Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[psycat]

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.

But still everybody rank Crosby ahead of Ovechkin because of team accomplishments. And alot of people seems to give those early Habs players all credit in the world for their team accomplishments on mega stacked teams in a small league.

 

[The Panther]

But still everybody rank Crosby ahead of Ovechkin because of team accomplishments.

First of all, not "everyone" ranks Crosby ahead of Ovechkin. But most do, I suppose.

Second, there's quite a difference between Bourque (twice Cup Finalist with Boston, Cup-champ with Colorado) and Ovechkin (never past 2nd round).

And alot of people seems to give those early Habs players all credit in the world for their team accomplishments on mega stacked teams in a small league.

Those early Habs' players should get all the credit in the world -- they were the world's best team, and won a rack of Stanley Cups.

I'm not saying Lidstrom (for example) doesn't deserve full credit. He does. I also said it's a coin toss between he and Bourque, though, if pressed I'd probably take Bourque.

The point I'm making is not that Bourque is better than Lidstrom. The point I'm making is this: by nature of their respective circumstances on their teams, Bourque had to shoulder more of the burden for his team's success (and failures) than Lidstrom did. Lidstrom could pick and choose his spots more carefully (which he did masterfully) because his team was all-world and stacked with great players, and coached by great coaches running effective systems, nearly every year of his career -- beginning, middle, and end. If the Red Wings played three games in a row against offensively powerful teams, Lidstrom had the "luxury" (not the right word, but you know what I mean) of focusing on defence-only. He had many high-skilled teammates who could score and carry the offensive load if he didn't. Example? The 1997 Finals vs. Philly. Lidstrom put up only 1 point in the series, yet the Wings swept to the victory. I'm not criticizing Lidstrom -- he was defensively superb (in fact, +6 in the series). But against a similar team, if Bourque put up 1 point, the Bruins would have lost quickly.

Bourque didn't have the "luxury" of focusing on defence-only for all but a few of his 22 seasons. Basically, with Boston from 1980 to 1995, if Bourque wasn't leading the power-play attack and putting up points, they lost. Meanwhile, he also had to shoulder the team's defensive burden.

I personally view Bourque-Lidstrom as a comparable dynamic to Yzerman-Sakic. Very even, and you can't go wrong either way.

 

[psycat]

First of all, not "everyone" ranks Crosby ahead of Ovechkin. But most do, I suppose.

Second, there's quite a difference between Bourque (twice Cup Finalist with Boston, Cup-champ with Colorado) and Ovechkin (never past 2nd round).

Those early Habs' players should get all the credit in the world -- they were the world's best team, and won a rack of Stanley Cups.

I'm not saying Lidstrom (for example) doesn't deserve full credit. He does. I also said it's a coin toss between he and Bourque, though, if pressed I'd probably take Bourque.

The point I'm making is not that Bourque is better than Lidstrom. The point I'm making is this: by nature of their respective circumstances on their teams, Bourque had to shoulder more of the burden for his team's success (and failures) than Lidstrom did. Lidstrom could pick and choose his spots more carefully (which he did masterfully) because his team was all-world and stacked with great players, and coached by great coaches running effective systems, nearly every year of his career -- beginning, middle, and end. If the Red Wings played three games in a row against offensively powerful teams, Lidstrom had the "luxury" (not the right word, but you know what I mean) of focusing on defence-only. He had many high-skilled teammates who could score and carry the offensive load if he didn't. Example? The 1997 Finals vs. Philly. Lidstrom put up only 1 point in the series, yet the Wings swept to the victory. I'm not criticizing Lidstrom -- he was defensively superb (in fact, +6 in the series). But against a similar team, if Bourque put up 1 point, the Bruins would have lost quickly.

Bourque didn't have the "luxury" of focusing on defence-only for all but a few of his 22 seasons. Basically, with Boston from 1980 to 1995, if Bourque wasn't leading the power-play attack and putting up points, they lost. Meanwhile, he also had to shoulder the team's defensive burden.

I personally view Bourque-Lidstrom as a comparable dynamic to Yzerman-Sakic. Very even, and you can't go wrong either way.

