How close is Crosby to top 5 status now?

[Hobnobs]

I dont think Crosby is that close to the top-5 (and yes everyone has a different top-5). Hes at the bottom of the top-elite spectrum.

The top tier for me is Howe, Gretzky, Orr, Hasek, Roy and Lemieux.

Then we have Beliveau, Hull, Jagr, Bourque, Lidström, Richard, Plante, Morenz, Harvey

and about there we can start talking about Crosby in my opinion.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm working on a top 50 (then eventually a top 100)

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Ray Bourque
10. Maurice Richard
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek

I'm a long time Penguins diehard and Crosby fan and hope this shows that some of us can be unbiased and historically cognizant.

There are way to many individual posts I'd love to reply to, but the fact remains Sid, at this point, probably belongs in the 10-15 range.

Consider these accolades, and remember he's done all this before hitting 30. It's quite impressive, especially considering he missed a good chunk of his prime to injuries.

2x Hart Winner (2007, 2014)
-1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6

3x Lindsay Winner (2007, 2013, 2014)

2x Art Ross (2007, 2014)
2x Rocket Richard (2010, 2017)
4x 1st Team AS (2007, 2013, 2014, 2016)
3x 2nd Team AS (2010, 2015, 2017)
3x Stanley Cup Champion (2009, 2016, 2017)
2x Conn Smythe (2016, 2017)
-Only 3rd player in league history to win back to back CS (Parent and Lemieux)

97.8 VsX 10 year average (10th all time)
103.0 VsX 7 year average (12th all time)

1.313 regular season PPG (6th all time)
1.108 playoff PPG (12th all time)

56 Career Multi Point games in playoffs (4th all time) in 148 games.
-Consider, Jari Kurri, playing in the highest scoring era of all time, had 60 MPG's but needed 200 contests to reach that.
-Mark Messier, 2nd all time, had 77 in 236 games.

2 Olympic Gold (2010, 2014)
-Scored Golden goal in OT of gold medal game 2010
1 World Championship Gold (2015)
1 World Cup of Hockey Gold (2016)
-MVP and leading scorer
1 World Junior Gold (2005)

Also named Best Forward at World Championship in 2006

Member of Quadruple Gold Club (Gold medeal at World Junior, WC', Olympics, and WCOH)

Only player in hockey history to captain the quad/triple clubs.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm working on a top 50 (then eventually a top 100)

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Ray Bourque
10. Maurice Richard
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek

I'm a long time Penguins diehard and Crosby fan and hope this shows that some of us can be unbiased and historically cognizant.

There are way to many individual posts I'd love to reply to, but the fact remains Sid, at this point, probably belongs in the 10-15 range.

not sure if this is directed to posters claiming Crosby is top 5 - or those arguing he's nowhere close. It sounds like the first though - and if so, most people in this thread dont say he's #5 right now. The popular argument is that he's top 5 for first 12 years (even moreso for age 29) - and as such is in excellent shape to finish top 5 all time with reasonable expectations of longevity/back half to career.

Regarding your list/ranking - i like a lot of it tbh. There's always going to be room to nitpick, but i really like a lot the rankings.

 

[ImporterExporter]

not sure if this is directed to posters claiming Crosby is top 5 - or those arguing he's nowhere close. It sounds like the first though - and if so, most people in this thread dont say he's #5 right now. The popular argument is that he's top 5 for first 12 years (even moreso for age 29) - and as such is in excellent shape to finish top 5 all time with reasonable expectations of longevity/back half to career.

Regarding your list/ranking - i like a lot of it tbh. There's always going to be room to nitpick, but i really like a lot the rankings.

Not directed at any one poster in particular, especially here in the HoH sub forum. I think you see more of the definitive, "Crosby is the 5th best player ever", on the main boards. That is where I was more or less directing my original comment. I think most rational people (Crosby fans or not) can agree he's somewhere in the 10-15 range at this point. If you want to put him in the top 10, great. Outside 15? That's fine too. But i think, given all we have at our disposal those positions are a little off base.

Also, thanks for the compliment. I actually am about 30 players in on my rankings now but didn't want to detract from the point of this thread very much.

 

[The Panther]

I'm working on a top 50 (then eventually a top 100)

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Ray Bourque
10. Maurice Richard
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek

This seems quite reasonable. Good work.

