Round 2, Vote 1 (2009 update)

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,836
16,567
Most of you know all of this already of course, but I will make a brief recap and await arguments against:

Bourque has the record for 1st Team All-Star selections; thirteen. He has six other 2nd team All-Star selections.

He was a 1st Team All-Star his rookie season and also in his last season (22 years later.....)

His peak was incredible. He has one Hart runner up to Gretzky, and should have been the first DMan to win it since Orr in '90 when he was, (quite literally), robbed by a few dishonest Edmonton journalists. That 89/90 season is almost universally seen as the best season by a blueliner since Orr.

No Defenseman (any positional player for that matter), has ever carried a team as long Ray carried the Bruins.

I'm favorably inclined towards Bourque, but the only problem I have with ranking him above Shore (and everybody else coming in before Shore, duh...) is that, while he was without a doubt the best D-Men during the span of his career, it's wasn't as obvious as, let's say, Orr being better than anybody else, or Harvey being better than anybody else, or Shore... except of course for 1990, where he really should have won the Hart and will go as one of the biggest robberies ever as far as awards are concerned, because there is some evidence about it.

His dominance, throughout his career, wasn't at the level of Béliveau and Hull either. Richard is kindof hard to gauge considering he played at the same time than Gordie Howe, but what makes Richard a Top-10 isn't so much season awards as much as absolutely ridiculous playoff scoring stats, and the fact he was pretty much regarded as the best offensive player of the league for, what, 10 years? (and yes, that involves being superior to Gordie Howe, as far as offense is concerned... at least, for a while)
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,202
7,360
Regina, SK
What I meant by the above (but didn't say explicitly) is that Harvey's brutality appears to have been quite calculated, to include the spear of Sullivan. So the story goes, Sullivan had been annoying Plante all night long and Harvey warned him that there would be a price for his behavior. Red continued, and Harvey punished him. In light of the man's career as a whole, none of Harvey's actions during that incident seem unusual or out of control to me.

I don't see Harvey vs. Shore as being much of a debate, to be honest. The better argument is probably Harvey vs. Hull for that 5th spot. I fail to see what makes Hull clearly the more dominant player, and yet his placement at 5th seems to be accepted as canon by many posters here.

Wow, this isn't the first time this has happened to me, but it's always a thrill when it does. I went home, opened up the book "Hockey Towns", which I started yesterday, and just two pages later, I get to this:

sullivan.jpg


Such a coincidence.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,836
16,567
Sawchuk's not in their league. The best thing in his favour is that contemporaries seem to regard him the highest. But all-star teams, save percentages, and instances of great/good/mediocre/bad playoff years don't support this.

Ditto. Sawchuck is, IMO, in contention for spot 5 amongst goalies. I do have him completely out of Top-20, actually.
 

lextune

I'm too old for this.
Jun 9, 2008
11,773
3,021
New Hampshire
I'm favorably inclined towards Bourque, but the only problem I have with ranking him above Shore (and everybody else coming in before Shore, duh...)

I don't rank Ray above Shore.

lextune said:
1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Howe
4. Lemieux
5. Hull
6. Shore
7. Harvey
8. Beliveau
9. Richard
10. Bourque
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,836
16,567
I don't rank Ray above Shore.

Actually, I think many consider Bourque as the 10th best non-goalie here. The thing to wonder about is whether there are goalies in between the 10th best.. well, non-goalies.
 

foame

Registered User
Jan 26, 2008
266
16
I really want to start up the debate about getting Bourque into the top ten.
He is the "Gordie Howe of Defensemen" (if you will), and had a streak of dominance that is almost beyond belief.
I agree.
It looks like most people are ranking Shore above Harvey, but I think the Canadien was the better defenseman and better player overall.
I think Ray Bourque deserves to be compared with these two and I don't see why you left him out of this comparision.
Offense. Their styles were very different (Shore was an aggressive rusher while Harvey was a somewhat more conservative playmaker & PP quarterback, though he was great on the transition). In terms of results they are quite close but Harvey is slightly ahead for the following reasons:

Compared to other defensemen. Based on Pnep’s research (source) we see that Harvey spent more seasons ranking among the league’s top five highest-scoring defensemen (12 seasons for Harvey vs 10 for Shore). Eliminating identical finishes (1-1-1-1-2-3-5) we’re left with 1-1-4 for Shore and 2-3-3-3-5 for Harvey. Perhaps a slight peak edge for Shore but overall Harvey does better.

