How many Norris Trophies could/should Bourque have won?

[Gorskyontario]

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

If he was so good why did canada score 5-6 goals a game in the canada cup final in 87?

 

[MadLuke]

If he was so good why did canada score 5-6 goals a game in the canada cup final in 87?

If this is a joke, not a bad one.

 

[Professor What]

Re Bourque and the Hart in 1990: My question is, was there any justification for leaving Bourque off of a ballot? I can't think of one unless you think that defensemen have their own trophy, and thus the Hart is for forwards. I'd have a hard time taking seriously a ballot that didn't have him or Messier, and I'd be really skeptical as to any logic that didn't have them 1-2 in some order.

 

[MadLuke]

Messier, Hull scored 72 goals, Gretzky scored 142 points winning the Ross, Roy was Roy (MTl had the second less goals to Bourque Bruins), Yzerman scored 62 goals (did not made the playoff... often a big no-no too), Lafontaine had 40 more points than anyone else and pushed those Isles into the playoff,.

I imagine you can construct a reasoning for 3 of them being more valuable to their teams than Bourque was to the Bruins, Bruins 101 pts was the most in the league that year and outside of Bourque-Neely... they seem just fine, perfectly solid Moog-Lemelin in net but nothing special, some Poulin game, Janney-Sweeney-Wesley that just fine.

Those voters did had him first for the Norris too, that we known, so it is not like he was not fresh on their mind or thought he did not had the best season has a D that year.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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?

Contextually — the 1990 Hart was a two-horse race all season, with Bourque in the East and Messier in the West as the overwhelmingly clear-cut candidates (as borne out by the voting). It was impossible to have a conversation about the Hart without answering the question “Bourque or Messier”?

When the voting was released, it turned out to be (and it remains today) the closest two-horse race in the history of the award.

So there was public incredulity that a handful of writers could possibly have left Bourque completely off their ballot, not even listing him in 3rd place. There was quite a bit of media coverage on this, and a story quickly arose that the Edmonton writers uniformly refused to vote for Bourque. The source of that story is impossible to pin down — a fanciful theory, a leak from someone who saw the ballots, an ill advised confession told over someone’s fifth cocktail? Who knows. Impossible to say for sure, absent a deathbed confession.

Is this necessarily a conspiracy? Or just a case of a few individuals voting “strategically” to reflect their own biases? Not necessarily one or the other, but either way — it was a case of irrational voting which favored one candidate over the other, which turned out to directly determine the winner.

Given that the 1990 ballots are forever secret, the one thing that could really shine a light on the matter would be if one of the suspected “fixers” were to be found engaging in the same behavior on another ballot. Which is… exactly what just happened.

 

[MadLuke]

it was a case of irrational voting which favored one candidate over the other, which turned out to directly determine the winner.

Or a rare case of rational voting...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Or a rare case of rational voting...

All a matter of perspective!

 

[Staniowski]

Contextually — the 1990 Hart was a two-horse race all season, with Bourque in the East and Messier in the West as the overwhelmingly clear-cut candidates (as borne out by the voting). It was impossible to have a conversation about the Hart without answering the question “Bourque or Messier”?

When the voting was released, it turned out to be (and it remains today) the closest two-horse race in the history of the award.

So there was public incredulity that a handful of writers could possibly have left Bourque completely off their ballot, not even listing him in 3rd place. There was quite a bit of media coverage on this, and a story quickly arose that the Edmonton writers uniformly refused to vote for Bourque. The source of that story is impossible to pin down — a fanciful theory, a leak from someone who saw the ballots, an ill advised confession told over someone’s fifth cocktail? Who knows. Impossible to say for sure, absent a deathbed confession.

Is this necessarily a conspiracy? Or just a case of a few individuals voting “strategically” to reflect their own biases? Not necessarily one or the other, but either way — it was a case of irrational voting which favored one candidate over the other, which turned out to directly determine the winner.

Given that the 1990 ballots are forever secret, the one thing that could really shine a light on the matter would be if one of the suspected “fixers” were to be found engaging in the same behavior on another ballot. Which is… exactly what just happened.

You're not saying anything of substance.

Who (in the media, I assume) announced this story that the three Edmonton writers didn't vote for Bourque? Like, where did this story originate?

And what about the other three writers who didn't vote for Bourque?

It doesn't matter that some people were surprised that six writers didn't vote for Bourque. That's not evidence of anything.

There's no evidence here, and there's no reason to believe that the Edmonton writers did this.