 

[Voight]

I'm working on a top 50 (then eventually a top 100)

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Ray Bourque
10. Maurice Richard
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek

I'm a long time Penguins diehard and Crosby fan and hope this shows that some of us can be unbiased and historically cognizant.

You are the first Penguins fan in the history of HFB to have Howe above Lemieux. Congrats

 

[Johnny Engine]

I'm working on a top 50 (then eventually a top 100)
1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Bobby Orr
3. Gordie Howe
4. Mario Lemieux
5. Bobby Hull
6. Patrick Roy
7. Doug Harvey
8. Jean Beliveau
9. Ray Bourque
10. Maurice Richard
11. Eddie Shore
12. Nicklas Lidstrom
13. Sidney Crosby
14. Mark Messier
15. Dominik Hasek

Wondering what makes you place Messier over Morenz, as you've got his contemporary Shore ranked just outside the top ten.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You are the first Penguins fan in the history of HFB to have Howe above Lemieux. Congrats

There are plenty of us, but unfortunately the main boards give us a bad name.

Orr is basically 2A to Howe's 2B for me. I don't want to say Lemieux's a distant 3rd because he isn't but there is a bigger gap between Howe and Lemieux than Orr and Howe....IMHO.

Wondering what makes you place Messier over Morenz, as you've got his contemporary Shore ranked just outside the top ten.

I find Morenz overrated to be honest. Not significantly but certainly in regards to where I see him pop up on many rankings here. He only led the league in goal scoring once, assists once, and points twice. He doesn't seem to be a particularly dominant postseason player either.

Shore was the unquestioned best hockey player of an entire decade (30's) and his career overlapped Morenz quite a bit.

4 Hart wins, and a runner up between 1931 and 1938. Plus he had a couple of 3rd place finishes in 28 and 29.

Much better AS record (and yes I realize Morenz lost 1 or 2 due to the award only being created after the 30-31 season).

Had the Norris existed, Shore almost surely wins 7 (maybe 8).

Shore was extremely dominant at both ends of the ice and was the era's most physically freakish/scary/violent player.

I don't see any reason to believe there was a noticeable gap in postseason play.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Crosby is probably in the top 10-20 range now, inching his way up. He certainly has a chance to be in the top-10 all time players if he continues his current direction for a few more years.

I just can't see him anywhere near the top-5, however. How can we be putting him ahead of Bobby Hull or Jagr or Hasek? I just cannot see that.

There's a certain fascination with team success, subjective awards, and to attributing team success to a single player.

Jagr's playoff performance definitely gets overlooked, due to the lack of team success. During his playoff prime of ~'92-'08:

145-74-94-168 +36

From '92 to '01, he played in 54 playoff wins. In those 54 games, he had 13 GWG and 14 GWA.

It seems myth and lore hold much more sway than real data.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Losses

There's a certain fascination with team success, subjective awards, and to attributing team success to a single player.

Jagr's playoff performance definitely gets overlooked, due to the lack of team success. During his playoff prime of ~'92-'08:

145-74-94-168 +36

From '92 to '01, he played in 54 playoff wins. In those 54 games, he had 13 GWG and 14 GWA.

It seems myth and lore hold much more sway than real data.

Also played in 116 playoff games or 62 playoff losses between '92 and '01. Players have to take ownership for the good and the bad.

 

[The Panther]

Also played in 116 playoff games or 62 playoff losses between '92 and '01. Players have to take ownership for the good and the bad.

I think his point was that individual players are not entirely responsible for team success or team failure. He also showed that Jagr scored better than a goal every two games in the playoffs for 16 years, which isn't exactly shabby. In fact, it's superb, over a very large sample.

I think the best way to judge players' contribution to team success (or not) is to look at each situation in its own context, and to look at how each individual performed in that context. For example, only an idiot would fault Dom Hasek for not winning a championship with Buffalo. But I think we can give a little (not a lot) of blame on, say, Alex Ovechkin, because we have seen (so far, anyway) serious limitations to how much his talent and play can push his quite-good team towards championships.

It doesn't mean Ovechkin has been a poor playoff performer (he's been quite good, overall). But in this case, I think it's reasonable -- AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME -- to attribute some 'fault' to Ovechkin's resume. However, I would not say that at all about Jagr during 1991 through 2001, with Pittsburgh, not least because he did win two Stanley Cups there.

