasons with 67, 65, and 65 GP because that’s something we see with much greater frequency at the defensive position in this period than any other because of the extra spots to fill and the lack of four truly amazing seasons each year to fill them (meaning great per-game seasons are more often recognized on defense than other positions that more often demand greatness and 75+ games because any more missed time would tank a scoring race). Meanwhile Trottier, Stastny, and Hawerchuk have top-5 Hart seasons that go without All-Star attribution in these three seasons because Center is consistently deeper than Defense on the high-end.

Like I said, comes down to what we mean by “elite superstar level”. If we’re ballparking it as a top-10 season from any position in the league, we’ve seen All-Stars who aren’t that and non-All-Stars who are. For Bourque, I’d probably start the clock at 1983-84 while recognizing that he was better in his non-prime filler years (let’s say 8th, 9th, or 10th best season onward) than all but a few players have been in theirs; I just disagree that he’s on an island with Gordie Howe in that regard.

From your argument it sounds like defenseman are inferior to forwards on the high end, does it not?

Were Stasny or Hawerchuk ever considered better players than Bourque during their careers?

 

[scott clam]

The Calder and a buck fifty will get you a small coffee at Tim Horton's. That award means very little (unless you're a Steve Vickers fan).

When taken into context it can mean a lot. My point was that Bourque had a stronger rookie year than Sakic. Seeing as I had already mentioned he was a first team allstar in his rookie year about a gagillion times I didn't think I needed to remind people again...

I don't usually put a lot of weight into +/- but god damn +52 is outstanding!

 

[scott clam]

Like I said, comes down to what we mean by “elite superstar level”. If we’re ballparking it as a top-10 season from any position in the league, we’ve seen All-Stars who aren’t that and non-All-Stars who are. For Bourque, I’d probably start the clock at 1983-84 while recognizing that he was better in his non-prime filler years (let’s say 8th, 9th, or 10th best season onward) than all but a few players have been in theirs; I just disagree that he’s on an island with Gordie Howe in that regard.

I was never trying to put Bourque on Howe's island just the island next door- for players who were elite for a really long time. He misses some games in the 3 seasons after his big Rookie season but he's still at least a top 5 D in those years. He's also good enough at age 20 to crack the 81 canada cup roster and has a huge playoff in '83. So its more than just all star team "bullet points" he was achieving in those "filler" years. I guess my phrase "elite superstar level" leaves a lot to the imagination there, probably should have put a dash in the middle or something. Or called it "allstar level" but that would have been redundant....

 

[quoipourquoi]

From your argument it sounds like defenseman are inferior to forwards on the high end, does it not?

Were Stasny or Hawerchuk ever considered better players than Bourque during their careers?

That’s your inference from me saying that 80 games of Stastny and Hawerchuk would be perceived to be greater than 65 games of Bourque - even though the latter took the All-Star nod because he wasn’t up against Gretzky/Trottier but instead Wilson, Engblom, Hartsburg, and 89-point Coffey?

Defensemen aren’t always going to be inferior on the high-end (2000, 2016, and 2017 has dynamite 1st Team seasons - 1994 and 1996 too, even though I’d take the Centers) but in most of the 1980s and 1990s, sure, because the high-end is literally the guy Bourque was compared to: Wayne Gretzky. High bar to clear.

It’s year-to-year though. I do think having all four All-Star defensemen be top-10ish players (or even top-20) is probably something that hasn’t happened in a while - the way we often see it from Centers. Malkin was our #4 this year. Hell, in 1996, Fedorov was our #6. A defensive All-Star can be anything between the best player in the league to whatever is better than John Carlson.

It’s like anything else - you can’t just count a binary YES/NO on the All-Star front and expect it to have universal weight.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

When taken into context it can mean a lot. My point was that Bourque had a stronger rookie year than Sakic. Seeing as I had already mentioned he was a first team allstar in his rookie year about a gagillion times I didn't think I needed to remind people again...

I don't usually put a lot of weight into +/- but god damn +52 is outstanding!

Of note, Borje Salming came in 2nd in Norris voting that season with a +3.

 

[connormcmuffin]

I judge him by era, behind Coffey, behind Lidstrom, on par with Niedermayer and Pronger.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I judge him by era, behind Coffey, behind Lidstrom, on par with Niedermayer and Pronger.

Sure...Coffey was the best offensive defenseman not named Orr but he was just average at best defensively. He was definitively better than Lidstrom (skills/prime/peak/longevity). And telling that Bourque is on par with Niedermayer and Pronger is an insult towards Bourque. He is the second best defenseman of all-time behind the great Orr so Pronger and Niedermayer are not in the same tier than him among the greatest defensemen of all time.

 

[connormcmuffin]

Sure...Coffey was the best offensive defenseman not named Orr but he was just average at best defensively. He was definitively better than Lidstrom (skills/prime/peak/longevity). And telling that Bourque is on par with Niedermayer and Pronger is an insult towards Bourque. He is the second best defenseman of all-time behind the great Orr so Pronger and Niedermayer are not in the same tier than him among the greatest defensemen of all time.

How many cups and finals appearances did Coffey have? And the best defense is a good offense/possession especially on in the 80s/90s

Bourque play on many teams that flat out choked, losing to meh Habs rosters on the back of Roy.

But most significantly Bourque is the all time shots leader by what over a thousand shots? He wasn't making the best play he got points by volume.

Bourque isn't a top ten all time defenseman. He's massively overrated in this thread.

You're not a top five defensemen all time without a conn smythe

The only championship came when he was an add on to an already minted cup winning roster.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

How many cups and finals appearances did Coffey have? And the best defense is a good offense/possession especially on in the 80s/90s

Bourque play on many teams that flat out choked, losing to meh Habs rosters on the back of Roy.