There were several strong candidates that year; it's not surprising at all that six voters wouldn't have Bourque in their top three....Bourque, who finished 32nd in NHL scoring.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's come up here a lot but I don't think we've ever figured out where the writers are from.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You're not saying anything of substance.

You’re asking for hard evidence on a case where hard evidence cannot exist. You keep repeating questions that can’t be answered in either direction, either for or against the allegation.

All we have is the circumstances — a surprising pattern of voting, the alignment of this pattern with a particular outcome, strong suggestions that a particular group of people were involved, and one of those specific people being revealed to have engaged in the same pattern later on.

Would this stand up in a legal court, of course not. But this isn’t a legal trial, it’s an exercise of common sense deduction.

 

[Staniowski]

You’re asking for hard evidence on a case where hard evidence cannot exist. You keep repeating questions that can’t be answered in either direction, either for or against the allegation.

All we have is the circumstances — a surprising pattern of voting, the alignment of this pattern with a particular outcome, strong suggestions that a particular group of people were involved, and one of those specific people being revealed to have engaged in the same pattern later on.

Would this stand up in a legal court, of course not. But this isn’t a legal trial, it’s an exercise of common sense deduction.

There's no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the 3 Edmonton-based writers (plus 3 other writers) didn't vote for Bourque to benefit Messier. There's nothing.

 

[MadLuke]

There's no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the 3 Edmonton-based writers (plus 3 other writers) didn't vote for Bourque to benefit Messier. There's nothing.

Yes (no one ever said otherwise) and what an evidence of that would possibly look like ?

You make the absence of evidence (which is certain, evidence here cannot exist, outside those voters coming out right saying it) sound stranger than it is.

You seem to repeat the statement that there are no evidence, while everyone is saying that there is no evidence, there is logic, motivation and since the events a list of similar situation with clear example of voters doing it.

 

[Staniowski]

Yes (no one ever said otherwise) and what an evidence of that would possibly look like ?

You make the absence of evidence (which is certain, evidence here cannot exist, outside those voters coming out right saying it) sound stranger than it is.

You seem to repeat the statement that there are no evidence, while everyone is saying that there is no evidence, there is logic, motivation and since the events a list of similar situation with clear example of voters doing it.

If there's no evidence that it happened, what reason is there to believe it happened? What logic are you talking about?

Messier receives the most votes.
Bourque receives the 2nd-most votes.
6 voters don't vote for Bourque.
Therefore.....logic points to 3 of those 6 voters being the 3 Edmonton-based voters?

 

[MadLuke]

What logic are you talking about?

I feel like the logic was well explained and really easy to grasp here, you can obviously disagree with.

The logic being that if you leave someone off the ballot the player you want to win (if you want any player to win) has more chance to win, the type of writer that would particularly like an Oilers to win coming from Edmonton.

Say the vote would be anonymous, if someone would have by logic said an Edmonton writers wrote 3 Oilers for the Smythe last playoff, they would have been right.

Therefore.....logic points to 3 of those 6 voters being the 3 Edmonton-based voters?

And here would they be among those it would not even be a proof, we would need to read their mind to know their intent (i.e. we will never have proof, it is only deduction). They do not need to be for Edmonton for the accusation here, they just needed to want Messier to win it.

6 voters don't vote for Bourque.

Yes there is the statement, did all those voters really thought that 3 players had more value than Bourque pushing those Bruins to the president trophy win that year or gamed the votes, some things the logic point for it to think that this is more likely to them gun to their head thinking Yzerman and Lafontaine were more valulable to their years and more worthy to win that Hart trophy than Ray Bourque.

There will not be any evidence brought by the people that will say this, only logic (that you can disagree or agree with), I am not sure if it is worth to repeat that there is not the first sign of any evidence to support it a 7th time, there are no one on the other side of that argument disagreeing with you.

Maybe there 0 sign that Campbell intervention about Gregory Campbell penalty had anything to do with it being is son, does not mean people speculating about it being the case are wrong.

 

[Staniowski]

I feel like the logic was well explained and really easy to grasp here, you can obviously disagree with.

The logic being that if you leave someone off the ballot the player you want to win (if you want any player to win) has more chance to win, the type of writer that would particularly like an Oilers to win coming from Edmonton.

Say the vote would be anonymous, if someone would have by logic said an Edmonton writers wrote 3 Oilers for the Smythe last playoff, they would have been right.