In the regular season, Jagr's 4-straight scoring titles is something Crosby has never even approached, not to mention his incredible longevity (Crosby still has a chance there, but time will tell).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Others

I think his point was that individual players are not entirely responsible for team success or team failure. He also showed that Jagr scored better than a goal every two games in the playoffs for 16 years, which isn't exactly shabby. In fact, it's superb, over a very large sample.

I think the best way to judge players' contribution to team success (or not) is to look at each situation in its own context, and to look at how each individual performed in that context. For example, only an idiot would fault Dom Hasek for not winning a championship with Buffalo. But I think we can give a little (not a lot) of blame on, say, Alex Ovechkin, because we have seen (so far, anyway) serious limitations to how much his talent and play can push his quite-good team towards championships.

It doesn't mean Ovechkin has been a poor playoff performer (he's been quite good, overall). But in this case, I think it's reasonable -- AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME -- to attribute some 'fault' to Ovechkin's resume. However, I would not say that at all about Jagr during 1991 through 2001, with Pittsburgh, not least because he did win two Stanley Cups there.

In the regular season, Jagr's 4-straight scoring titles is something Crosby has never even approached, not to mention his incredible longevity (Crosby still has a chance there, but time will tell).

So did a number of others. Hull, Maurice Richard who scord 81 goals in 133 playoff games:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/richama01.html

Most were more productive. Richard winning eight SCs over 18 seasons.

And what is this mythical context?

 

[The Panther]

So did a number of others. Hull, Maurice Richard who scord 81 goals in 133 playoff games

Not sure why you made this (irrelevant?) point...?

...Richard winning eight SCs over 18 seasons.

And what is this mythical context?

Context, for example, might mean that Maurice Richard's 6 Stanley Cups -- in isolation -- are not more impressive than Jagr's winning 2. Or that Messier's 6 Stanley Cups are a lot more impressive than Richard's 6.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I See............

Not sure why you made this (irrelevant?) point...?

Context, for example, might mean that Maurice Richard's 6 Stanley Cups -- in isolation -- are not more impressive than Jagr's winning 2. Or that Messier's 6 Stanley Cups are a lot more impressive than Richard's 6.

Show that the achievement is far from unique. Others accomplished the same or more. Jagr doing so does not make it special, nor is Jagr the topic of this thread.

Except Maurice Richard was on 8 SC Championship teams. Counting is relevent. All you have shown is that context is mythical since it requires revising the facts.

 

[The Panther]

Show that the achievement is far from unique. Others accomplished the same or more. Jagr doing so does not make it special, nor is Jagr the topic of this thread.

The reason I mentioned Jagr is that I suppose he has accomplished more than Crosby has, overall, and is -- along with Hull, Hasek, and a few others -- more worthy of competing for 5th-place among all-time great players.

I would guess that scoring more than 1 goal every 2 games for 16 years (while regularly appearing in the playoffs) is actually rather rare.

Except Maurice Richard was on 8 SC Championship teams. Counting is relevent. All you have shown is that context is mythical since it requires revising the facts.

I'm not revising the facts when I list simple facts. Context obviously requires subjective interpretation of events, but it's obviously necessary when contemplating comparisons across massively disparate eras. Do you dispute this?

You said: "Richard winning eight SCs over 18 seasons", which you mentioned (so I'm guessing -- you didn't explain why) as an example of why Richard might be ranked above someone like Jagr. While I think Richard was clearly a better playoff performer than Jagr (you're preaching to the converted there), I also think CONTEXT is required before we simply state that eight Cup wins for a given player is a badge of honor over someone, 45 years later, winning two. Only a willfully blind observer would believe otherwise. It doesn't mean one is better than the other, but you cannot simply list Cup wins for teams, from 60 years ago, and suggest that it points to a player being better than a player today, or recently.

Full marks to Richard (and, more importantly, his TEAM) for the eight Stanley Cup wins. But eight Stanley Cup wins for NHL regulars in the 1940s/50s is not the same as eight Stanley Cup wins today, and eight Stanley Cup wins for teams is not for players.

 

[FinProspects]

Jagr's 4-straight scoring titles is something Crosby has never even approached, not to mention his incredible longevity (Crosby still has a chance there, but time will tell).

12-13: Lost by 4 points, with 12 less games played
13-14: Won art
14-15: Lost by 3 points, with 5 less games played.

Never even approached? That is just ignorant.

