2009 Top 100 Update Preliminary Discussion Thread

[lextune]

I think Bourque is a lot closer to Harvey, than Harvey is to Shore.

And 4 DMen in the top ten is perfect! 6 forwards and 4 D! Two lines!

I did not plan it that way but I was thrilled when it worked out that way

The only question is which centers are going to be forced to play wing?

 

[MXD]

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'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.

Shore redefined the game? He basically played like his former teammate, Sprague Cleghorn. Only, Shore was better. Similitudes between both guys are absolutely striking.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Agreed. Not that it's a great list, but the Hockey News' Top 100 has Harvey significantly higher than Eddie Shore. So certainly some knowledgable people think Harvey was better than Shore.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

I think Bourque is a lot closer to Harvey, than Harvey is to Shore.

And 4 DMen in the top ten is perfect! 6 forwards and 4 D! Two lines!

I did not plan it that way but I was thrilled when it worked out that way

The only question is which centers are going to be forced to play wing?

The game would be awfully boring without a goaltender.

 

[lextune]

Not that it's a great list, but the Hockey News' Top 100 has Harvey significantly higher than Eddie Shore. So certainly some knowledgable people think Harvey was better than Shore.

They also have Lindros at 54......And Paul Coffey ahead of Bryan Trottier......

I think they were all high when they made that list.

 

[lextune]

The game would be awfully boring without a goaltender.

lol....good point but with those 10 skaters what could a goalie do anyway?

Seriously though, I think an argument could be made for 11 and 12 being Plante and Roy (or Hasek)....though admittedly my first goalie does not show up until #12....

 

[Dark Shadows]

Agreed. Not that it's a great list, but the Hockey News' Top 100 has Harvey significantly higher than Eddie Shore. So certainly some knowledgable people think Harvey was better than Shore.

They value cup wins above all in the Hockey news. Even I think 29th is way too high for Henri Richard

 

[seventieslord]

I think Bourque is a lot closer to Harvey, than Harvey is to Shore.

And 4 DMen in the top ten is perfect! 6 forwards and 4 D! Two lines!

I did not plan it that way but I was thrilled when it worked out that way

The only question is which centers are going to be forced to play wing?

Goalies, anyone?

They also have Lindros at 54......And Paul Coffey ahead of Bryan Trottier......

I think they were all high when they made that list.

The problem with that list is that it was done with a points system, just like our round 1 voting. And that's it. No justification for why any player was ranked where they were. No discussion. No reasoning and changing of eachothers' minds.

They value cup wins above all in the Hockey news. Even I think 29th is way too high for Henri Richard

True, true. But, explain Bucyk being as high as he was. It wasn't cups in his case.

There are definitely major problems with that list. No way Hainsworth's the 8th-best goalie. Or even 10th, if you concede Hasek and Brodeur passed him since then.

 

[lextune]

Shore redefined the game? He basically played like his former teammate, Sprague Cleghorn. Only, Shore was better. Similitudes between both guys are absolutely striking.

I have to disagree again......hold on.....

Just dug out an old hockey book of my Dad's.....

Eddie was an immediate sensation in Boston at the start of the '26-27 season. In the Boston Transcript a reporter describes Shore's first game as a Bruin on November 16, 1926: "Eddie Shore caught the fancy of the fans. The new defenseman is tall, yet sturdily built. His speed is absolutely exceptional and he handles his body and stick well with the puck"

Those were to be the first of millions of words written about Eddie Shore. Sports columnist John Lardner once wrote: "He is the only man in hockey generally known to the people who otherwise ignore hockey"

...and soon they were calling Eddie Shore the Edmonton Express, the wild defenseman who barged down the ice, bowling over people, in a pell-mell dash for the net. People jammed arenas to see him play, eyes fixed on him when he took the puck. They stood and screamed as he sped off on one of those wild dashes for a score. You never knew when this bull might break loose, and he gave the game--and the Bruins--a new home run kind of excitement.

By now Boston was being called "hockey-mad" by visiting writers from New York and Chicago. Each hockey night the small Boston Arena was filled, spectators standing, and sitting in the isles, to catch a glimpse of the startling phenomenon that was Shore.

NOTE: (Which helps compel Tex Rickard to build the Boston Garden).

The canny Art Ross devised stunts to play on Shore as the drawing card he was-much to Shore's own dismay. Before a game the band would strike up Hail to the Chief. Out to the rink skated Shore, wearing a long matador's cape. A valet followed him, helped the pink-faced Shore to remove the cape, and the great one was ready to play.

NOTE: (I love "The Great One" bit....when this book was written Gretzky was 7 by the way ) Also by the way, (I'm not going to type out the whole story), but the whole cape thing apparently ended after a New York American player named "Rabbit" McVeigh blew a kiss at Shore, mocking the spectacle, which sent Shore, who didn't like the idea in the first place, over the edge.

