Norris Trophy Tournament (1992-Present) Final Round: 2000 Pronger vs 1994 Bourque

[blundluntman]

FINAL MATCHUP: Chris Pronger (2000) vs Ray Bourque (1994)

Chris Pronger (1999-00):

Games Played	Goals	Assists	Points	Minutes Per Game	Other Stats	Awards/Honors
79	14	48	62	26:35	+52	Norris Trophy, 1st AST, Hart Trophy

Ray Bourque (1993-94):

Games Played	Goals	Assists	Points	Minutes Per Game	Other Stats	Awards/Honors
72	20	71	91	N/A	+26	Norris Trophy, 1st AST, 6th in Hart

Round 1 Results
Round 2 Results
Round 3 Results
Round 4 Results

Click to read more...

 

[tabness]

don't really think Bourque deserved to be in the finals over a few other years but yeah would like to hear from someone who watched a lot of Bourque that year for maybe why he has a case against Pronger?

 

[Albatros]

Pronger easily, nearly as good offense and much better defense. Bourque doesn't belong or have a case here.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Pronger easily, nearly as good offense and much better defense. Bourque doesn't belong or have a case here.

What's your basis for saying that Pronger provided "much better defense"? You're either overrating Pronger defensively, underrating Bourque, or both.

There was a poll in January 1994 - ie in the second half of the season in question. 20 of the NHL's 26 coaches took part. Bourque was named the best defensive defenseman in the league - ahead of big names including Scott Stevens and Chris Chelios. Link. Granted, Pronger probably was the best defensive defenseman in the NHL in 2000, but there's no basis for saying that Pronger was much better defensively. And to show that wasn't a fluke, Bourque was runner-up in the February 1993 coaches' poll. Link.

 

[Felidae]

Pronger easily, nearly as good offense and much better defense. Bourque doesn't belong or have a case here.

I think the offensive gap is pretty clearly in favour of Bourque even accounting for scoring environment.

Pronger was 2nd in scoring amongst defenseman but 49th in scoring overall.

Bourque was the highest scoring defenseman while missing 10 games, and finished 21st in scoring overall

 

[Albatros]

What's your basis for saying that Pronger provided "much better defense"? You're either overrating Pronger defensively, underrating Bourque, or both.

There was a poll in January 1994 - ie in the second half of the season in question. 20 of the NHL's 26 coaches took part. Bourque was named the best defensive defenseman in the league - ahead of big names including Scott Stevens and Chris Chelios. Link. Granted, Pronger probably was the best defensive defenseman in the NHL in 2000, but there's no basis for saying that Pronger was much better defensively. And to show that wasn't a fluke, Bourque was runner-up in the February 1993 coaches' poll. Link.

Good for him, but having watched both extensively, Bourque was never in his career anywhere close to Pronger at his best. Certainly not defensively. Over a 10-year prime or so I'd take him too for he was much more consistent, but that's not what this is about.

 

[tabness]

I think the offensive gap is pretty clearly in favour of Bourque even accounting for scoring environment.

Pronger was 2nd in scoring amongst defenseman but 49th in scoring overall.

Bourque was the highest scoring defenseman while missing 10 games, and finished 21st in scoring overall

I'd consider the points difference misleading in terms of determining the offensive gap.

Bourque basically scored the same amount of even strength points as Pronger, in a handful less games yes, but also not in the heart of the dead puck era, with a far more potent cast (50 in 50 Neely, 100 point Oates) than what Pronger had to work with.

Now powerplay matters of course, and yes, Bourque was a better powerplay quarterback than Pronger in general, but even then there are factors to take into account. In St. Louis, the powerplay was generally run by MacInnis, who was the powerplay defensemen of the age, and yet with MacInnis having an injury riddled down year, who else but Pronger stepped up nicely to quarterback the Blues powerplay? The Blues powerplay also wasn't nearly as blessed in terms of personal as the early nineties Bruins. Lastly, again this was the dead puck era, where the whistles went away even more during powerplays and all powerplay scoring was suppressed (average team rate would be like what 15% during the time, lowest ever).

None of this is necessarily to say that Pronger could match Bourque in scoring even in 1993-1994, but it would be a lot closer, with Pronger almost certainly having more even strength points if still less powerplay points. And honestly, if Pronger did get to play with the Bruins of that time, who knows, maybe he could have matched anyway.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Pronger was like Jason Voorhees with point production that year, an unreal beast.
And this is from an avowed 7-77 fan, but wow. That Pronger year was an eye-opener.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Good for him, but having watched both extensively, Bourque was never in his career anywhere close to Pronger at his best. Certainly not defensively. Over a 10-year prime or so I'd take him too for he was much more consistent, but that's not what this is about.

Yikes.

This is a pretty bad take.

There's an argument for Pronger's 2000 season over Bourque's 1994 for sure, but Bourque's best seasons aren't even included in this poll.

To say that Bourque wasn't anywhere near close to Pronger at his best reeks of bias or poor judgement.

Edit: Oh actually nvm, reading your post history you've gone way off the deep end trying to discredit Bourque many times in the past, your response makes a ton of sense now.

 

[Albatros]

Bourque was an excellent offensive defenseman that was good defensively at a time when only few of his offensively minded competitors could claim the same. By 2000 that situation had changed a lot. In other words the 1980s NHL was a lot weaker also in this regard. Neither the 1980s nor 1994 Bourque was anywhere close to 2000 Pronger defensively.

