How many Norris Trophies could/should Bourque have won?

[Professor What]

No, it's not a consensus at all.

I think consensus is a fair word. It means there's a general agreement. There might be some people who don't have him top 10, but their opinion is uncommon. He didn't say unanimous which would mean that everybody has him top 10.

Personally, I find Fetisov to be locked into the 6-8 slots with Kelly and Potvin.

 

[Gorskyontario]

The only way Fetisov wins Norris trophies in the 80s is if the entire green unit comes over and plays for the same team.

 

[Sentinel]

The only way Fetisov wins Norris trophies in the 80s is if the entire green unit comes over and plays for the same team.

You remember Fetisov was Soviet "Player of the Year" twice, over his Green unit teammates? The only teammate I can put above Fetisov is Makarov.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

four times in bourque’s career he was involved in extremely tight votes. two went against him, the other two went for him.

assuming that ties go to the person with more 1st place votes (which i think is how théodore won his hart over iginla), here are the very close margins. the macinnis one is the biggest stretch obviously.

1990 hart

Place	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	could be swung by
1	Mark Messier	29	EDM	C	227	72.06	29	24	10
2	Ray Bourque	29	BOS	D	225	71.43	29	26	2
										one voter flips bourque and messier on their ballot as their 2nd and 3rd

1991 norris

Place	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	could be swung by
1	Ray Bourque	30	BOS	D	257	77.88	35	27	1
2	Al MacInnis	27	CGY	D	228	69.09	27	28	9
										eight voters flip macinnis and bourque on their ballots as their 1st and 2nd

1994 norris

Place	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	could be swung by
1	Ray Bourque	33	BOS	D	199	73.70	26	21	6
2	Scott Stevens	29	NJD	D	195	72.22	24	23	6
										one voter flipping stevens and bourque on their ballot as their 1st and 2nd

1996 norris

Place	Player	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	could be swung by
1	Chris Chelios	408	75.56	22	19	9	3	1
2	Ray Bourque	403	74.63	23	16	8	7	0
									one voter flipping bourque and chelios on their ballot as their 1st and 2nd

but i bring this up mostly because there is one total anomaly in bourque’s career and it’s not any of the controversial years. you could make an argument (and i might agree) that macinnis and stevens don’t get so close to bourque in their respective offensive career years if not for voter fatique. in 1991, bourque had won three of the last four norrises and in his off year he missed 20 games. in 1994, even though he’d been runner up in 1992 and 1993, he was still a four time norris winner and stevens hadn’t won one.

the anomaly, dare i say travesty, is 1992. not because leetch won, but because he won almost unanimously.

1992 norris

Place	Player	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd
1	Brian Leetch	97.10	65	3	1
2	Ray Bourque	32.46	3	25	22

that margin just makes no sense relative to how good macinnis and stevens were in their career years. but the thing i don’t remember is bourque himself. statistically he seems to be fairly in range of his normal output, but was he not as good in ’92 as he was in ’91 and ’94?

or was it just the compounding of bourque voter fatique plus flashy young guy who plays for new york?

the full voting maybe paints a picture here, but i’m not sure which way (whether bourque was worse that year or if people wanted to spread the love around). look at all the people who preferred housley (or for that matter murphy) to bourque as their #2, or the many voters who didn’t have bourque in their top three.

Place	Player	Age	Tm	Pos	Votes	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd
1	Brian Leetch	23	NYR	D	335	97.10	65	3	1
2	Ray Bourque	31	BOS	D	112	32.46	3	25	22
3	Phil Housley	27	WIN	D	82	23.77	0	21	19
4	Scott Stevens	27	NJD	D	44	12.75	1	9	12
5	Larry Murphy	30	PIT	D	37	10.72	0	9	10
6	Chris Chelios	30	CHI	D	8	2.32	0	2	2
7	Kevin Hatcher	25	WSH	D	2	0.58	0	0	2
8	Al MacInnis	28	CGY	D	1	0.29	0	0	1

as for chelios, well he’s chelios. imo he was just a class above the fray of normal bourque challengers.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think consensus is a fair word. It means there's a general agreement. There might be some people who don't have him top 10, but their opinion is uncommon. He didn't say unanimous which would mean that everybody has him top 10.

