2009 Top 100 Update Preliminary Discussion Thread

[tommygunn]

I fully agree he needs to move higher. And good for you for also noticing that. My point, however, is that I do not see a way that you can have Gainey ahead of him. To say Gainey is better than the other five is plausible, but not Nighbor.

Re-thinking it, I have to agree.. Nighbor > Gainey

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My opinion of Doug Harvey has risen over the last year. I've started to get the impression that he was the straw that stirred the drink for the late 50's Habs. I've got him ahead of Richard and Beliveau as it stands. Just debating now on whether or not he was a better d-man than Shore before I submit my top 120.

 

[pappyline]

My opinion of Doug Harvey has risen over the last year. I've started to get the impression that he was the straw that stirred the drink for the late 50's Habs. I've got him ahead of Richard and Beliveau as it stands. Just debating now on whether or not he was a better d-man than Shore before I submit my top 120.

I agree with your assessment of Harvey on those 50's Hab teams. I think he was the key. I seem to remember him the most. Probably because he had the puck so much. I still have him slightly behind shore though. Morenz is also in the mix as he was neck to neck with Shore as the best of that era.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Lindros was the better overall player but Bure actually played the full seasons during his 5 best years. You know that matters more than point per game, even during lindros best seasons, he missed 20-30 games.

How do you even know what Bure's 5 best years would have been had he not missed 2 full seasons and a 20 game season right in the middle of his prime? One of which he missed half of holding out on the Canucks, then buggered himself within his first 15 games as a Panther.

In Lindros' 5 Best seasons, he missed 19 games, 2 games, 9 games, 30 games and 11 games and I would still say those 5 seasons were better than Bure's best 5 other than the 30 games missed season. Bure was one of the worst defensive liabilities of all time.

I agree with your assessment of Harvey on those 50's Hab teams. I think he was the key. I seem to remember him the most. Probably because he had the puck so much. I still have him slightly behind shore though. Morenz is also in the mix as he was neck to neck with Shore as the best of that era.

I moved Harvey ahead too. However, when I was younger, I was all about Beliveau. One of my personal favorite players at the time, along with Henri Richard and a few others. I never remembered Harvey the most. But recently, after re-watching a bunch of the older games, things I did not appreciate in the game as much back then started popping out, such as his ability to control the tempo of the game and all his other silent qualities. Those things just did not catch my eye until I was a bit older and by then, he was nearing the end of his career + I moved to Europe for a few years so I was watching some different Hockey players then.

 

[lextune]

My opinion of Doug Harvey has risen over the last year. I've started to get the impression that he was the straw that stirred the drink for the late 50's Habs. I've got him ahead of Richard and Beliveau as it stands. Just debating now on whether or not he was a better d-man than Shore before I submit my top 120.

Not a chance.
I've never even heard anybody willing to make the Harvey over Shore argument......
I think even the Shore over Orr is more common than that......

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I agree with your assessment of Harvey on those 50's Hab teams. I think he was the key. I seem to remember him the most. Probably because he had the puck so much. I still have him slightly behind shore though. Morenz is also in the mix as he was neck to neck with Shore as the best of that era.

My problem with Shore is that it seems his, uhm, psychological issues interfered with his results. Basically, in a long playoff series, getting under his skin made him less effective. Which is why a King Clancy team never lost a playoff series to an Eddie Shore team. Harvey on the other hand was an unshakable winner. (And while the Harvey Habs were staked, remember, the Shore Bruins were consistently one of the best regular season teams and over his career were probably significantly better than any other team in the regular season, but had less fortune in the post season.) Shore was a better talent, but, IMO, Harvey was the more effective player.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

someone made an interesting point a couple of years ago in a debate about hull and beliveau. esposito was hull's C for a while in chicago. but after he was traded to boston and became "the man" on his line, he exploded offensively.