Comparison to top scorers: Shore finished 10th, 10th, 13th and 20th in the NHL in scoring; Harvey finished 11th, 13th and 17th. Shore gets the edge here.
Shore played in a league with more forwards, which meant he had to compete against more first liners.
Compared to the rest of the league. During their best five years, Shore (1929-33) ranked 17th in the league in scoring, while Harvey (1954-58) ranked 11th. During their best ten years, Shore (1927-36) ranked 16th, while Harvey (1952-61) ranked 13th. Harvey gets the edge here.

Conclusion: it’s close but Harvey a slightly better offensive player than Shore.
You forgot to consider what teams they played on. Boston was 3rd/4th in goals during Shore's prime while Montreal was the leagues top team when Harvey won most of his Norris trophies.
Defense: defensive ability is notoriously hard to analyze, especially given that few people here have seen either player play on a consistent basis.

It’s generally accepted that Harvey is one of the best shutdown defensemen in hockey history (perhaps even the best). He’s described as a player who “defended tenaciously, blocked shots and intimidated the opposition” (source) He had the “uncanny talent of either speeding up a game or putting the brakes on it” (source). He was “was so superb in one on one defensive battles that he would routinely steal the puck off the attacker as though he were picking cherries. He would rarely be beaten, and his teammates knew it” (source). I'm pretty sure "Ultimate Hockey" picked Doug Harvey as the best defensive player of the 1950s but can somebody with a copy of the book please confirm?

Eddie Shore was not even regarded as the best defensive player of his era. Although he was known as a good offensive player, even during his absolute peak (1933), contemporaries thought that there were several other defensemen in the league who were superior defensively (ie King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Ching Johnson). Source: Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933.

Conclusion: Harvey is the better defensive player.

Playoffs: I think it’s generally accepted that Harvey was the superior playoff performer but here’s a chart showing just how important Harvey was the to the Habs dynasty (source). Harvey was, by a large margin, the player who was most likely to raise his level of offense during the playoffs, even more so than Richard, Beliveau, Geoffrion, etc.

During the span of his playoff career (1927-1940) Shore was 23rd in scoring (4th in games played). During the span of his playoff career (1949-62, excluding 1968), Harvey was 7th in playoff scoring (1st in games played).

Conclusion: Harvey was the better playoff performer.
I haven't read enough about Shore's defense or playoff-performance to write a comment to this.
Awards:

Hart trophy. I know what you’re all thinking "Shore won four Hart trophies, Harvey has none, so Shore was obviously better”. Not so fast! Shore played in an era when, for whatever reason, defensemen earned far more Hart trophy votes.

The following defensemen were Hart finalists during Shore’s career: Clancy, Clapper, Colville, Conacher, Coulter, Dutton, Gardiner, Goodfellow, Hitchman, Johnson, Seibert, Shore.

The following defensemen were Hart finalists during Harvey’s career: Harvey, Howell, Kelly, Orr.

It’s obvious that Hart trophy voters had exponentially lower standards for voting for defensemen during Shore’s era, both in terms of quantity & quality of defensemen they'd vote for. In the past sixty years, only one defenseman (Orr, obviously) has more than Harvey’s five seasons as a Hart trophy finalist. Harvey did the best he can do given the bias of voters over the past six decades. The argument that Shore was better because he did better in Hart voting is false, misleading, and wrong!

All-star selections: Shore was selected to seven first all-star teams and one second all-star team. Harvey was selected to ten first all-star teams and one second all-star team. However Shore had a few strong years before 1931 (the year the NHL first created all-star teams) so the two players are probably even in this category.
There weren't any defensemen (other than Gadsby and Pilote) during the era Harvey played in who was important enough to warrant a Hart nominee. Shore's competition was for that reason better or the defenseman, during that time, was more important to the team. Shore has also been awarded with 8 retro-Norris.
Overall. In conclusion, Harvey was clearly the better defensive player, he was better in the playoffs, and he was slightly better offensively. The main argument for Shore (Hart trophies) isn’t fair based on the voter bias in his era. Harvey was the better hockey player and should be ranked higher on our list.

(Would like to hear any comments especially if you disagree)
I don't like the use of the word "clearly", but I admit that there's enough evidence to consider Harvey defensivly better than Shore.