And here would they be among those it would not even be a proof, we would need to read their mind to know their intent (i.e. we will never have proof, it is only deduction). They do not need to be for Edmonton for the accusation here, they just needed to want Messier to win it.


Yes there is the statement, did all those voters really thought that 3 players had more value than Bourque pushing those Bruins to the president trophy win that year or gamed the votes, some things the logic point for it to think that this is more likely to them gun to their head thinking Yzerman and Lafontaine were more valulable to their years and more worthy to win that Hart trophy than Ray Bourque.

There will not be any evidence brought by the people that will say this, only logic (that you can disagree or agree with), I am not sure if it is worth to repeat that there is not the first sign of any evidence to support it a 7th time, there are no one on the other side of that argument disagreeing with you.

Maybe there 0 sign that Campbell intervention about Gregory Campbell penalty had anything to do with it being is son, does not mean people speculating about it being the case are wrong.

Right, it's 100% speculation (wild, unreasonable speculation), and it's based on faulty reasoning: that some people can't imagine that 6 (out of 63) voters couldn't have legitimately not voted for Bourque, a defenseman who finished 32nd in NHL scoring. Remember that Brett Hull received 4 1st-place votes; some voters evidently had different opinions. It wasn't just Messier and Bourque.

 

[The Panther]

We also know -- beyond dispute -- that at least 50％ of the writers who left Bourque off the ballot were not from Edmonton.

 

[Felidae]

I dont think 1989-90 is a top 3 season from Bourque yet that's the one that almost gets him the Hart trophy.

Statistically, he was better the next year. Led the team in scoring, 11th in points, and the same +/- despite the team overall being weaker defensively.

Franky I'm surprised the voting was that close. I'm no Messier fan but that Hart win was well deserved.

 

[MadLuke]

Right, it's 100% speculation (wild, unreasonable speculation),

That seem a bit overdramatic,

1) we know, now that the vote are public that voters do that, even now that they are shamed for it, perfectly reasonable to think they did it even more
2) that the PHWA made the vote public to shame the voters that did it, at 81%.
3) The Oscar made a very complicated and virtually impossible to explain voting system for best picture, but impossible for voters to try to game for a reason.
4) It is just an hockey award, the accusation of strategic voting are the mildest, less important and the action not voting for X the easiest to do here, we are not talking about voting for who get the Olympics but the Hart.... (and what the voters or accused of, is trying to make a very worthy winner more likely to win and not in exchange of money)

It is some of the least wild and reasonable speculation about one of the least important, low stake and possible affair on earth.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If there's no evidence that it happened, what reason is there to believe it happened? What logic are you talking about?

Messier receives the most votes.
Bourque receives the 2nd-most votes.
6 voters don't vote for Bourque.
Therefore.....logic points to 3 of those 6 voters being the 3 Edmonton-based voters?

Yes, that is correct.

We also know -- beyond dispute -- that at least 50％ of the writers who left Bourque off the ballot were not from Edmonton.

Would you say it is fair to speculate some of those writers felt a defenseman shouldn't be given votes for the Hart, they have their own (Norris) trophy?

 

[overpass]

When the 1990 awards results were announced, Boston coach Mike Milbury said it was a joke that Bourque had been left off six ballots, and demanded to know which writers had left him off. Good on Milbury for supporting his player, but I don't think we need to take his point of view. I don't agree that a 1990 Hart ballot without Bourque - or a Hart ballot without Messier, for that matter - is proof of voting in bad faith, especially on a ballot with only three names.

RE: Leetch over Bourque in 1991-92, I think the statistical gap in favour of Leetch was too much for Bourque to overcome. Leetch scored 21 more points than Bourque, and the Rangers finished with 21 more points in the standings than Boston. Points and team success are important for the writers, and the gaps were huge. Bourque may have been better defensively than Leetch, but Leetch was much improved defensively under Roger Neilson and was no longer a one-way player.

Much of these gaps were from the last 2 months of the season. As of January 31, the Rangers were leading the league, but were only 2 points ahead of second place Montreal and 10 points ahead of 6th place Boston. And Leetch was 1 point behind Phil Housley in defenceman scoring and 6 points ahead of Bourque. At this point the Norris voting might well have been close. But from February 1 to the end of the regular season, Leetch outscored Bourque by 15 points, and the Rangers out-pointed Boston by 11 points and won the league by 7 points.

