How many Norris Trophies could/should Bourque have won?

[WingsFan95]

We all know the Norris is up and down and as a Wings fan I'm still confused with Lidstrom's 7th win. That said, no man serves as much of an enigma to the award as Raymond Bourque. Playing 22 seasons in the league, he had the kind of career you might expect from Orr had he stayed healthy, as in, pure domination at the position. Of course guys like Chelios and MacInnis were great in their own right but Bourque was the most consistent. Paul Coffey is my all-time favourite player but he was an offensive defenseman with some gaping holes on defense. This is in short to say your team would be better with Bourque as your defenseman than any other player at that position during that time period.

Back to the Norris, Bourque was Runner-Up a record 6 times (shared with Park). Additionally he finished Top 4 a blistering 14 times without winning. It was the 5 of his last 7 seasons in the league that saw him knocked out of the Top 4, in 22 freaking seasons. So, how about those 14 times? Focusing on the 6 runner-up finishes:

Wilson: 31.22%
Bourque: 14.11%*

Coffey: 39.33%
Bourque: 23.99%

Leetch: 53.95%
Bourque: 18.04%

Chelios: 44.67%
Bourque: 21.57%
Murphy: 20.67% *

Chelios: 29.06%
Bourque: 28.70%*

Lidstrom: 37.22%
Bourque: 15.57%


Some interesting races when he finished 3rd:

Langway: 31.75%
Howe: 27.34% *
Bourque: 24.51%



Bolded with asterisk is who I think deserved it that year. As you can see, only two seasons I feel Bourque had a better case, but as voting goes, it could have gone another way in some other seasons. I mean, I've only listed 7 of the 14 seasons in which he finished top 4, and although some of those are indisputable, if anyone would like, they can post their opinions on some of those 4th place finishes.

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

I think the voting was about right. I mean, Bourque might have beaten Wilson in '82, but the swing-vote normally goes to the guy who was healthy and played all the games, which Bourque didn't. Other than that one, I think the other "non-wins" are reasonable.

He still has the 4th-most Norris trophies of any D-man in history, so he's all right.

 

[reckoning]

I would have given it to him in 95-96. He kept the Bruins respectable while the supporting cast had become much weaker. 82 points and a plus-31 (they were minus-19 when he wasn't on the ice).

Chris Chelios 408 (22-19-9-3-1)
Ray Bourque 403 (23-16-8-7-0)

One of the rare cases where the player with the most first-place votes didn't win.

 

[Big Phil]

To be honest, there are about 5 or 6 times you could say Bourque could have won it and no one would have flinched. 1996 and 1993 stand out. 1982 comes to mind but it is also important to note that 39 goals that Wilson got as a defenseman is still something only Coffey and Orr bested. 1983, 1984 are others. No issue with Coffey winning it in 1985 and 1986 and then Bourque probably wins in 1989 if he played in 20 more games.

 

[WingsFan95]

It's just peculiar to see Lidstrom with 2 more Norris Trophies than Bourque.

 

[Big Phil]

It's just peculiar to see Lidstrom with 2 more Norris Trophies than Bourque.

This board has beaten this to a pulp, but the 1980s and 1990s when Bourque was winning his Norrises or in contention, had a deeper crop and better high end defensemen to compete against than Lidstrom had. The near consensus feeling is that if Lidstrom and Bourque swapped eras Bourque would have more than 5 and Lidstrom would certainly have much less than 7.

 

[dafoomie]

There's also the Hart trophy in 1990 that Bourque by all rights should've won if not for the Edmonton writers leaving him off the ballot.

 

[The Panther]

There's also the Hart trophy in 1990 that Bourque by all rights should've won if not for the Edmonton writers leaving him off the ballot.

There is no evidence that Edmonton writers left him off the ballot.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This board has beaten this to a pulp, but the 1980s and 1990s when Bourque was winning his Norrises or in contention, had a deeper crop and better high end defensemen to compete against than Lidstrom had. The near consensus feeling is that if Lidstrom and Bourque swapped eras Bourque would have more than 5 and Lidstrom would certainly have much less than 7.