I thought I'd make a case for Bourque using your arguments.

Offense:

Compared to other defensemen. Based on Pnep’s research (source) we see that Bourque spent more seasons ranking among the league’s top five highest-scoring defensemen (16 seasons for Bourque).
Bourque finished 1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-4-4-4-5 (3 times after Coffey's 100 point-seasons).

Comparison to top scorers: Bourque finished 9th, 11th, 14th, 20th in the NHL in scoring.

Compared to the rest of the league. During his best five years, Bouque (1987-92) ranked 18th in the league in scoring. During his best ten years, Bourque (1985-94) ranked 13th.

Defense:

Haven't seen/read enough of any of the guys to make a argument for or against them...

Playoffs:

4 times has Ray Bourque been involved in more than 30% of his teams goals while the team went through the first round (1980, 1983, 1991, 1999). That's more than any other defenseman.

Hart trophy:

Bourque is 23rd and the 2nd D-man on Hockey Outsiders "Hart Trophy Shares"-list. He's also on top of the "Norris trophy shares"-list

All-star selections:

Bourque has 13 first and 6 second All-Star Teams.

I don't think it's as clear as many of you suggest of who's the nr 2, 3 and 4 D...
 
Last edited:

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
183
Mass/formerly Ont
A couple people have Gretzky at #4. I'm curious as to the reasoning behind this.. ??
Gretzky is definitely a top 4 guy but why not # 4. I have him at # 4. I saw Orr, Lemieux, Howe & Getzky play. I think Orr & Lemieux were more talented. I missed gordie's peak but did follow him post peak & think he had the better career. Plus all 3 were better physically & defensively.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,624
1,160
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
It's possible he could sneak into my top 10, but the problem with that is that he's generally considered the 4th best dman of all time, and having 4 of the top 10 spots occupied by dmen seems a little much.

Also, he's not quite the Gordie Howe of defensemen. He has the longevity, but Howe at his peak was dominating the competition at a Lemieux-like level. Even if you pretend Gretzky and Lemieux never existed, the best you could say about Bourque is that he might have been the best player in the league by a small margin.

Which immediately begs the question....Who are the big three? lol.

If one considered pure skill and peak as the most important aspect in determining the "Best Ever"; it would be tough to keep out Mario or Bobby. Whereas if one values longevity of achievement, or consistency of excellence, Wayne and Gordie stand above both of them.

I really thought I put these types of misconceptions to bed in the last list. Why people have this impression that Lemieux's peak and dominance vs. his peers was higher than Howe's is beyond me. Gordie Howe was not some Phil Esposito garbage goal guy. He was every bit as skilled as Richard or Lemieux or Gretzky, and more dominating than all but one.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=12647663&postcount=48

As you can see, Lemieux's most dominating season over his peers would be only 5th on Gordie Howe's list. It's quite clear that Howe was the more dominating player against his peers.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Shore / Harvey Debate

Interesting but consider the following.

During Eddie Shore's career with the Bruins, the team was one of the elite NHL teams but twice during the thirties they surprisingly missed the playoffs only to have significant bounce back seasons.

Doug Harvey started his NHL career during the 1947-48 season when the Canadiens missed the playoffs but during his entire stay with the Canadiens they always made the playoffs. Traded to the NY Rangers after the 1960-61 season where he became the player coach, Doug Harvey lead his Rangers to a surprise playoff spot and a six game run against the Leafs. He also transformed the play of Harry Howell especially on the offensive side.

Replaced by first Muzz Patrick the Red Sullivan as coach for the 1962-63 season the Rangers with Harvey as a player finished 5th.
 

DaveG

Noted Jerk
Apr 7, 2003
51,327
49,060
Winston-Salem NC
Absolutely - It's not as clear as some are making it. Bourque is arguably as good as Harvey and/or Shore.

I have him right between the two (Harvey first, Bourque second) in regards to the three as of right now. Don't think I will be changing that much either. The guy just has an insane number of all star selections and a great rate of production in an era that was extremely strong for individual defensemen (not necessarily defensemen as a whole). I tend to look at longevity a bit stronger then most (my final list will show that to be sure) but even in terms of peak Bourque is right there with Shore and Harvey. He prettymuch carried a Boston team that wasn't all that deep to the finals twice and managed to come close a few other times. Should have won a Hart in 1990 too but that's another debate in itself.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,271
2,808
I really thought I put these types of misconceptions to bed in the last list. Why people have this impression that Lemieux's peak and dominance vs. his peers was higher than Howe's is beyond me. Gordie Howe was not some Phil Esposito garbage goal guy. He was every bit as skilled as Richard or Lemieux or Gretzky, and more dominating than all but one.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=12647663&postcount=48

As you can see, Lemieux's most dominating season over his peers would be only 5th on Gordie Howe's list. It's quite clear that Howe was the more dominating player against his peers.

