My argument is that 2nd doesn't matter anymore than 5th does and it doesn't. You still didn't win. I completely understand the discussion that hypothesizes that if Bobby Orr didn't exist that Brad Park would've won some Norris trophies. It's completely hypothetical and you're comparing that to something tangible.
I get what you're saying about him not winning a Norris and his other shortcomings compared to Leetch's achievements. But let's just focus on the Norris trophy argument alone for a second. I really don't think equating a 2nd place finish (to Orr) with a 5th place or below in any other era is a fair way to look at it.
You don't like chosen's Bourque comparison; I agree its not great, but I think he was mostly trying to make a point with it. Let me try with what I think might be a bit closer comparison:
Looking at Park's 2nd places to Orr in the Norris as meaningless and effectively dinging him for this is like looking at all of the absolutely dominant forwards who played in the early and mid-80's, during Gretzky's peak, and thinking that the fact that they weren't able to beat out Gretz for the Art Ross or Hart means something about the quality of players they all were. The fact that they were second to Gretzky only means that Gretzky was
that good.
Ovechkin has two Harts. Heck, Corey Perry has a Hart! Would you really argue that they were/are (or will be) better players than any one of Mario Lemieux, Marcel Dionne, Mike Bossy, or even Steve Yzerman, Mark Messier, and Bryan Trottier in the years they were competing with Gretzky, in part on the basis of their lack of Harts/Art Rosses in that time? As talented as these guys were, none of them were able to sniff a Hart or Art Ross during the absolute peak of Gretz's career, and many of them placed 2nd to him in one year or another during his peak (though none in consecutive years). I'm not trying to say Park is on the same level of any of those guys, but the guy he was placing 2nd to was just so far above almost anything else this game has ever seen -- and this example provides another way to look at the type of argument you're making on this specific item.
Orr did exist and Park played for 10 years after Orr won his last Norris on THE SAME TEAM and still finished no better than 2nd in the voting for the Norris trophy. He played 75+ games five times after Orr was finished.
This is getting outside of the relevant discussion to voting, but since you brought it up: And in the four years after Orr's peak, Park had to compete with the top 3 career years of Potvin's career and an absolutely ridiculous performance by Larry Robinson (he was
+120 that season!!). 9 of the 10 seasons between '69 and '79, Park's competition for the Norris scored over 90 pts (7 of 10 over 100 pts). By then, he was past his prime and on the wrong side of 30.
Personally, I think it is pretty safe to say if Leetch had to compete with that as well, he similarly wouldn't have won a Norris. By way of comparison, in just 3 of the 13 seasons from '88 to '01 did the winner of the Norris score over 90 points (one was Leetch's Norris season in 91-92).
Only barely over one third of the winners of the Norris have won it after a season in which they played the majority of it over the age of 30 (22 of 58 winners). And 12 of those went to two players: Doug Harvey and Nick Lidstrom (6 apiece when they were over 30).
---
And re: Why didn't Leetch get a Norris in 2000-01?
Ugh, don't remind me of that team and those years. His team was certainly god awful - there is no doubt about it. The defense was awful. Problem is Leetch wasn't exactly a solution to that problem. He thrived with Beukeboom because Beuk was a stay at home defender, which allowed Leetch to play his game. Once Beuk was lost to injuries, Leetch's pairings struggled defensively. That year was also the beginning of Richter's injury troubles (probably a bit more responsible for the following than the team - but both were big problems).
But here is your answer: He was a minus-18 that year. Just three players in the history of the Norris trophy have won it with a minus rating - and they were all better than -18 (-16, -2, and -3). Not to mention Leetch was on the ice for the most goals against of
any player in the league that year at 157. The next closest player was on the ice for 34 less goals against. There were 9 other teams worse than the Rangers (by points) that had defensemen on them. There was no way he was winning a Norris with stats like that.