Hilarious.

They played a more patterned game than the hockey of today, (NOTE: book was written in '68) George Owen says: "The blue line was the focus of the operation. It was there that the play developed. With a lot of passing, you tried to get the puck to someone open and penetrate. There was always a sense of excitement: at any moment Shore could burst free. He played hockey as though he were riding a bucking bronco, trying to dominate his opponents with the sheer power of his charges up the ice. Like something never seen before: like a human catapult, Shore would roar up the ice leading the fastest forwards on the team. Zooming toward the goal he would unleash a bullet-like drive--but not at the net. Instead he would rifle the puck against the backboards and, head lowered like a vengeful bull, smash his way through the enemy defense as though it were so much paper. Eddie was so fast that he could retrieve the puck as it came off the boards, pass it back to his forwards, and more often than not grin sardonically as his teammates angled it home for a goal."

....anyway, doesn't sound like, (and certainly wasn't treated like), anything anyone had seen before.

 

[overpass]

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.

One of the major factors in Esposito's explosion in points in Boston was his power play proficiency. He starred on the best power play in the league, and led the league in power play goals five times.

In Chicago, while Esposito centred Hull at even strength, Mikita centred Hull on the first power play unit.

Here are the scoring stats for the top 5 even-strength scorers in the NHL in 1966-67:

Rk | Player | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP
1 | Stan Mikita | 26 | 41 | 67 | 8 | 19 | 27
2 | Bobby Hull | 32 | 23 | 55 | 18 | 5 | 23
3 | Phil Esposito | 18 | 33 | 51 | 2 | 6 | 8
4 | Norm Ullman | 20 | 30 | 50 | 5 | 12 | 17
5 | Ken Wharram | 23 | 23 | 46 | 8 | 11 | 19

Stats compiled from the data of the Hockey Summary Project.

Esposito was third in the league, behind only his teammates Mikita and Hull, in even strength points in his last year in Chicago. It looks to me as if anyone was holding Esposito back it was Mikita's presence as the 1st PP unit centre.

More to the point, if you want to look at the numbers for Hull's centre you should look at Espo's ES numbers and Mikita's PP numbers. Looking at it that way, Hull's centre had 26 goals, 52 assists, and 78 points at ES and on the PP, which matches up well with Hull's 50 goals, 28 assists, and 78 points at ES and on the PP.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

They value cup wins above all in the Hockey news. Even I think 29th is way too high for Henri Richard

They also have Lindros at 54......And Paul Coffey ahead of Bryan Trottier......

I think they were all high when they made that list.

Yes, yes, we all know how awful the THN Top 100 was. I was agreeing with a post that responded to an earlier post, which basically said that Shore was almost universally considered better than Harvey, and using the THN list to show that was false.

Goalies, anyone?



The problem with that list is that it was done with a points system, just like our round 1 voting. p And that's it. No justification for why any player was ranked where they were. No discussion. No reasoning and changing of eachothers' minds.



True, true. But, explain Bucyk being as high as he was. It wasn't cups in his case.

There are definitely major problems with that list. No way Hainsworth's the 8th-best goalie. Or even 10th, if you concede Hasek and Brodeur passed him since then.

Great point and I hadn't thought of it that way. Some "maverick" like Stan Fischler probably ranked Lindros in the top 10 all time, and it skewed the final results. Fission Fire's system is far superior.

 

[MXD]

I have to disagree again......hold on.....

Just dug out an old hockey book of my Dad's.....



NOTE: (Which helps compel Tex Rickard to build the Boston Garden).



NOTE: (I love "The Great One" bit....when this book was written Gretzky was 7 by the way ) Also by the way, (I'm not going to type out the whole story), but the whole cape thing apparently ended after a New York American player named "Rabbit" McVeigh blew a kiss at Shore, mocking the spectacle, which sent Shore, who didn't like the idea in the first place, over the edge.

Hilarious.




....anyway, doesn't sound like, (and certainly wasn't treated like), anything anyone had seen before.

And since I have the book out here's a couple of scans:

http://files.chocoboheaven.com/uploads/Guests/images/shore.jpg

Love this in game photo of Mr. Zero: http://files.chocoboheaven.com/uploads/Guests/images/mr_zero.jpg

http://files.chocoboheaven.com/uploads/Guests/images/5489_shore.jpg

...I still don't see what makes Shore a different player from Cleghorn. Yes, he innovated by executing new tactics he was the only one able to execute. Thank Ross, not Shore.

As opposed, I'm pretty sure Harry Sinden and Tom Johnson never really told Orr to play like he did.