Those "misconceptions" certainly haven't been "put to bed" on my part. I agree that Gordie's peak can be underrated, but there are serious questions about the competition level in the league when he put up his huge numbers. Top-end talent was relatively weak in the league in the early 1950s, and a huge percentage of the best talent in the league was playing on Detroit. Howe played on a line with the third best winger in the league (Lindsay) and his centres (Abel/Delvecchio) were among the best in the league. Maybe most importantly he had Red Kelly, by far the best offensive D-man in the league, on his team. He also never had to shoot on the best goalie in the world, because Sawchuk was playing behind him. The best competition Gordie Howe faced in those years was in practice.

Lemieux's best years came during what may have been the most talent-laden era in NHL history, the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s. While Lemieux played on some good teams, there was far more parity and competition than in Howe's heyday.

Also, you can't ignore the fact that Mario's greatness is on a per-game basis, and that means something to most people. While his seasonal production wasn't what it could have been if he had played every game, in the games that he played he was clearly the greatest player in the world. Greatness isn't only judged at the end of the season by looking at the stats - it's judged every time a player steps on the ice. Mario at his best dominated as much as anyone ever has.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,624
1,160
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
Those "misconceptions" certainly haven't been "put to bed" on my part. I agree that Gordie's peak can be underrated, but there are serious questions about the competition level in the league when he put up his huge numbers. Top-end talent was relatively weak in the league in the early 1950s, and a huge percentage of the best talent in the league was playing on Detroit. Howe played on a line with the third best winger in the league (Lindsay) and his centres (Abel/Delvecchio) were among the best in the league. Maybe most importantly he had Red Kelly, by far the best offensive D-man in the league, on his team. He also never had to shoot on the best goalie in the world, because Sawchuk was playing behind him. The best competition Gordie Howe faced in those years was in practice.

Lemieux's best years came during what may have been the most talent-laden era in NHL history, the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s. While Lemieux played on some good teams, there was far more parity and competition than in Howe's heyday.

Also, you can't ignore the fact that Mario's greatness is on a per-game basis, and that means something to most people. While his seasonal production wasn't what it could have been if he had played every game, in the games that he played he was clearly the greatest player in the world. Greatness isn't only judged at the end of the season by looking at the stats - it's judged every time a player steps on the ice. Mario at his best dominated as much as anyone ever has.

This is just going to start up the same debate we already had the first time so instead of responding I'll just say that all your points were discussed in the first discussion thread for anyone interested. No point arguing the same things over again unless there is something new.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Those "misconceptions" certainly haven't been "put to bed" on my part. I agree that Gordie's peak can be underrated, but there are serious questions about the competition level in the league when he put up his huge numbers. Top-end talent was relatively weak in the league in the early 1950s, and a huge percentage of the best talent in the league was playing on Detroit. Howe played on a line with the third best winger in the league (Lindsay) and his centres (Abel/Delvecchio) were among the best in the league. Maybe most importantly he had Red Kelly, by far the best offensive D-man in the league, on his team. He also never had to shoot on the best goalie in the world, because Sawchuk was playing behind him. The best competition Gordie Howe faced in those years was in practice.

Lemieux's best years came during what may have been the most talent-laden era in NHL history, the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s. While Lemieux played on some good teams, there was far more parity and competition than in Howe's heyday.

Also, you can't ignore the fact that Mario's greatness is on a per-game basis, and that means something to most people. While his seasonal production wasn't what it could have been if he had played every game, in the games that he played he was clearly the greatest player in the world. Greatness isn't only judged at the end of the season by looking at the stats - it's judged every time a player steps on the ice. Mario at his best dominated as much as anyone ever has.

I don't think any of us are arguing against that. At his best, Mario dominated at a level similar to Gretzky and Howe among forwards. But they maintained that level to a much greater degree than he did, so I really do think he's a clear cut #4 after the big 3.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
183
Mass/formerly Ont
Interesting but consider the following.