 

[MadLuke]

In the regular season, Jagr's 4-straight scoring titles is something Crosby has never even approached, not to mention his incredible longevity (Crosby still has a chance there, but time will tell).

In there 12 first season, Crosby and Jagr have about the same regular ppg while Jagr played in a 10% higher scoring era in average and Crosby having a clear advantage in the playoff, he seem to be clearly ahead of him as of now.

For matching Jagr career in is 30's, you have is Washington year's and KHL moment in is best year not adding much, outside the 3 season with the Rangers there is not much there past 29 year's old, no ?

Not easy after 29 to have a trully great elite season, a really good one and one great playoff performance like Jagr did, but that is not at the level of a Joe Sakic career after 30.

 

[Regal]

There's a certain fascination with team success, subjective awards, and to attributing team success to a single player.

Jagr's playoff performance definitely gets overlooked, due to the lack of team success. During his playoff prime of ~'92-'08:

145-74-94-168 +36

From '92 to '01, he played in 54 playoff wins. In those 54 games, he had 13 GWG and 14 GWA.

It seems myth and lore hold much more sway than real data.

I think one thing to consider is that the players going deep are often facing better teams as they move on, which can lower totals. It's easier to look good in first and second rounds typically. Crosby has notably done much better in the early rounds and had his team lost there, his per game numbers would be quite impressive. Though by the same token, if you're on a mediocre playoff team you're usually playing good competition in those rounds.

I would also say that while team success can too often be attributed to individual players, that in general it is the stars who lead teams to that success, and while that doesn't mean players who didn't have the right teams around them in their primes such as Jagr couldn't have done the same, but there's a certain value in knowing you can build a successful team around players who have won as the cornerstones of a team. With Jagr there was also questions of attitude and whether he would have been willing to buy into any team system in order to win in his prime. How accurate those were though it's hard to say. With Crosby there doesn't seem to be that same concern.

 

[Eisen]

There are plenty of us, but unfortunately the main boards give us a bad name.

Orr is basically 2A to Howe's 2B for me. I don't want to say Lemieux's a distant 3rd because he isn't but there is a bigger gap between Howe and Lemieux than Orr and Howe....IMHO.



I find Morenz overrated to be honest. Not significantly but certainly in regards to where I see him pop up on many rankings here. He only led the league in goal scoring once, assists once, and points twice. He doesn't seem to be a particularly dominant postseason player either.

Shore was the unquestioned best hockey player of an entire decade (30's) and his career overlapped Morenz quite a bit.

4 Hart wins, and a runner up between 1931 and 1938. Plus he had a couple of 3rd place finishes in 28 and 29.

Much better AS record (and yes I realize Morenz lost 1 or 2 due to the award only being created after the 30-31 season).

Had the Norris existed, Shore almost surely wins 7 (maybe 8).

Shore was extremely dominant at both ends of the ice and was the era's most physically freakish/scary/violent player.

I don't see any reason to believe there was a noticeable gap in postseason play.

If there was the Norris around, would he win the Hart, though?

 

[ImporterExporter]

If there was the Norris around, would he win the Hart, though?

Maybe, maybe not. I choose to believe the fact that he did win the Hart 4 times AND was a 1st Team postseason AS means the voters who placed him there thought he was not only the most valuable player in the league, but ALSO the best Dman playing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Salary Cap

Maybe, maybe not. I choose to believe the fact that he did win the Hart 4 times AND was a 1st Team postseason AS means the voters who placed him there thought he was not only the most valuable player in the league, but ALSO the best Dman playing.

NHL introduced a Salary Cap for the 1932-33 season $70,000 per team, lowered to $65,000 the following season:


1932-33(two reports):

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Pe8uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RdsFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6958,2300942

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LZIuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VowFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6601,1552229


A Salary Cap was introduced - team was capped at $70,000 while individual players were capped at $7,500. Previously some individual salaries flirted with $11,000. Rosters were reduced to 14 from 16. Some teams carried as many as 20 players at a time. Also attendance figures from the 1931-32 season were revealed. League wide drop of app. 100,000 claimed.

The result was a number of star players were dealt either immediately or in the following years. The only two who had extended careers with their team were Eddie Shore despite a protracted hold-out, Joliat and Sylvio Mantha in Montreal,


1933-34:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gFUvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T6gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6555,2019792

Getting back to Eddie Shore. Yes he received the awards and honours that you counted but in a league whose shaky finances precluded roster stability and team cohesion. Net result was that some of the craftier operators like Tommy Gorman(first Chicago then Montreal built around Lionel Conacher) and Jack Adams(Detroit) put together teams from players that had to be moved, each winning two consecutive Stanley Cups, one string after the other.