Well I rank Bourque ahead of Lidstrom(albeit slightly and I do rank them 2nd and 3rd of all time which might be abit controversial) I just dont like that some arguments only seems to apply to certain players.

I mean if Lidstrom had that "luxury" you must conclude that, say, Harvey had even more of that and if somebody rank Bourque ahead of Lidstrom and dismiss the latter as a product of his team they should be open to apply same standards in, for example, a Crosby vs Ovechkin discussion.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

dont forget Bourque should've won the Norris before his 1st one too.

How Langway got it over him in 83-84, I'll never know:

Langway: 9-24-33, +14
Bourque: 31-65-96, +51

Bourque > Lidstrom, which is no knock on LIdstrom:

1506 pts vs 1142 points, both in just over 1500 games

for all folks bringing up playoffs as a win for Lidstrom...Bourque was better there.

183 pts vs 180 pts...Bourque played in 50 less games...so .84 ppg vs .69 ppg


Bourque is top 10 all time, 2nd/3rd best defenseman ever (flip a coin between him and Harvey)

 

[psycat]

dont forget Bourque should've won the Norris before his 1st one too.

How Langway got it over him in 83-84, I'll never know:

Langway: 9-24-33, +14
Bourque: 31-65-96, +51

Bourque > Lidstrom, which is no knock on LIdstrom:

1506 pts vs 1142 points, both in just over 1500 games

for all folks bringing up playoffs as a win for Lidstrom...Bourque was better there.

183 pts vs 180 pts...Bourque played in 50 less games...so .84 ppg vs .69 ppg


Bourque is top 10 all time, 2nd/3rd best defenseman ever (flip a coin between him and Harvey)

I am all for ranking Bourque above Lidstrom but why would you rank Harvey higher than either?

 

[JackSlater]

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

Can you share it then?

 

[MXD]

Top-11.

 

[MXD]

I am all for ranking Bourque above Lidstrom but why would you rank Harvey higher than either?

For the same reason I'd rank Orr higher than both.

 

[psycat]

For the same reason I'd rank Orr higher than both.

Wasnt aware that Harvey won Art Ross x2 xd

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't know, Bourque over Harvey is a hard sell just by looking at them play.The little I saw of Harvey he looked so far ahead of everyone, and those games were stacked with great players.

Then Harvey has everything on paper to back that up, including individual and team success.Bourque's longevity doesn't cut it for me.

 

[MXD]

Wasnt aware that Harvey won Art Ross x2 xd

Was that supposed to be insightful?

 

[Sentinel]

First of all, not "everyone" ranks Crosby ahead of Ovechkin. But most do, I suppose.

Second, there's quite a difference between Bourque (twice Cup Finalist with Boston, Cup-champ with Colorado) and Ovechkin (never past 2nd round).

No there isn't. Not if you're dismissing team accomplishments outright.

I find it mindblowing how people who are regularly engaged in award-counting, dismiss these awards (Norrises, Cups, and Olympic Gold) completely when it suits them.

There is only one advantage Bourque has on Lidstrom: he is Canadian. But we've been through this many times already. No need for another round.

 

[Killion]

Wasnt aware that Harvey won Art Ross x2 xd

What else are you "unaware of" pursuant to Doug Harvey psycat?... Definitely someone you want to look into, do some research on & about, see what his contemporaries, what historians & history has to say about him. Until Orr came along considered the greatest ever, changed the way the position was played, that no one since has actually surpassed Orr or Harvey thus ranking him in the #2 or 3 slot with Eddie Shore his main rival in the rankings for the #2 slot. Did Ray Bourque or Nick Lidstrom change the way the position is played, revolutionize the game? Great great players, no question about it, not a slight, on the contrary to even be in the Top 5, 10 or 20, even 50 All Time Greatest Defencemen quite the accomplishment as there have been so many great ones over the past 100yrs of NHL History, even going back further, NHA and PCHA....

 

[danincanada]

Anyone who looks deeper into Harvey's career and playing style will quickly realize he's a lot more comparable with Bourque/Lidstrom than Orr. This notion that he is what sits in between Orr and the rest of the pack doesn't make a lot of sense. The separation is not there.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Bourque is probably top 5 amongst d-men. I rank him around 15 all time.