'67 with chicago: 69 games, 61p

'68 with boston: 74 games, 84p
'69 with boston: 74 games, 126p

in '68, orr missed 1/2 the season, and only scored 31p.
in '69, orr missed 9 games and scored 64p.

expansion obviously boosted esposito's scoring some, but on chicago, esposito was a very good scorer, and on boston, he set many scoring records.

the argument was basically that hull was a selfish player.


i haven't seen nearly enough to say whether that argument has any merit, but it is interesting.

Esposito's style was such that the system had to be tailored to him. Normally that means a player rarely succeeds or only produces on bad teams, but, Esposito was so good when the play was tailored to him that it became a valuable investment. The problem in Chicago was that they had two better players. Why tailor to Esposito when you can let Hull and Mikita do their thing? He was too slow for Hull and Hull's shots were too fast and hard to give good deflections or close rebounds. Just a bad fit, no chemistry.

 

[lextune]

Shore was a better talent, but, IMO, Harvey was the more effective player.

I might be willing to concede that. But I would say it only if it was along the same lines as:

"Mario was a better talent, but, IMO, Beliveau was the more effective player."

In other words Shore would still be higher than Harvey. The way Mario remains ahead of Beliveau despite the inherent truth of the previous statement.

 

[lextune]

Now someone tell me how Ray is not in their top ten.......

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I might be willing to concede that. But I would say it only if it was along the same lines as:

"Mario was a better talent, but, IMO, Beliveau was the more effective player."

In other words Shore would still be higher than Harvey. The way Mario remains ahead of Beliveau despite the inherent truth of the previous statement.

That's not what more effective means. Beliveau wasn't more effective, he had better career value. Harvey is more effective because he had a greater positive impact on games than Shore.

Now someone tell me how Ray is not in their top ten.......

Goalies. I have him ahead of Richard, but, I have Hasek and Plante as being better than Bourque.

 

[MXD]

Not a chance.
I've never even heard anybody willing to make the Harvey over Shore argument......
I think even the Shore over Orr is more common than that......

It's exactly what I've done in a PM not too long ago.

 

[JaymzB]

Not a chance.
I've never even heard anybody willing to make the Harvey over Shore argument......
I think even the Shore over Orr is more common than that......

Don't take this the wrong way but if you've never herd that, you need to talk to people who aren't Bruin fans.

That's not to say that Harvey is defiantly better than Shore, but they are usually both hotly debated as the #2 defenseman after Orr.

 

[lextune]

It's exactly what I've done in a PM not too long ago.

Yes. Being the best player at his position for 8 years. But who would argue that Shore wouldn't have received at least 7 Norris', possibly 8.

 

[lextune]

Don't take this the wrong way but if you've never herd that, you need to talk to people who aren't Bruin fans.

That's not to say that Harvey is defiantly better than Shore, but they are usually both hotly debated as the #2 defenseman after Orr.

Hehee.....well I have certainly talked to a lot of B's fans over the years that much is true. But as I said, until they started dying off 10/15 years ago I heard a lot more "Shore was at least as good as, if not better than, Orr" type of talk from the old timers than anything about Harvey being as good as either of them. And these were guys who loved Orr like a Religious figure.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Yes. Being the best player at his position for 8 years. But who would argue that Shore wouldn't have received at least 7 Norris', possibly 8.

Nobody is disputing Shore's greatness but Harvey was the key man, and the quarterback for the most dominant team ever. Everything that team did offensively flowed and began with Harvey's stick, and the team's entire defensive structure revolved around him.

Harvey dominated his position for a decade as his 10 first team all-stars attest (as well as his one second team all-star, and his seven Norris trophies). Furthermore the high quality of his play with the Blues in the 1967-68 playoffs and 1968-69 regular season speak to a longevity that Shore was unable to match.

 

[JaymzB]

Hehee.....well I have certainly talked to a lot of B's fans over the years that much is true. But as I said, until they started dying off 10/15 years ago I heard a lot more "Shore was at least as good as, if not better than, Orr" type of talk from the old timers than anything about Harvey being as good as either of them. And these were guys who loved Orr like a Religious figure.

And I've heard plenty of old fans (and players like Beliveau) claim that Harvey played defense better than anyone ever (including Orr).