Pretty much.
Lidstrom has 1 Norris that belongs with any of Bourque's 5.
Meanwhile, Bourque has multiple non-Norris winning seasons that were better than most of Lidstrom's winning ones.
Switching time frames as was suggested IMO Bourque ends up with 8-9 and Lidstrom with 2-3.

 

[tarheelhockey]

There is no evidence that Edmonton writers left him off the ballot.

Coming back to this many years later — with public ballots, we see that Jim Matheson voted for 3 Oilers and zero Panthers on his 2024 Conn Smythe ballot.

Matheson was a ringleader in the Edmonton hockey media in 1990.

We’ll never have direct evidence without seeing the 1990 ballots. But we now have direct evidence of one of the key 1990 figures engaging in this pattern of behavior.

 

[Dingo]

Pretty much.
Lidstrom has 1 Norris that belongs with any of Bourque's 5.
Meanwhile, Bourque has multiple non-Norris winning seasons that were better than most of Lidstrom's winning ones.
Switching time frames as was suggested IMO Bourque ends up with 8-9 and Lidstrom with 2-3.

can't see this.
Also can't see Bourque as 'like Orr if he were healthy'

80-90 point dman seasons in the 80s really arent much different than 60-70 when Lidstrom was getting those, and he was better defensively than offensively

edit - didnt notice the NINE YEAR BUMP!

 

[Steve Kournianos]

We all know the Norris is up and down and as a Wings fan I'm still confused with Lidstrom's 7th win. That said, no man serves as much of an enigma to the award as Raymond Bourque. Playing 22 seasons in the league, he had the kind of career you might expect from Orr had he stayed healthy, as in, pure domination at the position. Of course guys like Chelios and MacInnis were great in their own right but Bourque was the most consistent. Paul Coffey is my all-time favourite player but he was an offensive defenseman with some gaping holes on defense. This is in short to say your team would be better with Bourque as your defenseman than any other player at that position during that time period.

Back to the Norris, Bourque was Runner-Up a record 6 times (shared with Park). Additionally he finished Top 4 a blistering 14 times without winning. It was the 5 of his last 7 seasons in the league that saw him knocked out of the Top 4, in 22 freaking seasons. So, how about those 14 times? Focusing on the 6 runner-up finishes:

Wilson: 31.22%
Bourque: 14.11%*

Coffey: 39.33%
Bourque: 23.99%

Leetch: 53.95%
Bourque: 18.04%

Chelios: 44.67%
Bourque: 21.57%
Murphy: 20.67% *

Chelios: 29.06%
Bourque: 28.70%*

Lidstrom: 37.22%
Bourque: 15.57%


Some interesting races when he finished 3rd:

Langway: 31.75%
Howe: 27.34% *
Bourque: 24.51%



Bolded with asterisk is who I think deserved it that year. As you can see, only two seasons I feel Bourque had a better case, but as voting goes, it could have gone another way in some other seasons. I mean, I've only listed 7 of the 14 seasons in which he finished top 4, and although some of those are indisputable, if anyone would like, they can post their opinions on some of those 4th place finishes.

I don’t think Bourque or anyone for that matter deserved the Norris over ‘93 and ‘96 Chelios IMHO. But 1994 was a different story since Zubov took votes from Leetch and Stevens (who was great that year) vs Bourque was a very fair debate.

I specifically remember Chelios’ 1993 season as being MVP-caliber wire to wire while Murphy was losing his effectiveness defensively. The Hawks had a bunch of early-season slumps (Belfour and Larmer in particular). But Chelios was playing 30+ a night and stabilized the season. IIRC the Hawks allowed the fewest shots as well. OTOH, the Bruins were middling most of that season after a hot start and went on a tear to close the season to reach 50 wins. In fact, the Bruins were leaking goals against at an alarming rate at one point and IIRC many Bruins fans thought the Euro influx and goaltending were causing it (I lived in Boston at the time). Murphy for Pittsburgh was a key piece and the obvious No. 1 for them, but clearly not an MVP type and not in Chelios’ range at actually defending. That probably best explains why Chelios received Hart consideration while Murphy and Bourque didn’t, and also why Chelios got 33 first-place Norris votes to Bourque’s six. Throw in the fact that an American beat out two Canadians by a wide margin in a PHWA vote with heavy Canadian influence, and you can easily deduce who had the better season.