During Eddie Shore's career with the Bruins, the team was one of the elite NHL teams but twice during the thirties they surprisingly missed the playoffs only to have significant bounce back seasons.

Doug Harvey started his NHL career during the 1947-48 season when the Canadiens missed the playoffs but during his entire stay with the Canadiens they always made the playoffs. Traded to the NY Rangers after the 1960-61 season where he became the player coach, Doug Harvey lead his Rangers to a surprise playoff spot and a six game run against the Leafs. He also transformed the play of Harry Howell especially on the offensive side.

Replaced by first Muzz Patrick the Red Sullivan as coach for the 1962-63 season the Rangers with Harvey as a player finished 5th.
Interesting but Doug had a good season in 62-63 & then was gone from the NHL until expansion when he put up good numbers in 68-69. I am sure he could have helped some team in the intervening years.
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
15
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Add Sawchuk to that list for me. Hall at the end of the top 20. But those 4 (Sawchuk, Plante, Hasek, Roy) are my top 4 as of right now goalie wise, although neither is going to crack my top 10. Assuming that all are still available next round, which looks to be the trend judging by peoples early top 10s, all 4 will likely be within 5 or 6 spots of eachother.
The large problem with Sawchuk is that all of his accomplishments are within a 5 year span, and that the rest of his career is unimpressive.

I was a big Sawchuk supporter last time around, and was a big fan of his back in the day, but I did not realize just how focused his accomplishments really were.

Round 3 of voting from last time has all the arguments if you want to reread them. I may quote a few later when we get to the goalie debate.


What I meant by the above (but didn't say explicitly) is that Harvey's brutality appears to have been quite calculated, to include the spear of Sullivan. So the story goes, Sullivan had been annoying Plante all night long and Harvey warned him that there would be a price for his behavior. Red continued, and Harvey punished him. In light of the man's career as a whole, none of Harvey's actions during that incident seem unusual or out of control to me.

I don't see Harvey vs. Shore as being much of a debate, to be honest. The better argument is probably Harvey vs. Hull for that 5th spot. I fail to see what makes Hull clearly the more dominant player, and yet his placement at 5th seems to be accepted as canon by many posters here.

The Harvey Shore argument has me once again flip flopping on their status. No matter what, they are the consensus #2-3 Defensemen of all time, and however we slice it, the top 10 players here are the greats. The differences between 5-10 are very small.

I will however make the case for Bobby Hull.

Offensively: The greatest goalscorer ever to play. Bobby Hull has 7 goalscoring titles, 2 Runner up's and several more top 6 goalscoring finishes, and he likely would have more high finishes if had no defected to the WHA. The dominance of his goalscoring titles over the runner up's is unmatched by anyone. Hull was also top 6 in assists five times in his career. Winner of 3 Art Ross trophies and Runner up for 3 More. In total, Hull was top 10 in scoring 11 times after his breakout year in 59-60 right up until he left the NHL for the WHA in 72-73. It may surprise people to learn that Hull played on a separate line than Stan Mikita, generally with Forwards such as Bill Hay and Chiko Maki, while Mikita played on the scooter line with Ab Mcdonald and Kenny Wharam. Hull was such a phenomenal skater that he could burn you 9 times out of 10 if you did not play very conservatively and keep a man back. Hull had the most blazing slapshot of his era(Or any era to be honest). Goaltenders were literally afraid of his shot.

"Stopping on of Hull's shots with your pads is like getting slugged with a sledgehammer" -Johnny Bower

"His shot is like a piece of lead. One of his hard shots would break my mask if it hit it. I've caught one on my arm, and it was paralyzed for five minutes afterwards. Sometimes it drops five or six inches. you have to see it to believe it. Some goalies would try to grab one of Hull's bullets with their glove only to see their wrist snap backwards and watch the puck escape into the net" -Jacques Plante

A shot he used to full advantage. In an era when few goaltenders wore masks, One of Hull's favorite tactics was, if he was nearing the end of a shift and did not have an angle for a good shot on net, he would wind up and blast it with everything he had just to have it zip by the opposing netminders head, slam into the glass and remind them just how devastating his shot was and think about it the entire time until his next shift.(see legends of Hockey)

Defensively: Hull was a fixture on the PK in Chicago because of his speed, and was generally thought of as a very good two way forward. At least on par with Jean Beliveau. Hull was very good with his stick at intercepting pucks and using his unbelievable speed to charge a rush up ice. As I said before, the opposing team needed to be very aware of Hull, and keep a man back at all times, or risk having him suddenly be gone.
Ill include a clip I took a few years ago as an example.