But most significantly Bourque is the all time shots leader by what over a thousand shots? He wasn't making the best play he got points by volume.

Bourque isn't a top ten all time defenseman. He's massively overrated in this thread.

The only championship came when he was an add on to an already minted cup winning roster.

Put Bourque on those Oilers teams and Coffey on those Bruins teams and Bourque won 4-5 Cups too.

He was a one-man army in Boston, there were other great players (Park, Neely) but for the most part of his career, he was the Bruins. By the way, we didn't see the same thing because Bourque's Bruins beat Roy's Habs in playoffs more often than not.

As I said, Bourque was a one-man army on those Bruins teams so it's normal to me he was shooting so much.

I can't help but laughing to the bolded part. It's ridiculous.

He is the second best defenseman of all-time period. If one all-time great defenseman is overrated here so it's Lidstrom.

 

[connormcmuffin]

Put Bourque on those Oilers teams and Coffey on those Bruins teams and Bourque won 4-5 Cups too.

He was a one-man army in Boston, there were other great players (Park, Neely) but for the most part of his career, he was the Bruins. By the way, we didn't see the same thing because Bourque's Bruins beat Roy's Habs in playoffs more often than not.

As I said, Bourque was a one-man army on those Bruins teams so it's normal to me he was shooting so much.

I can't help but laughing to the bolded part. It's ridiculous.

He is the second best defenseman of all-time period. If one all-time great defenseman is overrated here so it's Lidstrom.

Adam Oates was pretty good, funny you omit him.

The Adams division was soft, Boston should have dominated, Bourque just wasn't that big of a factor.

 

[newfy]

"There is only one advantage Bourque has on Lidstrom: he is Canadian."

That, and the three more 1st-All Star team selections for Bourque, seven more 1st/2nd-All Star team selections for Bourque, and Bourque's leading his team in scoring five times (vs. zero for Lidstrom). There's also the fact that Bourque was simultaneously the top offensive and defensive player on his team for about half his career, which Lidstrom never was.

But he was Canadian, so it's all a charade.

I'm a guy who falls on the flip a coin side of the lidstrom Bourque argument, theres arguments for both. Things like leading his team in scoring 5 times shouldnt be brought up. Bourque played on a team where that was a possibility, Lidstrom didnt. I would say Bourqie might have a slight offensive edge over Lidstrom but leading his team in scoring isnt it. On the flip side, people will say "well Bourque was on a bad team so his playoff record shouldnt count" which I would counter with Lidstrom being MVP in the playoffs of the best team in the league is still something that should be taken into consideration.

Bourque definitely has the Canadian advantage working in his favour though. Lidstrom should've won the norris in 98 without question but lost it to a tough canadian. If he wins that Norris and has 8, tied for most all time this argument for Bourque is weakened quite a bit.

should we tell him that Bourque has more career assists than Lidstrom does points?

or that Bourque career is +120 higher than Lidstrom in only 50 more games, while playing throughout the 80s

Thats a lazy argument. Lidstrom is the only dman to not play his career in the 80s and break 1000 points. Lidstrom was the best offensive and defensive dman of his generation. There isnt much of an argument against either statement. Theres a good argument that Bourque is neither the best offensive or defensive dman of his generation. Coffey was better offensively and guys like Langway, Chelios and Stevens (ish) have an argument for better defensively than Bourque.

Like I said, I think its a coin flip and theres good sides to each coin and argument but Bourque can definitely not say he was the best offensively or defensively of his generation while Lidstrom can.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Adam Oates was pretty good, funny you omit him.

The Adams division was soft, Boston should have dominated, Bourque just wasn't that big of a factor.

Ok, I forgot about Oates but that happen...

LOL it was because the division now, I see...And thanks again for the good laugh to this ridiculous bolded part.

 

[connormcmuffin]

Ok, I forgot about Oates but that happen...

LOL it was because the division now, I see...And thanks again for the good laugh to this ridiculous bolded part.

I explained my take, you seem to be below discourse. Whatever.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I explained my take, you seem to be below discourse. Whatever.

Sure...Player X was not so great because of the division he played in, so great argument there...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm a guy who falls on the flip a coin side of the lidstrom Bourque argument, theres arguments for both. Things like leading his team in scoring 5 times shouldnt be brought up. Bourque played on a team where that was a possibility, Lidstrom didnt. I would say Bourqie might have a slight offensive edge over Lidstrom but leading his team in scoring isnt it. On the flip side, people will say "well Bourque was on a bad team so his playoff record shouldnt count" which I would counter with Lidstrom being MVP in the playoffs of the best team in the league is still something that should be taken into consideration.

Bourque definitely has the Canadian advantage working in his favour though. Lidstrom should've won the norris in 98 without question but lost it to a tough canadian. If he wins that Norris and has 8, tied for most all time this argument for Bourque is weakened quite a bit.



Thats a lazy argument. Lidstrom is the only dman to not play his career in the 80s and break 1000 points. Lidstrom was the best offensive and defensive dman of his generation. There isnt much of an argument against either statement. Theres a good argument that Bourque is neither the best offensive or defensive dman of his generation. Coffey was better offensively and guys like Langway, Chelios and Stevens (ish) have an argument for better defensively than Bourque.

Like I said, I think its a coin flip and theres good sides to each coin and argument but Bourque can definitely not say he was the best offensively or defensively of his generation while Lidstrom can.

you cant play that game 1 way.

Lidstrom has a couple Norris wins he shouldnt have as well...like 2011

you can also argue Bourque was robbed of Norris trophies early in his career, specifically Langway's 2 wins. Especially 1984...31-65-96 +51, AS-1 and 5th in Hart.