As far as 1996, that was the first year under Steve Kasper in Boston (and Kevin Stevens) and it was almost a carbon-copy of 1993 for the Bruins — Middling most of the season and strong finish, only to lose in the first round in a quick series. They also were uncharacteristically terrible on defense, probably because they no longer had the Garden’s smaller ice after moving into the Fleet Center. Bourque was his usual solid self defensively, but he also took a career-high 390 shots, compared to only 200+ for Chelios, who anchored another stubborn Chicago defense corps. I don’t think Bourque was his usual Norris-self that season and his play in the Florida series was subpar for his standards. But he got a boost from the ASG performance and point/goal total, while Chelios had a fantastic all-around season, postseason and WCOH. Pretty sure the prevailing attitude in the 1996 offseason was that Chelios and Leetch were superior to Bourque, albeit by a thin margin.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

can't see this.
Also can't see Bourque as 'like Orr if he were healthy'

80-90 point dman seasons in the 80s really arent much different than 60-70 when Lidstrom was getting those, and he was better defensively than offensively

edit - didnt notice the NINE YEAR BUMP!

Wow didnt notice the bump either

I def went to war for Lidstrom against Bourque, but it’s a fair and compelling debate.

 

[Sentinel]

I can also argue that had Fetisov played in NHL his entire career, Bourque would have even fewer Norrises.

 

[VanIslander]

17 consecutive top-4 Norris trophy finishes (1st or 2nd team all star each and every season then), in a modern era with 20+ teams (not 'Original 6' teams)... is staggering.

He was widely considered great. Consistently.

His shot. His accuracy (he four times pants others in all-star game target shooting). His backcheck, especially stickhandling by the boards. His work ethic. His relentless near 30 minute double shifted production. His leadership.

There have never been 10 better hockey players ever.

He is on every wise shortlist for foundational cornerpiece in starting a team.

 

[VanIslander]

I can also argue that had Fetisov played in NHL his entire career, Bourque would have even fewer Norrises.

Two of the top-5 dmen of all time.

Wait,... Red Kelly and Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey...

EDIT: "Arguably" two of the top 5, certainly top 10!

 

[The Panther]

Coming back to this many years later — with public ballots, we see that Jim Matheson voted for 3 Oilers and zero Panthers on his 2024 Conn Smythe ballot.

Matheson was a ringleader in the Edmonton hockey media in 1990.

We’ll never have direct evidence without seeing the 1990 ballots. But we now have direct evidence of one of the key 1990 figures engaging in this pattern of behavior.

Generally, Matheson was a good hockey writer back in 1989-90. And generally, he seems to be a bit of an idiot who needs to be put out to pasture now. So, there's quite a difference...

Someone else here will know the details, but my memory is that six writers in the west (?) left Bourque off the ballot. Only three writers in Edmonton were voting.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I can also argue that had Fetisov played in NHL his entire career, Bourque would have even fewer Norrises.

Because Fetisov was so useful in New Jersey.

 

[Sentinel]

Because Fetisov was so useful in New Jersey.

Because you can totally judge a player 11 years into his career who came from a different social system without language.

In the early 80s Fetisov was routinely compared to Bobby Orr. And in the late 90s he was quite useful in the Russian Five.

Two of the top-5 dmen of all time.

Wait,... Red Kelly and Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey...

EDIT: "Arguably" two of the top 5, certainly top 10!

You forgot Lidstrom.

My Top10 defensemen:

3. Bobby Orr (D)
12. Eddie Shore (D)
16. Nicklas Lidstrom (D)
17. Doug Harvey (D)
19. Raymond Bourque (D)
25. Vyacheslav Fetisov (D)
27. Red Kelly (D / C)
30. Denis Potvin (D)
44. Larry Robinson (D)
45. Chris Chelios (D)

 

[VanIslander]

I did not forget.

You 'forgot' Pronger.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Bourque's Norris' in 86-87 and 87-88 would be at risk with an NHL Fetisov. It would be really hard to translate the hypothetical play into the NHL, but those were the only peak Fetisov years that overlapped a Bourque Norris.