From Sports Illustrated regarding the first year after Bobby Defected:
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1086950/1/index.htm

"Our trouble," explained Chicago's Stan Mikita, "has been that we no longer have the guy who always got the big goal for us when we needed it." Not having Hull has presented serious defensive problems for the Hawks, too. "Never, never have I had to stop—or try to stop—so many good scoring chances," said Goalie Tony Esposito. "When Bobby was on the ice for 30 minutes a game the other teams had to worry about him all that time. They couldn't get very ambitious themselves because Bobby would burn them at the other end. Without Bobby to worry about, they're not afraid to take liberties." Esposito shook his head. "We lost only 17 games all last year," he said, "but we've lost 14 games already—and we're not even halfway through the schedule."

Hart Voting and all star Selections: As Hockey Outsider's research shows, Hull won 2 Hart's, was Runner up for 2 More, and 3rd place for 4 more, with 1 more 5th place finish to top it off. There are few other players available who can match or exceed that total. In fact, the only 2 who do are Gordie Howe and Wayne Gretzky, while Beliveau ties him as 3a due to more 2nd place finishes. Directly after them are Orr, Lemieux and Shore, and 2 of those players would likely have passed Hull in shares if not for shortened careers. In any case, its fine company. Especially given the competition he was facing for those Shares.

His 10 1st team all stars and 2 Second teams in a fairly strong LW time in the NHL do not hurt either, nor do his 3 1st teams and two 2nd teams in the WHA.

WHA:When Hull left for the WHA, he was still a top Hockey player(Finished 2nd overall in goal scoring and top 7 in points). He has at least 5 WHA years that I think would be elite NHL years as well. Sure his PPG shot through the stratosphere in the WHA, but that is to be expected in a weaker league that was more run and gun than the defense first Hawks he was accustomed to.

As I see it, he has a total of 16 Elite pro Hockey years, and then 4 more years that were a step below Elite, but were still superstar caliber. He finishes 20th, 21st, 13th and 15th in points(Several of those years were top 10 in goals)

He also won 2 Gordie Howe MVP trophies in his 5 great WHA years. Obviously not Hart trophy caliber, but he was still one of the best in the world, and would have been top 5 In Hart voting in the NHL as well on given years.

Playoffs:Was a terrific playoff performer. His playoff PPG was nearly identical to his regular season PPG, and his PPG in the playoffs in the years the Hawks made the finals was a healthy jump from his PPG from the regular seasons in those years(14% higher in the playoffs). His most impressive Playoffs would have to be 64-65, when he lead his team in scoring to game 7 against the Montreal Dynasty with 10 goals and 17 points in 14 games(The next best Hawks scorer had 3 goals and 12 points), and his display of brilliance to the 71 finals against, again, Montreal, taking them to game 7. Hull had 11 goals and 25 points in 18 games

The Hawks should have won more cups, but I place the blame for them not winning more on other factors, and players in particular(Hall. But that is another debate).

When Someone asked me why I take Harvey over Bourque the other day and questioned how Bourque has Harvey beat in 8 years worth of Longevity, I responded by saying that Harvey's Peak/prime eclipses Bourque's and that his playoff play was among the best ever, canceling out the longevity edge.

If you are debating Hull for that 5th spot over Harvey, it should be close. But ultimately, Hull's peak/Prime was incredible enough to battle Harvey straight up(I would say their best 5-10 years wash each other out) and he also has a longevity edge on top of it. Harvey wins in the playoffs department, but Hull was no slouch either, raising his game when it counted.

In any case, it is close, but that is my case for Bobby Hull.
 
Last edited:

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,836
16,567
Interesting but Doug had a good season in 62-63 & then was gone from the NHL until expansion when he put up good numbers in 68-69. I am sure he could have helped some team in the intervening years.

I'm not sure if he was that bad at this point, but the famous Mats Sundin quote about Bryan Fogarty somewhat applied to Doug Harvey.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
True................

Interesting but Doug had a good season in 62-63 & then was gone from the NHL until expansion when he put up good numbers in 68-69. I am sure he could have helped some team in the intervening years.