Personally, I find Fetisov to be locked into the 6-8 slots with Kelly and Potvin.

I took a look at the results from the top defensemen project (hard to believe it was already 12 years ago). In the first round, 19 of the 23 voters had Fetisov in the top ten. Three of the remaining voters had him 11th or 12th. I think it's safe to say that's a consensus (which, as you pointed out, isn't the same thing as unanimous). Granted, that was 12 years ago, but my perception is Fetisov's reputation hasn't changed much (in either direction) since then.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'd argue he'd should've won 1 if not both of Langway's Norris trophies

 

[VanIslander]

No, it's not a consensus at all.

1. Name two better non-NHL defensemen in the last 100 years.
2. Name 10 better NHL defensemen. We can all agree there are 10 better iyo, eh?
3. Bonus question: Name three better Soviet players.

Do so and all's copacetic.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

1992 norris

Place	Player	Vote%	1st	2nd	3rd
1	Brian Leetch	97.10	65	3	1
2	Ray Bourque	32.46	3	25	22

that margin just makes no sense relative to how good macinnis and stevens were in their career years. but the thing i don’t remember is bourque himself. statistically he seems to be fairly in range of his normal output, but was he not as good in ’92 as he was in ’91 and ’94?

or was it just the compounding of bourque voter fatique plus flashy young guy who plays for new york?

I think it also had to do the with Rangers' huge improvement (jumping from 85 points to 105 - which was enough for the Presidents trophy). It's the same reason why Messier won the Hart by an enormous margin, despite (looking only at the stats 30+ years later) he didn't appear to have a historically great season.

(On top of that - people were impressed by Leetch getting 102 points. It's not too surprising - remember how much hype Karlsson had when he got 100 points in 2023. Despite people complaining about how the Norris doesn't focus enough of the defensive aspects of hockey, the voters can't help themselves when someone reaches 100 points. That's not really intended as a criticism of Leetch, who generally has been underrated defensively - but at the same time, he pretty clearly wasn't as good as Bourque).

 

[BigGoalBrad]

All of them the other D men of his era were a step below.

Bruins were the cheapest team in the league at that point though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think it also had to do the with Rangers' huge improvement (jumping from 85 points to 105 - which was enough for the Presidents trophy). It's the same reason why Messier won the Hart by an enormous margin, despite (looking only at the stats 30+ years later) he didn't appear to have a historically great season.

(On top of that - people were impressed by Leetch getting 102 points. It's not too surprising - remember how much hype Karlsson had when he got 100 points in 2023. Despite people complaining about how the Norris doesn't focus enough of the defensive aspects of hockey, the voters can't help themselves when someone reaches 100 points. That's not really intended as a criticism of Leetch, who generally has been underrated defensively - but at the same time, he pretty clearly wasn't as good as Bourque).

the pts part doesn’t make sense because look at macinnis’ numbers the year before:

1991 macinnis: 25 goals, 75 assists (3rd in the league), 103 pts (9th), +42 (3rd)

- led dmen in all statistical categories and led the league in PP pts​

- flames were 4th in the league, 1st in goals, 6th in goals against, number one PP​

1992 leetch: 22 goals, 80 assists (3rd), 102 pts (9th), +25

- led dmen in assists and pts, one goal behind housley​

- rangers were 1st in the league, 3rd in goals, 4th in goals against, had the hart winner​

but yeah, the new york of it looks to have played a big role

 

[Professor What]

I took a look at the results from the top defensemen project (hard to believe it was already 12 years ago). In the first round, 19 of the 23 voters had Fetisov in the top ten. Three of the remaining voters had him 11th or 12th. I think it's safe to say that's a consensus (which, as you pointed out, isn't the same thing as unanimous). Granted, that was 12 years ago, but my perception is Fetisov's reputation hasn't changed much (in either direction) since then.

Have I mentioned that I'm interested in redoing that? Lol

 

[JackSlater]

I'd argue he'd should've won 1 if not both of Langway's Norris trophies

I'm pretty firm on Howe deserving the 1983 Norris but it wouldn't stand out as badly if Bourque had won both as it does that Langway won both. It has to hurt Bourque that he missed 15 games in 1983 though. As recently as 2021 Makar lost the Norris due to missing 10 games or so in the shortened season, it happens.