 

[Randall Graves*]

I would've been in on this but I don't think I can put together a fair list in a day, though I will say it's very hard for me to rank pre WW2 players with post WW2 thus you would see a significant bias from me after it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bure did drop off later in his career. Completely. He stopped playing, while Lindros tried to grind out a few more years. Nobody cares about totals from the butt end of done like Dinner players careers. Trying to use them to devalue his prime advantage does not work in these discussions. When you look at total career instead of peak? Sure, makes Bure look closer, except that he was not close.

Few players have primes longer than 9 years, and Lindros' prime was much stronger.

Bure's only redeeming feature was offense. Bure was a Detriment to his team otherwise. Lindros brought more offense and much more of everything else important to the table.

So were Gretzky and Lemieux and Coffey.

It appears Bure is real sore spot for you, Mr. Thornton. So this will be my last word on the subject. Pavel Bure scored goals at a rate better than all but 4 other players in NHL history. All of 6 players did better in the playoffs. And he did it in an era that was tough for offensive play. In my way of thinking, this should at the very least make him a solid candidate for the top 100 players ever. The fact that Bure was someone who was worth the price of admission to see play in his prime comes into my thinking also.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Espo was a good scorer with Chicago because he played with Hull. If you watch some of those games Espo was very slow & awkward, Espo was a late bloomer who blossomed under the boston system.

No way Hull was a selfish player. he was a team guy all the way. That he held Espo back is a riduculous argument.

I'm kinda with Nalyd on this I don't have Hull in the top 4 but I have him comfortably in # 5 with a drop off to my #6 who BTW isn't either Richard or Beliveau,

Espo blossomed rather quickly. He led the NHL in assists his first year in Boston and was a 2nd team all-star. It was still the original six, also. His next 6 years he finished first or second in assists and goals each year. It doesn't appear to me that he was a good scorer in Chicago because he played with Hull.

 

[lextune]

...I still don't see what makes Shore a different player from Cleghorn. Yes, he innovated by executing new tactics he was the only one able to execute.

Huh?

Innovate by definition means "To begin, or introduce something new."

So if he was innovative he was denotatively different from Cleghorn, and everyone else for that matter.

As opposed, I'm pretty sure Harry Sinden and Tom Johnson never really told Orr to play like he did.

Of course they didn't, in fact Bobby has on many occasions specifically thanked all his coaches for never asking nhim to play any different than he wanted to.

But what does that have to do with this?

Am I to infer that you are suggesting someone told Shore to play the way he did? Because I don't see any evidence of that at all.

Certainly not in my post at least....

 

[MXD]

Huh?

Innovate by definition means "To begin, or introduce something new."

So if he was innovative he was denotatively different from Cleghorn, and everyone else for that matter.



Of course they didn't, in fact Bobby has on many occasions specifically thanked all his coaches for never asking nhim to play any different than he wanted to.

But what does that have to do with this?

Am I to infer that you are suggesting someone told Shore to play the way he did? Because I don't see any evidence of that at all.

Certainly not in my post at least....

Well, from what I've read, Art Ross was the guy to thank for that tactic. It could probably have been done with a Cleghorn in his prime, but it wouldn't have been as effective (not to mention Shore was probably easier to coach than Cleghorn, if that makes sense, at least that's what I understand with the MANY warnings Cleghorn received in regards to discipline). It was indeed a different way to play D, and a way to get around that no forward pass rule -- and somewhat different from the Doug Harvey situation, as there are many quotes to the effect that his style irritated Toe Blake. But he was so effective that he couldn't do or say anything.

I think only one coach ever told Orr to do something, and that was his coach that moved him to defense (Bucko McDonald).

Read a bit on Cleghorn : the similarities are striking. Not knocking down Shore at all (look at my avatar...), as there's nothing wrong with being a rich-man's Cleghorn. End-to-end rushes, physicality, aggression (some would say dirtiness), all the while playing good defense (even if both were not the top defensive players of their era), good size but not monster-size (Shore wasn't Taffy Abel, and Cleghorn wasn't a McNamara, but they both played with an edge), and both had extremely long careers considering era.

One thing I'm not sure about Shore (and one that would tend to confirm my thesis...) : anything from his Western days? I know he was kinda young....

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So why did the 60s era Blackhawks choke so often, when they had (according to the list), 4 top 51 players of all time? Helping your team win is a hockey player's job and should factor heavily into the rankings. (Indeed, it's why Henry Richard is and should be on the list). Right now, I have Hull over Beliveau and Richard, Mikita over Bossy, Hall over Dryden, and Pilote over Horton. And I'm wondering if some of these rankings are wrong. I know one of you (Thornton_19 I think) basically blamed Hall for Chicago's lack of playoff success. If it really was mostly Hall's fault, I might have to rethink ranking him above Dryden, who was always excellent in the playoffs.