Regarding the Harvey question on all time placement. If Scotty Bowman ranks Harvey second, above Lidström which he also coached, I think you should probably trust him.

 

[JackSlater]

Bourque is probably top 5 amongst d-men. I rank him around 15 all time.

Regarding the Harvey question on all time placement. If Scotty Bowman ranks Harvey second, above Lidström which he also coached, I think you should probably trust him.

Bowman did coach both Harvey and Lidstrom, but seeing his ranking of Canadian NHLers makes me think that we shouldn't just take his rankings as gospel.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

No there isn't. Not if you're dismissing team accomplishments outright.

I find it mindblowing how people who are regularly engaged in award-counting, dismiss these awards (Norrises, Cups, and Olympic Gold) completely when it suits them.

There is only one advantage Bourque has on Lidstrom: he is Canadian. But we've been through this many times already. No need for another round.

Yep, that's it.










Oh, and peak and longevity.

 

[Killion]

Bowman did coach both Harvey and Lidstrom, but seeing his ranking of Canadian NHLers makes me think that we shouldn't just take his rankings as gospel.

Very true, however its not just Scotty Bowman who makes the case for Harvey. More importantly, its the people he played with & against that do it along with those who followed & who watched his career unfold. There really is no better nor higher form of praise in assessing a players game than from his contemporaries, those who battled with & against him and when you hear it from people like Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau & countless others... I for one am not going to argue, and, having seen him play myself can certainly understand why they'd feel the way they do. This was a guy who could speed up or slow down a game, take it by the scruff of the neck & turn it on its head. As much as I respect Raymond Bourque & Niklas Lidstrom... sorry... didnt see much of that.

 

[Sentinel]

Oh, and peak and longevity.

In offense only.

 

[Sentinel]

Very true, however its not just Scotty Bowman who makes the case for Harvey. More importantly, its the people he played with & against that do it along with those who followed & who watched his career unfold. There really is no better nor higher form of praise in assessing a players game than from his contemporaries, those who battled with & against him and when you hear it from people like Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau & countless others... I for one am not going to argue, and, having seen him play myself can certainly understand why they'd feel the way they do. This was a guy who could speed up or slow down a game, take it by the scruff of the neck & turn it on its head. As much as I respect Raymond Bourque & Niklas Lidstrom... sorry... didnt see much of that.

But Howe and Beliveau didn't play against Bourque and Lidstrom! Btw, all contemporaries also praised Fetisov, calling him "Russian Orr" and "the best since Orr." So...

 

[jj cale]

Anyone who watched both play knows Bourque was every bit as good as Lidstrom.

 

[jj cale]

No there isn't. Not if you're dismissing team accomplishments outright.

I find it mindblowing how people who are regularly engaged in award-counting, dismiss these awards (Norrises, Cups, and Olympic Gold) completely when it suits them.

There is only one advantage Bourque has on Lidstrom: he is Canadian. But we've been through this many times already. No need for another round.

You could just as easily make the case that people picking Lidstrom are doing it because he isn't Canadian. That stuff works both ways.

 

[Killion]

But Howe and Beliveau didn't play against Bourque and Lidstrom! Btw, all contemporaries also praised Fetisov, calling him "Russian Orr" and "the best since Orr." So...

.... unhuh.... carry on, keep on keepin on Sentinel.

 

[Admiral Awesome]

In offense only.

Ah, yes, those tangibles.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Regarding Bourque's defense - we know from several polls of players and coaches that he was consistently regarded as one of the top defensive defensemen in the league:

• January 1990 players' poll: Bourque ranked 5th in the defensive defensemen category (behind Ramsey, McCrimmon, Lowe and Ludwig)
• February 1993 coaches' poll: Bourque ranked 2nd in the defensive defensemen category (behind Chelios, ahead of Stevens)
• January 1994 coaches poll: Bourque ranked 1st in the defensive defensemen category (ahead of Chelios and Stevens)

He wasn't the very best defensive defenseman in NHL history (Harvey, late career Stevens, Langway, etc) but I'm not sure if there are any blueliners who can be described as having a decisive advantage in that category.