Individually this gave Shore an advantage since he was able to play in a stable environment that others did not enjoy.

 

[ImporterExporter]

NHL introduced a Salary Cap for the 1932-33 season $70,000 per team, lowered to $65,000 the following season:


1932-33(two reports):

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Pe8uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RdsFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6958,2300942

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LZIuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VowFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6601,1552229


A Salary Cap was introduced - team was capped at $70,000 while individual players were capped at $7,500. Previously some individual salaries flirted with $11,000. Rosters were reduced to 14 from 16. Some teams carried as many as 20 players at a time. Also attendance figures from the 1931-32 season were revealed. League wide drop of app. 100,000 claimed.

The result was a number of star players were dealt either immediately or in the following years. The only two who had extended careers with their team were Eddie Shore despite a protracted hold-out, Joliat and Sylvio Mantha in Montreal,


1933-34:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gFUvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T6gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6555,2019792

Getting back to Eddie Shore. Yes he received the awards and honours that you counted but in a league whose shaky finances precluded roster stability and team cohesion. Net result was that some of the craftier operators like Tommy Gorman(first Chicago then Montreal built around Lionel Conacher) and Jack Adams(Detroit) put together teams from players that had to be moved, each winning two consecutive Stanley Cups, one string after the other.

Individually this gave Shore an advantage since he was able to play in a stable environment that others did not enjoy.

GREAT reads! Thank you for sharing.

I agree that Shore had a small bit of advantage with the stability angle, but the fact remains he still played against the same folks everyone else did in a consolidated league. Even though a few Dmen won the Hart trophy before the O6 era began, it was still a F dominated award. The fact that Shore won it 4 times, which nobody matched/exceeded (Howe) for another 20 years is telling.

I do think postseason awards held a slight bit more value back in those days, as well as the O6 era, because, first off, there were fewer teams and far fewer players to keep track of. Obviously there really wasn't TV in the 1930's but that obviously changed post WWII, especially from the 50's onward. People got to see opposing players live, more times than today. In this day and age, its much more difficult to follow 30 teams, especially with 3 hour time differences, with many games being televised at the same time, etc.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Expanding

GREAT reads! Thank you for sharing.

I agree that Shore had a small bit of advantage with the stability angle, but the fact remains he still played against the same folks everyone else did in a consolidated league. Even though a few Dmen won the Hart trophy before the O6 era began, it was still a F dominated award. The fact that Shore won it 4 times, which nobody matched/exceeded (Howe) for another 20 years is telling.

I do think postseason awards held a slight bit more value back in those days, as well as the O6 era, because, first off, there were fewer teams and far fewer players to keep track of. Obviously there really wasn't TV in the 1930's but that obviously changed post WWII, especially from the 50's onward. People got to see opposing players live, more times than today. In this day and age, its much more difficult to follow 30 teams, especially with 3 hour time differences, with many games being televised at the same time, etc.

Thank you for the appreciation. Should have been more expansive. Also will tie my comments with the focus of the thread.

Chronology of the Hart Trophy winners:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/hart.html

Note that all four of Shore's Hart Trophies come immediately - 4 in 5 seasons after the introduction of the 1932-33 NHL Salary Cap which also featured a reduction in roster size. Net result was that the league turned to hybrid players, playing a forward position and a defence position. Three of the Hart's after Shore's string were won by such players - Babe Siebert, Ebbie Goodfellow,Tommy Anderson. Other star players also became hybrid players, namely Dit Clapper. Effectively teams were getting two roster spots but paying for one.

The AST nominations have to be viewed in a similar light with an added twist. List follows:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/nhl_all_star.html

From the AST list you will notice that some of the hybrid players were AST defencemen. Babe Siebert, Goodfellow, Clapper. The twist is that during the thirties the 1st and 2nd team did not represent the top four defencemen as is the case for nearly the last eighty season, rather the voting was for the top RD and the top LD, with alternates - 1932-33 results here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=103881059#post103881059

Shore being a RHS benefitted from a few favourable convergences.

Comparing Hart's and AST's across eras is tricky. You are a counter. Direct or indirect, matters little.