 

[Toby91ca]

I'd consider the points difference misleading in terms of determining the offensive gap.

Bourque basically scored the same amount of even strength points as Pronger, in a handful less games yes, but also not in the heart of the dead puck era, with a far more potent cast (50 in 50 Neely, 100 point Oates) than what Pronger had to work with.

probably a strange take considering Bourque was 2nd in team scoring vs Pronger who was 3rd in team scoring.

 

[Toby91ca]

I'd consider the points difference misleading in terms of determining the offensive gap.

Bourque basically scored the same amount of even strength points as Pronger, in a handful less games yes, but also not in the heart of the dead puck era, with a far more potent cast (50 in 50 Neely, 100 point Oates) than what Pronger had to work with.

Now powerplay matters of course, and yes, Bourque was a better powerplay quarterback than Pronger in general, but even then there are factors to take into account. In St. Louis, the powerplay was generally run by MacInnis, who was the powerplay defensemen of the age, and yet with MacInnis having an injury riddled down year, who else but Pronger stepped up nicely to quarterback the Blues powerplay? The Blues powerplay also wasn't nearly as blessed in terms of personal as the early nineties Bruins. Lastly, again this was the dead puck era, where the whistles went away even more during powerplays and all powerplay scoring was suppressed (average team rate would be like what 15% during the time, lowest ever).

None of this is necessarily to say that Pronger could match Bourque in scoring even in 1993-1994, but it would be a lot closer, with Pronger almost certainly having more even strength points if still less powerplay points. And honestly, if Pronger did get to play with the Bruins of that time, who knows, maybe he could have matched anyway.

I’ll add, raw pts were significantly different, but on a PPG basis, Bourque was at 1.26 vs Pronger at 0.78…that’s a 62%. There are ways to slice and dice that suggesting lower scoring, etc, but no matter what, Pronger did not produce close to the same offence.

There are ways to vote Pronger in this poll and that’s who I bites, just pointing out that suggesting he was close on offensive isn’t one of the arguments

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Bourque easily. PHWA racists prevented Jagr from winning the Hart in 2000 when it should have been an unanimous vote.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Bourque easily. PHWA racists prevented Jagr from winning the Hart in 2000 when it should have been an unanimous vote.

Race or nationality had nothing to do with it. Jagr missed 19 games. Only once (Lemieux 93) has someone missed more time and won the Hart.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Bourque was an excellent offensive defenseman that was good defensively at a time when only few of his offensively minded competitors could claim the same. By 2000 that situation had changed a lot. In other words the 1980s NHL was a lot weaker also in this regard. Neither the 1980s nor 1994 Bourque was anywhere close to 2000 Pronger defensively.

Respectfully, that's nonsense.

Look at the names of the other top defensive defensemen from the 1993 and 1994 surveys. You had the same top three defensemen in both polls - Ray Bourque, Scott Stevens, and Chris Chelios. Stevens won the Conn Smythe, on the strength of his defensive play, in 2000, and was a Norris trophy finalist in 2001. Chelios was runner-up for the Norris trophy in 2002. Other names on those lists include a young Nicklas Lidstrom, Teppo Numminen, and Eric Desjardins. It's ridiculous to suggest that the best defensive defensemen from 1993/94 became obsolete less seven years later.

In 2001 (Bourque's final season - and a year after Pronger's Hart win, so spare me the "NHL was more evolved" argument), he played on the Avalanche. This was the top team in the league. They won the Presidents Trophy, then won the Stanley Cup. He ranked 12th in the league in ice time on the penalty kill (among defensemen) that year. He led Colorado in PK ice time in both the regular season and the playoffs. He led Colorado defensemen in plus/minus in both the regular season and playoffs. Does this sound like a defensemen who wasn't excellent defensively?

If you want a more in-depth statistical review, see this post. After accounting for the scoring environment, Bourque and Lidstrom were roughly equal defensively. Since Pronger was also (roughly) around Lidstrom's level defensively, there couldn't have been a meaningful gap between Bourque and Pronger.

(For the record, I voted for Pronger in this poll. My main issue with Bourque's 1994 season, as I've said throughout this series, is he missed 14 games. Bourque at his best was obviously a better player. But we're comparing what was by far Pronger's best season, to Bourque's 5th or 6th best year. Bourque missing 1/6th of the schedule is the difference-maker for me).

 

[Albatros]

No one suggested defensive defensemen became obsolete, I don't know where you get that idea. Only that the number of good two-way defensemen grew greatly after the 1980s. Some successfully evolved. Bourque was good or very good defensively already in the 1980s as well as in his later years, but he was never comparable to peak Chris Pronger, nothing close to that. Lidström also absolutely was better than Bourque defensively, and not only at his best.

 

[Voight]

Bourque easily. PHWA racists prevented Jagr from winning the Hart in 2000 when it should have been an unanimous vote.

Jagr missed 1/4 of the season. Thats why he didn't win. Has zero to do with his nationality.

He literally won the Hart the year before. All of a sudden the PWHA decided they were anti European?

 

[Regal]

Bourque was an excellent offensive defenseman that was good defensively at a time when only few of his offensively minded competitors could claim the same. By 2000 that situation had changed a lot. In other words the 1980s NHL was a lot weaker also in this regard. Neither the 1980s nor 1994 Bourque was anywhere close to 2000 Pronger defensively.

The league had changed so much by 2001 that a 40 year old Bourque was still playing lock down defensive minutes on the cup champs