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say which one is better than the other, I just didn't like how you seemed to dismiss the idea that Harvey was better than Shore as unbelievable.

 

[lextune]

I think when it comes to D-Men it is the same old argument.

What do you value most?

And if you value, say, longevity most, is there any peak level that can supersede that?

Peak of defensemen has to be Orr. Virtually his entire career was a peak. Only 9 healthy seasons. 8 Norris', 9 All Star Teams.

A peak so astonishing as to render all other considerations secondary? I think most of us agree it is.

So who is second?

Harvey: 19 seasons (7 Norris' 11 All Star Teams)
Bourque: 22 season (5 Norris' 19 All Star Teams)

Shore....14 seasons, no Norris Trophy to hand out. I would argue for 8....I am open to argument to the contrary.

All four of the defensemen mentioned here were the type to control the flow of the game. I would argue that Harvey and Bourque did it (both of them masterfully), within the confines of how the game was played in their respective eras. In other words they took the game as it was played, and took it over.

Shore, as Orr would do later, redefined the game itself in their eras. Neither of them took the game as it was and dominated it. They changed the game around them; to suit them. They dominated because they forced those around them to play their game. Both were like nothing that had been seen before.

If you took someone off the street who knew nothing about Hockey to watch a game of Harvey or Bourque at their peak you might not be surprised if at the end of the game they had missed 90% of what we know made them the greats that they were.....the subtleties of playing brilliant NHL defense, in any era, can be a quiet dominance.
In fact it would not be at all surprising if they didn't notice Bourque or Harvey at all......

Take that same person to see Orr or Shore at their respective peaks....(I argue that they both had little else).
And I'll tell you this.
They would notice Orr and Shore.

No doubt about it.

"I don't know what was going on really but that number 4, (or 2), guy was amazing to watch."

 

[seventieslord]

Interesting.

I suppose could see a cluster like:

1-2-3
4
5

With Mario outside of the top group, but a solid number 4 by himself. With Hull as 5.
But I have to admit I'd be shocked to see Hull ahead of Mario on a list.

that's how I see it.

Ironically, I would make the case that Shore was the most out of control "star" player of all-time. Like Richard, he punched out a referee, but he went a little bit further than the Rocket, with the whole Billy Coutu incident, and if you can pleaseshow me something that the Rocket did that was as despicable as Shore's attack on Ace Bailey, I'd like to hear of it.

With that being said Shore and Harvey to me are not a coin flip. Harvey was in my opinion, the most dominant player on the most dominant team ever, and that for me puts him a shade above Shore.

Hull is not certainly better than Beliveau. In terms of statistically scoring goals yes. However, I would be hard pressed to find one other aspect of Hull that would help me place him over Beliveau, overall talent in both ends of the rink, ability to elevate his game, effect on teammates play, leadership etc....

And like my earlier post I like to place some weight on playoff performance and I'm sorry that's where Hull is seriously lacking. The Chicago team he played on from 1960 to 1972 maybe be the biggest underachieveing team in league history. And while Beliveau was winning Cup after Cup Hull's Hawks consistently came up short, year after year (with the exception of 1961).

As I said before in deciding between obviously great players for me it comes down to this, who would I want on the ice in that critical game, that critical situation more. For me it would be Beliveau for all that he would bring to the situation.

Thornton answered most of this in much the same way I would have. I'll be back later to talk about the worst of Richard and Shore.

Re-thinking it, I have to agree.. Nighbor > Gainey

My opinion of Doug Harvey has risen over the last year. I've started to get the impression that he was the straw that stirred the drink for the late 50's Habs. I've got him ahead of Richard and Beliveau as it stands. Just debating now on whether or not he was a better d-man than Shore before I submit my top 120.

I think he was, too. I saw a game from the finals in the 50's not too long ago. He was full value. He owned the puck.

Not a chance.
I've never even heard anybody willing to make the Harvey over Shore argument......
I think even the Shore over Orr is more common than that......

Oh, come on!

 

[Dark Shadows]

I might be willing to concede that. But I would say it only if it was along the same lines as:

"Mario was a better talent, but, IMO, Beliveau was the more effective player."