The only hybrid player today of note is Brent Burns who started as a forward and converted. Latest Norris winner but at what cost in terms of previous ballotting.

Likewise in the context of the Hart and AST voting involving Sidney Crosby. Does Crosby benefit from the favourable AST and Hart convergences that Shore did. How does the Norris impact perceptions of the Hart? Keep in mind that Red Kelly was more of a hybrid player with the Red Wings than previously believed and this had an impact on his AST and Norris awards. This may not seem important but when Ron Stewart of the Leafs, normally a RW played a good half of the season on defence it was reflected in the 1st half AST voting:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=103881313#post103881313

Which brings us to the final point is that the voting has varied in format over the years. Half season and end of season voting vs end of season, media vs coaches, other nuances.

All these factors have to be considered beyond counting.

 

[daver]

12-13: Lost by 4 points, with 12 less games played
13-14: Won art
14-15: Lost by 3 points, with 5 less games played.

Never even approached? That is just ignorant.

It's frustrating that Art Ross counting for Crosby still gets thrown around when the three best forwards outside of the Big Four (Hull, Richard, and Beliveau) have four between them. Even more frustrating when the standards are then moved from raw points-only to PPGs for the playoffs.

It should be beneath the HOH to have this claim thrown out there.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Thank you for the appreciation. Should have been more expansive. Also will tie my comments with the focus of the thread.

Chronology of the Hart Trophy winners:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/hart.html

Note that all four of Shore's Hart Trophies come immediately - 4 in 5 seasons after the introduction of the 1932-33 NHL Salary Cap which also featured a reduction in roster size. Net result was that the league turned to hybrid players, playing a forward position and a defence position. Three of the Hart's after Shore's string were won by such players - Babe Siebert, Ebbie Goodfellow,Tommy Anderson. Other star players also became hybrid players, namely Dit Clapper. Effectively teams were getting two roster spots but paying for one.

The AST nominations have to be viewed in a similar light with an added twist. List follows:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/nhl_all_star.html

From the AST list you will notice that some of the hybrid players were AST defencemen. Babe Siebert, Goodfellow, Clapper. The twist is that during the thirties the 1st and 2nd team did not represent the top four defencemen as is the case for nearly the last eighty season, rather the voting was for the top RD and the top LD, with alternates - 1932-33 results here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=103881059#post103881059

Shore being a RHS benefitted from a few favourable convergences.

Comparing Hart's and AST's across eras is tricky. You are a counter. Direct or indirect, matters little.

The only hybrid player today of note is Brent Burns who started as a forward and converted. Latest Norris winner but at what cost in terms of previous ballotting.

Likewise in the context of the Hart and AST voting involving Sidney Crosby. Does Crosby benefit from the favourable AST and Hart convergences that Shore did. How does the Norris impact perceptions of the Hart? Keep in mind that Red Kelly was more of a hybrid player with the Red Wings than previously believed and this had an impact on his AST and Norris awards. This may not seem important but when Ron Stewart of the Leafs, normally a RW played a good half of the season on defence it was reflected in the 1st half AST voting:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=103881313#post103881313

Which brings us to the final point is that the voting has varied in format over the years. Half season and end of season voting vs end of season, media vs coaches, other nuances.

All these factors have to be considered beyond counting.

We all count, to one degree or another.

I think I illustrated what you elaborated on about how voting has varied in my post above yours. I'm fully aware that the league has evolved in so many areas. I certainly don't have the intricate knowledge regarding hockey history that some others here have due to the fact that I'm in my 30's. Folks like yourself have so much more experience watching the game, over more era's.

As for Eddie Shore, I understand the point you are making regarding the LD vs RD and AS nods.

But some of those folks also garnered votes at BOTH RD and LD. Needs to be said.

Plus 31-32 seems to have been standard First Team/Alternate Team. Shore and Ching Jonson blew the competition away there. That seems like a concrete decision to me.

Also, look at the overall votes cast relative to his competition.

Shore generally has very large totals (like 32-33, which was a Hart year and 34-35 another Hart winning year).

I think of a guy like Dustin Byfuglien even before Brent Burns to be honest when talking hybrids. At least if we're talking the past 10+ years. And honestly he would be a very poor man's Eddie Shore. Big, hulking, extremely physical, borderline dirty (I know Shore went well past that acceptable line of violence, many times, FTR). Plus Buff actually played long stretches of time at F.