It may also be relevant that the league shut down for 10 days in the beginning of April due to a players' strike, and voters' opinions may well have been set at this time. At the time of the strike, Bourque's stat line was 77 GP, 19 G, 57 A, 76 P, and +9. A very good season by anyone else's standards, but Bourque was in danger of finishing the season with less than a point per game for the first time in a decade, and with a single-digit plus-minus for the first time in his career.

 

[JackSlater]

I dont think 1989-90 is a top 3 season from Bourque yet that's the one that almost gets him the Hart trophy.

Statistically, he was better the next year. Led the team in scoring, 11th in points, and the same +/- despite the team overall being weaker defensively.

Franky I'm surprised the voting was that close. I'm no Messier fan but that Hart win was well deserved.

Hart trophies are not objective/ accurate measures of a player, just a trophy with somewhat vague criteria that the writers vote on. Bourque had the narrative that he could win the Hart that year. That was around Bourque's peak but yeah, there are probably years when he was most valuable an perhaps better.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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.

I don’t think Bourque having better individual stats mattered in 1993. Chelios finished ninth in defense scoring and still won the Norris with 80 percent of the votes. He also had nearly 300 PIM to Bourque’s 40, so 5v5 P/60 undoubtedly favors Chelios. I just know the average national broadcast or publication was gushing over Chelios that season. Nobody really gave a shit about quality of teammates because he was having a near-perfect season.

Chelios also had a top-5 Hart season with another franchise during peak Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman so I don’t think his 1993 Hart votes were a byproduct of his best teammates not lighting it up on an Oates/Lemieux level.

 

[blogofmike]

I don’t think Bourque having better individual stats mattered in 1993. Chelios finished ninth in defense scoring and still won the Norris with 80 percent of the votes. He also had nearly 300 PIM to Bourque’s 40, so 5v5 P/60 undoubtedly favors Chelios. I just know the average national broadcast or publication was gushing over Chelios that season. Nobody really gave a shit about quality of teammates because he was having a near-perfect season.

Chelios also had a top-5 Hart season with another franchise during peak Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman so I don’t think his 1993 Hart votes were a byproduct of his best teammates not lighting it up on an Oates/Lemieux level.

That's as generous a description as possible of 1989.

Another way to say it: he received a single third place vote in a year where three guys took up all the votes.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Hart trophies are not objective/ accurate measures of a player, just a trophy with somewhat vague criteria that the writers vote on. Bourque had the narrative that he could win the Hart that year. That was around Bourque's peak but yeah, there are probably years when he was most valuable an perhaps better.

re: the 1992 discussion upthread, that was the first season since 1988 (his other hart runner up year) that bourque led the team in scoring by a significant margin. second was ruzicka with 75. so yeah his stats were low relative to the 90 pt seasons of 91 and 94, but neely was out almost all year and i believe janney struggled before he was traded for oates. so bourque may have been more “valuable” despite only scoring in the pt/game range.

That's as generous a description as possible of 1989.

Another way to say it: he received a single third place vote in a year where three guys took up all the votes.

so in 89 montreal was a historically good defensive team and had the best goalie, best defensive dman, and best defensive center in the game. i’m curious for those who remember that year clearly, how much credit did roy, chelios, carbo, and maybe even burns get relative to each other?

i don’t think the single stray hart vote that he and roy received tells us much in that regard.

 

[Staniowski]

re: the 1992 discussion upthread, that was the first season since 1988 (his other hart runner up year) that bourque led the team in scoring by a significant margin. second was ruzicka with 75. so yeah his stats were low relative to the 90 pt seasons of 91 and 94, but neely was out almost all year and i believe janney struggled before he was traded for oates. so bourque may have been more “valuable” despite only scoring in the pt/game range.



so in 89 montreal was a historically good defensive team and had the best goalie, best defensive dman, and best defensive center in the game. i’m curious for those who remember that year clearly, how much credit did roy, chelios, carbo, and maybe even burns get relative to each other?

i don’t think the single stray hart vote that he and roy received tells us much in that regard.

I think there was a lot of credit all around. Roy got a lot, and he generally got somewhat more credit than he deserved; certainly Chelios really emerged as an NHL superstar. The team as a whole, though, played really good defense. Watch the '86 playoffs and then watch the '89 playoffs, and you'll see a big difference in the team as a whole. In '86, Carbonneau, McPhee, and Skrudland really stood above everybody else defensively, but in '89 the entire team upped their game, so there wasn't one or two guys dominating. A lot of coaching involved in this, the whole League playing better defense.