In other words Shore would still be higher than Harvey. The way Mario remains ahead of Beliveau despite the inherent truth of the previous statement.

Its not even close to the same. The gap between Shore and Harvey is miniscule compared to the visible gap between Mario and whoever comes #5.

Here I am arguing both sides here. Earlier I was defending Shore to a Habs fan, now I am defending Harvey to a Bruins fan. lol

You do realize that the likelyhood Shore gets 4 Hart Trophies would have been diminished if the Norris existed back then. once Defensemen had their own award, it became an exceedingly difficult thing to get them consideration for. Shore probably would still have gotten 1-2 of them, but 4? No. Conversely, Harvey likely would have gotten a few Hart Trophies had the Norris not existed considering his high finishes for the Hart. Shore lines up well for around 7-8 Retro Norris trophies.

Another thing to consider. Harvey is far and away considered the greatest defensive player of all time and Best PKer. However, Harvey was not the best offensive Dman of his era, although still very good. The opposite is true with Shore. Shore was far and away the best Offensive Dman of his era, but was not considered the best in his own end in his time, though still solid.

Now someone tell me how Ray is not in their top ten.......

Easy. Because I have him #11

Nobody is disputing Shore's greatness but Harvey was the key man, and the quarterback for the most dominant team ever. Everything that team did offensively flowed and began with Harvey's stick, and the team's entire defensive structure revolved around him.

Some people will look at it in a different way. Such as, how much playing on that team helped Harvey too. As Much as he is and was the cog of that team, the near same squad won 5 Stanley cups in the 60's immediately after getting another decent puck mover without Harvey. Its not like he was the sole engine of that team, although he was very important. They were still on average 20-30 points above the league average every year without him.

Harvey dominated his position for a decade as his 10 first team all-stars attest (as well as his one second team all-star, and his seven Norris trophies). Furthermore the high quality of his play with the Blues in the 1967-68 playoffs and 1968-69 regular season speak to a longevity that Shore was unable to match.

Again, Shore was a lock for 7-8 Norris trophies himself, as well as around 12+ all star selections. He played 4 terrific years before all star selections were even around.

They are closer than credit is being given here by both of you.

During his first NHL season, His goal total exceeded that of all but three Boston forwards and it became apparent that he was capable of fully controlling a game when he was on the ice.

Shore was just as responsible for Boston's success. And this was before the Forward pass was legal for a few years.

And I've heard plenty of old fans (and players like Beliveau) claim that Harvey played defense better than anyone ever (including Orr).

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say which one is better than the other, I just didn't like how you seemed to dismiss the idea that Harvey was better than Shore as unbelievable.

He did. Harvey was the best defensive Dman and Pker ever and was the 3rd best offensive Dman of his era(Red Kelly and Bill Gadsby were better).

Conversely, as I said, Shore was far and away the best offensive Dman the world had ever seen until Orr, and is probably still 3rd best behind Coffey and Orr. Shore was solid in his own end as well, but not as solid as a few others in his day.

Both guys have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

[lextune]

And I've heard plenty of old fans (and players like Beliveau) claim that Harvey played defense better than anyone ever (including Orr).

That does not surprise me.

And one might even be able to convince me of it, (theoretically I guess ), but even if that happened, Orr was more than just defense, if I gave Harvey a slight advantage in defensive play it would change nothing about where I rate him vs Orr.

I just didn't like how you seemed to dismiss the idea that Harvey was better than Shore as unbelievable.

I'm sorry you didn't like it, but that is what we are here for I guess. It's all debate.
But, yeah, I didn't mean to just seem to do anything. I do dismiss idea that Harvey was better than Shore as unbelievable.
Not to be harsh, just sharing my opinion, as we all are. But I dismiss it the same as I would if someone said that Lafleur was better than Hull. To me that would be unbelievable, but I'm sure they are out there.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think when it comes to D-Men it is the same old argument.

What do you value most?

And if you value, say, longevity most, is there any peak level that can supersede that?