 

[Professor What]

I could live with Howe or Bourque in 83, just like I could live with Coffey or Bourque in 84. I don't think that Langway should have won either of them, but I don't think there was any way he wasn't getting them unless someone else just had a ridiculous season. Voters knew what they wanted those years, and they were going to vote for it. So, you could assume that I'd think that Bourque should have another Norris or two there and not be entirely wrong, though I believe that Fetisov was probably the best defenseman in the world those years.

 

[JackSlater]

the pts part doesn’t make sense because look at macinnis’ numbers the year before:

1991 macinnis: 25 goals, 75 assists (3rd in the league), 103 pts (9th), +42 (3rd)

- led dmen in all statistical categories and led the league in PP pts​

- flames were 4th in the league, 1st in goals, 6th in goals against, number one PP​

1992 leetch: 22 goals, 80 assists (3rd), 102 pts (9th), +25

- led dmen in assists and pts, one goal behind housley​

- rangers were 1st in the league, 3rd in goals, 4th in goals against, had the hart winner​

but yeah, the new york of it looks to have played a big role

It's true that MacInnis and Leetch had similar seasons and the wide difference in results is hard to square. On Bourque's end he did score more in 1991 (13 more points) but (I'll ignore the... interesting nationality vote factor mentioned on the last page) it's probably just that it's New York and it's a better story to have a big new star in New York than it is the continued rise of a star in Calgary.

For R-On/R-Off, in 1991 you have MacInnis at 1.61 and Bourque at 1.72, and in 1992 you have Leetch at 1.15 and Bourque at 1.56. Given that MacInnis' PP dominance doesn't even factor in there this also doesn't give any hints other than that maybe James Patrick was underrated for New York on the second pairing.

There's also just the reality that it's just a bunch of writers voting for these awards.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's true that MacInnis and Leetch had similar seasons and the wide difference in results is hard to square. On Bourque's end he did score more in 1991 (13 more points) but (I'll ignore the... interesting nationality vote factor mentioned on the last page) it's probably just that it's New York and it's a better story to have a big new star in New York than it is the continued rise of a star in Calgary.

For R-On/R-Off, in 1991 you have MacInnis at 1.61 and Bourque at 1.72, and in 1992 you have Leetch at 1.15 and Bourque at 1.56. Given that MacInnis' PP dominance doesn't even factor in there this also doesn't give any hints other than that maybe James Patrick was underrated for New York on the second pairing.

There's also just the reality that it's just a bunch of writers voting for these awards.

this is crude but here are their GF/GA numbers:

	total GF	total GA	ES/PK GF	ES/PK GA	PP GF	PP GA
91 mac	189	90	106	60	83	30
92 leetch	193	114	114	89	79	25

 

[The Panther]

1. Name two better non-NHL defensemen in the last 100 years.
2. Name 10 better NHL defensemen. We can all agree there are 10 better iyo, eh?
3. Bonus question: Name three better Soviet players.

Do so and all's copacetic.

I don't really do the listing things or take them too seriously. I will say that there have been A LOT of elite and great defencemen over the past 100+ years. To crack the top-10 is very difficult.

I particularly hesitate to 'rank' European players of the past eras because I certainly have not -- and, honestly, I suspect most of you have not -- seen enough games by the player or learned enough about the context of the statistical record to have a generally informed opinion.

I've watched, maybe four games that Fetisov played for the Soviet team, in his prime, since I was 20 years old. (Saw a bit more when I was a little kid, but memories are fuzzy.) I certainly can't rate him based on that. (In the three Canada Cup '87 final games I recently re-watched, he was good in one, bad in another, and average in one.)

Certainly nothing in his NHL career suggests a top-100, let alone top-10, Dman of all time. But we all know there are many reasons for that, and he was past his prime.

Fetisov was clearly a top player on THE top European club of the late-70s to late-80s, and of course he was in the IIHF's "Centennial All-Star Team" (but this list includes another three or four players that nobody here has in their top-10 per position). My hesitation to rank players I haven't seen much of, who played on super-teams vs. relatively weak competition (for much of their competition), seems quite natural from my point of view.

