Morbid curiosity and the Red Sox' offense and whether or not Cale Makar can go down as the second best defenseman in history

Saturday 5/16/26

Another Red Sox loss, in ten innings this time, by a score of 3-2. They got the pitching as has been the norm, and couldn't mount an attack, as is especially the norm. Jarren Duran, batting lead-off yet again, went 0-for-3, but he did walk once...after which he was then picked off. This guy. The season is six months long. We're a month and a half in. He's hitting in the .170s.

They have others as bad. It's a Triple A line-up. The Sox practically need to shut out the other team in order to win. It's something to behold. If they had a B- line-up, they might have the best record in baseball. The Sox are becoming something of a spectacle. Admittedly, I'm curious to see how long they can keep hitting this poorly. Arouses the sports version of morbid curiosity.

I saw on a hockey history discussion board where someone asked the question if Cale Makar could theoretically be regarded as the second best defenseman in hockey history by the the time his career is over. Thought provoking.

I've seen a lot of him. He's a player I knew early on would have historical resonance. He wins a bunch more Norris trophies, another Conn Smythe, a Hart trophy, and keeps it going as one of the handful of best defensemen in the league for another twelve years, sure, he could do it, I suppose.

I also watched Ray Bourque a lot. And what I can tell you is that Makar isn't as good as Bourque. I think Bourque might be the fifth best player ever to play the game. With his all-around game. For twenty years, he was one of the top four defenseman in the league. In his his last year he was.

There were seasons in which the Bruins basically asked him to be their everything. He was awesome at everything, too. Skating, passing, defending, slap shot, wrist shot, the breakout, the transition game, getting shots through from the blue line, keeping the puck in at the blue line. He was out there all the time. Carried the defense, carried the offense. One of the two best outlet (what would now be called "stretch") passers I've ever seen, along with Paul Coffey.

It's a shame Bourque didn't win the Hart in 1989-90. Would we look at him differently? Some, perhaps. It would have been a nice solidifier, though, that this wasn't just a great defenseman. I'd say that Mark Messier and Bourque were equally deserving that year. If ever there was a season when co-winners would've been apt, it'd be that one.

I don't think, to be honest, there's anything Makar does as well as Bourque did. Is he faster? I mean, maybe, but Bourque was one of the best skaters you'll ever see. His quickness, his edge work. Bourque was probably better at radial turns than any hockey player in history. But hey--everything like this is a long shot for a long time until that other guy's case is fully, or almost fully, established.

That's how it has to happen. Unless it was Bobby Orr, but Makar isn't Orr. When Wade Boggs was racking up 200 hit seasons and batting .368, the consensus was he wouldn't be able to make the Hall of Fame because he didn't have time to compile the numbers. In the end, he was a first ballot no-doubter.

Makar is my favorite current player to watch. I do think his game took a bit of a dip this year. The Olympics exposed him some, too. That happens. Watch the 1987 Canada Cup and you'll see Bourque have some rough moments against the likes of Makarov and Krutov.

Meanwhile, Charlie McAvoy got himself suspended for the first six games next year.