Peak of defensemen has to be Orr. Virtually his entire career was a peak. Only 9 healthy seasons. 8 Norris', 9 All Star Teams.

A peak so astonishing as to render all other considerations secondary? I think most of us agree it is.

So who is second?

Harvey: 19 seasons (7 Norris' 11 All Star Teams)
Bourque: 22 season (5 Norris' 19 All Star Teams)

Shore....14 seasons, no Norris Trophy to hand out. I would argue for 8....I am open to argument to the contrary.

All four of the defensemen mentioned here were the type to control the flow of the game. I would argue that Harvey and Bourque did it (both of them masterfully), within the confines of how the game was played in their respective eras. In other words they took the game as it was played, and took it over.

Shore, as Orr would do later, redefined the game itself in their eras. Neither of them took the game as it was and dominated it. They changed the game around them; to suit them. They dominated because they forced those around them to play their game. Both were like nothing that had been seen before.

If you took someone off the street who knew nothing about Hockey to watch a game of Harvey or Bourque at their peak you might not be surprised if at the end of the game they had missed 90% of what we know made them the greats that they were.....the subtleties of playing brilliant NHL defense, in any era, can be a quiet dominance.
In fact it would not be at all surprising if they didn't notice Bourque or Harvey at all......

Take that same person to see Orr or Shore at their respective peaks....(I argue that they both had little else).
And I'll tell you this.
They would notice Orr and Shore.

No doubt about it.

"I don't know what was going on really but that number 4, (or 2), guy was amazing to watch."

Shore played more than 14 seasons. Tag 2 extra seasons on. His seasons in the WCHL/WHL count as well(Many players played dual leagues pre-1926 before it was consolidated into the NHL). He was not in his prime yet, but those years still count.

 

[lextune]

You do realize that the likelyhood Shore gets 4 Hart Trophies would have been diminished if the Norris existed back then.

Of course I do.

See two posts above yours.

We were obviously both typing them out at the same time ;D

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Some people will look at it in a different way. Such as, how much playing on that team helped Harvey too. As Much as he is and was the cog of that team, the near same squad won 5 Stanley cups in the 60's immediately after getting another decent puck mover without Harvey. Its not like he was the sole engine of that team, although he was very important. They were still on average 20-30 points above the league average every year without him.

I would hesitate to call the 1965 Cup winning team the near same squad as the 1960 Cup winning team. Personally, I think subtracting Rocket, Moore, Geoffrion, Harvey, Johnson, and Plante (all Hall of Famers) as well as Bonin, Goyette, Marshall, Pronovost, Langlois, McDonald, Hicke and Turner makes the two teams far from the same.

Furthermore it was only with the emergence of Jacques Laperriere in the years after Harvey's departure (coincidence that he was given the number two jersey) that the Canadiens started winning Cups again.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I would hesitate to call the 1965 Cup winning team the near same squad as the 1960 Cup winning team. Personally, I think subtracting Rocket, Moore, Geoffrion, Harvey, Johnson, and Plante (all Hall of Famers) as well as Bonin, Goyette, Marshall, Pronovost, Langlois, McDonald, Hicke and Turner makes the two teams far from the same.

Furthermore it was only with the emergence of Jacques Laperriere in the years after Harvey's departure (coincidence that he was given the number two jersey) that the Canadiens started winning Cups again.

That's why I said "When they acquired another good puck moving Dman"

I realize the team was different. But it had many of the same core players. Beliveau and Henri Richard were the backbone centers and leadership. Backstrom and Provost the tenacious checking forwards, along with tabot the stalwart Dman. They added guys like Cournoyer and JC tremblay and Laperrierre to fill gaps left by the big boys.

The point is, the backbone of the team was still intact, and they were still demolishing the competition without Harvey. He was a most important piece, but trying to overload him with extra points because he was fortunate to play on that team? Not for me. Shore likely could have achieved the same results.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Now someone tell me how Ray is not in their top ten.......

Without listing the players better than him, I'll simply say that he's the 4th best dman of all time. 4 dmen in the top 10 is too many, especially when the top 3 are a clear step in front.