None of this is to say that Fetisov isn't a top-10 defenceman of all time, just that I (and perhaps others) would hesitate to rank him (and many other players) too high given our own circumstances. Others may have seen enough of him in various contexts to have a different opinion.

(All this ranking of players is kind of silly, I think.)

 

[Staniowski]

The only way Fetisov wins Norris trophies in the 80s is if the entire green unit comes over and plays for the same team.

The players on the Green Unit were individually great players, and were so before the unit was formed.

When forming the unit, four of them were the obvious standout talents - Fetisov and Kasatonov on D, Makarov and Krutov at F - and Larionov was included as the C even though he wasn't very close to Krutov and Makarov.

Watch Fetisov in the early '80s and you will see how good he was.

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?

Fetisov wasn't at his peak in '87 and ' 88. It was early to mid '80s.

 

[Staniowski]

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.

What's the reason to believe, and what's the evidence, that there was vote-rigging in the '90 Hart voting?

Who were the three Edmonton writers who voted?

 

[tarheelhockey]

What's the reason to believe, and what's the evidence, that there was vote-rigging in the '90 Hart voting?

Who were the three Edmonton writers who voted?

One was Jim Matheson, hence the bump.

And to be clear, the allegation isn’t vote rigging exactly — just strategic voting to deny points to the other major candidate.

 

[Staniowski]

One was Jim Matheson, hence the bump.

And to be clear, the allegation isn’t vote rigging exactly — just strategic voting to deny points to the other major candidate.

I'm asking for evidence...what's the evidence that Matheson was one of the voters, and who's making the allegation? And what exactly is the allegation?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm asking for evidence...what's the evidence that Matheson was one of the voters, and who's making the allegation? And what exactly is the allegation?

You’ve really never heard of this? It’s been pretty extensively discussed for over 34 years. In short, there has always been quite a bit of talk about how Bourque fell one vote short of Messier due to being completely left off a small number of ballots.

As for evidence, obviously there can’t be direct evidence when the ballots are secret. The circumstantial evidence is enough to create quite a bit of smoke, though.

 

[Staniowski]

You’ve really never heard of this? It’s been pretty extensively discussed for over 34 years. In short, there has always been quite a bit of talk about how Bourque fell one vote short of Messier due to being completely left off a small number of ballots.

As for evidence, obviously there can’t be direct evidence when the ballots are secret. The circumstantial evidence is enough to create quite a bit of smoke, though.

Yes, I've seen it discussed multiple times, but I've never seen any evidence. That's why I'm asking what the evidence is.

What circumstantial evidence? What's the evidence?

 

[MadLuke]

I'm asking for evidence...what's the evidence that Matheson was one of the voters, and who's making the allegation? And what exactly is the allegation?

The allegation are that some of the voters that left Bourque out of their ballot was not by conviction 1990 Bourque on the best defensive team in the league Bruins was not a top 3 most valuable contributors to his teams, but did so thinking it would help who they wanted to win, win.

Yes, I've seen it discussed multiple times, but I've never seen any evidence. That's why I'm asking what the evidence is.

What circumstantial evidence? What's the evidence?

Outside, an actual voters telling us that what they did, there would not be any evidence, but their absence are normal, as it is impossible to have any evidence for it. Nothing outside the voting result and now that we have public ballot extreme case of strategic homer voting being proven to exist.

 

[Staniowski]

The allegation are that some of the voters that left Bourque out of their ballot was not by conviction 1990 Bourque on the best defensive team in the league Bruins was not a top 3 most valuable contributors to his teams, but did so thinking it would help who they wanted to win, win.

I understand that, but who's making the allegation that the three Edmonton voters conspired to do this? And what's the evidence that it happened?

 

[MadLuke]

I understand that, but who's making the allegation that the three Edmonton voters conspired to do this? And what's the evidence that it happened?

They do not need to conspire ( I do not imagine they think they did), you just need to leave Bourque out of the ballot you do not need to coordinate for who you vote instead.

The allegation does not include a conspiracy, I do not think. There are no evidence and evidence would not exist, the only possible evidence would be the voters themselves telling us they did so. even if we had the ballot we could only know if they did leave Bourque out of their ballots, we would have no clue if they believed that Lafontaine or X were more valuable than Bourque for their teams that year in the heart or not. It is 100% speculative (and impossible to be otherwise)