Interesting that the 60s Blackhawks are much better represented in the top 100 than the two Montreal and Toronto dynasties of the 60s. I guess Chicago was a team with a few superstars and little depth?

 

[MXD]

So why did the 60s era Blackhawks choke so often, when they had (according to the list), 4 top 51 players of all time? Helping your team win is a hockey player's job and should factor heavily into the rankings. (Indeed, it's why Henry Richard is and should be on the list). Right now, I have Hull over Beliveau and Richard, Mikita over Bossy, Hall over Dryden, and Pilote over Horton. And I'm wondering if some of these rankings are wrong. I know one of you (Thornton_19 I think) basically blamed Hall for Chicago's lack of playoff success. If it really was mostly Hall's fault, I might have to rethink ranking him above Dryden, who was always excellent in the playoffs.

Interesting that the 60s Blackhawks are much better represented in the top 100 than the two Montreal and Toronto dynasties of the 60s. I guess Chicago was a team with a few superstars and little depth?

Hall would have been in Top-15 contention with playoffs success. Lack of makes him a fringe Top-20 guy (in my eyes, actually), and not even a lock for Top-25.

 

[BM67]

Am I to infer that you are suggesting someone told Shore to play the way he did? Because I don't see any evidence of that at all.

Certainly not in my post at least....

In the book Mad Men of Hockey, Shore is quoted as saying he would be fined every time he shot on net on the rush, even if he scored.

 

[lextune]

I know Cleghorn, he's on my list around 90 or so. Maybe the dirtiest player of all time, lol.

I've read as much about him as the next guy interested in the history of hockey I'd guess. I just don't think he was as big a deal as Shore. Certainly Shore was not emulating him directly, since Shore came into the WCHL as a rookie playing exactly as we would see him play later in Boston:

His father lost his farm after some bad investments and Eddie dropped out of college and decided on a career in this game he had only recently learned. With his wild dashes up and down the ice and a willingness to mix it up at the drop of a glove, he became the terror of an amateur hockey league and then the professional Pacific Coast League which was bought by Charles Adams in 1926

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And maybe it's just homerism (which is funny since Shore retired 31 years before I was born, lol), but I have Shore firmly entrenched as the 2nd greatest D-Man in hockey history.

 

[lextune]

By the way, we all have to sort through the homerism.....I say Shore revolutionized the game as the first true offensive defenseman in the mid 20s.
Maybe you or others might say it was Cleghorn (albeit to a lesser degree) in the late teens/early 20s.
But how about this from the Canadiens own site:

Not only is Doug Harvey arguably the greatest defenseman in Canadiens history, but he also changed the way the position is played for blue-liners who followed him as the game’s first truly offensive rearguard.

..........that would be the late 40s........

Funny. Since Shore had a higher ppg than Harvey....in a less offensive era to boot.

 

[MXD]

By the way, we all have to sort through the homerism.....I say Shore revolutionized the game as the first true offensive defenseman in the mid 20s.
Maybe you or others might say it was Cleghorn (albeit to a lesser degree) in the late teens/early 20s.
But how about this from the Canadiens own site:



..........that would be the late 40s........

Funny. Since Shore had a higher ppg than Harvey....in a less offensive era to boot.

Don't forget that for many, Hockey started with Maurice Richard. Sad, but true.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I figured I'll let you be the judge. Here's the top 10 in offensive production in the Stanley Cup finals by defensemen (or in Kelly's case, players who primarily played D). I found this information in a link in this thread.

Player | GP | G | A | TP
Doug Harvey | 54 | 4 | 31 | 35
Red Kelly | 65 | 11 | 20 | 31
Denis Potvin | 24 | 9 | 19 | 28
Paul Coffey | 33 | 8 | 18 | 26
Bobby Orr | 16 | 8 | 12 | 20
Tim Horton | 33 | 4 | 16 | 20
Larry Robinson | 36 | 5 | 15 | 20
Chris Chelios | 20 | 3 | 16 | 19
Larry Murphy | 18 | 3 | 15 | 18
Brad Park | 16 | 7 | 9 | 16

 

[pappyline]

Espo blossomed rather quickly. He led the NHL in assists his first year in Boston and was a 2nd team all-star. It was still the original six, also. His next 6 years he finished first or second in assists and goals each year. It doesn't appear to me that he was a good scorer in Chicago because he played with Hull.

Never would have happened in Chicago. Watch those games. Espo just wasn't that good plus he didn't see much PP time.. I guess he would have done much better if he was put on the 3rd line with Hay & Nesterenko. That way he wouldn't have had Hull holding him back. I give Boston full credit for using Espo effectively.