The Langway and Coffey Norrises would be at bigger risk.

I mean, we are all comfortable with Fetisov being a consensus top 10 defenseman right?

 

[blogofmike]

I specifically remember Chelios’ 1993 season as being MVP-caliber wire to wire while Murphy was losing his effectiveness defensively. The Hawks had a bunch of early-season slumps (Belfour and Larmer in particular). But Chelios was playing 30+ a night and stabilized the season. IIRC the Hawks allowed the fewest shots as well. OTOH, the Bruins were middling most of that season after a hot start and went on a tear to close the season to reach 50 wins. In fact, the Bruins were leaking goals against at an alarming rate at one point and IIRC many Bruins fans thought the Euro influx and goaltending were causing it (I lived in Boston at the time). Murphy for Pittsburgh was a key piece and the obvious No. 1 for them, but clearly not an MVP type and not in Chelios’ range at actually defending. That probably best explains why Chelios received Hart consideration while Murphy and Bourque didn’t, and also why Chelios got 33 first-place Norris votes to Bourque’s six. Throw in the fact that an American beat out two Canadians by a wide margin in a PHWA vote with heavy Canadian influence, and you can easily deduce who had the better season.

The Bruins were leaking goals, yet Bourque was on ice for 76 minuses compared to 70 for Chelios.

It's half of why Bourque had the highest plus minus of any non-Penguin.

Impressive considering Moog and Lemelin were sub .880 goalies in 93, which led to chances for rookie John Blue, while Chelios had Belfour - Vezina winner, Jennings winner, and 1st Team All Star.

Chelios was boosted by Chicago leading the NHL in pp chances, allowing him to achieve a career high in points despite being QB of a below average unit (18.4%. League average was 19.6, and Boston was at 20.9).

Bourque outscored Chelios 36-22 at even strength.

Chelios benefitted from low scoring teammates for Hart voting. Roenick's 105 points was a lot lower than what Lemieux and Oates were putting up.

Americans like Chelios 89 and Leetch 92 usually did well in award votes, no? Writers from US markets would have had twice was many votes as ones in Canadian markets in 1993.

 

[blogofmike]

Because you can totally judge a player 11 years into his career who came from a different social system without language.

In the early 80s Fetisov was routinely compared to Bobby Orr. And in the late 90s he was quite useful in the Russian Five.

Fetisov was great when on great teams and had a far shorter prime.

I have doubts he would be able to match the results Bourque got with average partners in Boston, and comparatively weak forwards.

Any aged Bourque could go to Detroit and excel.

 

[JackSlater]

Fetisov is a mystery to some degree in terms of how he'd do in the NHL but I doubt he impacts Bourque in terms of trophies. He probably makes the early 1980s Norris era look less ridiculous though. Probably takes some of Bourque's year end all star finishes.

How many Norris trophies could Bourque have won? He has 10+ Norris quality seasons, pretty much any time someone is one of the very top candidates you can say that they could have won it.

How many should Bourque have won? I can't point to a specific year where he definitely should have won it and didn't. There are some where he probably should have, or at least it's a tossup, as has been mentioned. Bourque tended to not get the votes in close cases. 1992, 1993, and 1996 are all years where Bourque was likely the best defenceman in the NHL and had the best year, but the actual winners had very strong seasons too. Bourque was likely best and probably wins the Norris in 1982 if he doesn't miss ~20% of the season, but he did miss those games. I could maybe be convinced that he should have won in 1985 if he'd played every game, but Coffey was a good winner and Bourque did miss several games. 1984 is a tossup where any of Bourque, Coffey, or Potvin should have won it.

Basically Bourque's five Norris trophies are perfectly fine for him, but if he'd gotten five more (1982, 1984, 1992, 1993, and 1996) it would also be fine, though it would be notable that Bourque was a guy who tended to fare well in votes by that point. It's all just trivia in the end, Bourque was an elite, best in the world type defenceman for 15+ years regardless of which way the wind blew when some writers voted each spring.

 

[The Panther]

I mean, we are all comfortable with Fetisov being a consensus top 10 defenseman right?

No, it's not a consensus at all.