True, he left after a handful of games in the 1963-64 season. Red Sullivan as coach with Doug Harvey as a player simply would not work on various levels given their previous history.

Your other observation supports the view that there were players outside the NHL in the AHL and other leagues who could definitely play in the NHL during the O6 era.
 

Howe Elbows 9

Registered User
Sep 16, 2007
3,833
378
Sweden
When discussing Shore vs Harvey at offense and playoff performances, I think Shore's playing style and its effect on his point totals has to be taken into consideration.

During Shore's playoff years, who were the most penalized players in the playoffs?

Player |Pos |GP |G |A |TP |PPG | PIM
Eddie Shore |D |55 |7 |12 |19 |0.35 |181
Red Horner |D |71 |7 |10 |17 |0.24 |170
Ching Johnson |D |61 |5 |2 |7 |0.11 |161
Hooley Smith |C |52 |11 |8 |19 |0.37 |95
King Clancy |D |47 |7 |8 |15 |0.32 |76
Lionel Hitchman |D |31 |2 |2 |4 |0.13 |69
Bill Cook |RW |46 |13 |11 |24 |0.52 |68
Sylvio Mantha |D |35 |5 |4 |9 |0.26 |64
Clarence Abel |D |38 |1 |1 |2 |0.05 |58
Earl Seibert |D |35 |9 |5 |14 |0.40 |58

And the most penalized players in the playoffs during Harvey's playoff years?

Player |Pos |GP |G |A |TP |PPG | PIM
Doug Harvey |D |129 |8 |60 |68 |0.53 |140
Ted Lindsay |LW |92 |37 |45 |82 |0.89 |138
Gordie Howe |RW |91 |40 |63 |103 |1.13 |117
Tom Johnson |D |111 |8 |15 |23 |0.21 |109
Maurice Richard |RW |99 |51 |28 |79 |0.80 |109
Jimmy Thomson |D |43 |1 |11 |12 |0.28 |104
Bert Olmstead |LW |115 |16 |43 |59 |0.51 |101
Dickie Moore |LW |107 |38 |55 |93 |0.87 |99
Jack Evans |D |50 |2 |2 |4 |0.08 |93
Dollard St. Laurent |D |92 |2 |22 |24 |0.26 |87

Compared to the second guy on their respective teams in the playoffs during these years, who provided the points and PIMs?

Player |GP |TP |C-TP
Bill Cowley |26 |23 |1.15
Dit Clapper |51 |20 |1.00
Cooney Weiland |36 |18 |0.90
Eddie Shore |52 |17 |0.85
Roy Conacher |18 |13 |0.65

Player | GP |PIM |C-PIM
Eddie Shore |52 |179 |2.59
Lionel Hitchman |31 |69 |1.00
Dit Clapper |51 |37 |0.54
Marty Barry |20 |26 |0.38
George Owen |21 |25 |0.36

Player |GP |TP |C-TP
Bernie Geoffrion |110 |111 |1.28
Dickie Moore |101 |87 |1.00
Jean Beliveau |69 |83 |0.95
Maurice Richard |99 |79 |0.91
Doug Harvey |123 |67 |0.77

Player | GP |PIM |C-PIM
Doug Harvey |123 |138 |1.27
Maurice Richard |99 |109 |1.00
Tom Johnson |111 |109 |1.00
Dickie Moore |101 |91 |0.83
Henri Richard |55 |86 |0.79

Does Harvey still have the edge in playoffs and offense? I'll concede that he probably does, but I thought that a statement like Shore's playoff ranking during his active years needed some clarification.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Coaching

Those "misconceptions" certainly haven't been "put to bed" on my part. I agree that Gordie's peak can be underrated, but there are serious questions about the competition level in the league when he put up his huge numbers. Top-end talent was relatively weak in the league in the early 1950s, and a huge percentage of the best talent in the league was playing on Detroit. Howe played on a line with the third best winger in the league (Lindsay) and his centres (Abel/Delvecchio) were among the best in the league. Maybe most importantly he had Red Kelly, by far the best offensive D-man in the league, on his team. He also never had to shoot on the best goalie in the world, because Sawchuk was playing behind him. The best competition Gordie Howe faced in those years was in practice.

Lemieux's best years came during what may have been the most talent-laden era in NHL history, the late 1980s and early-mid 1990s. While Lemieux played on some good teams, there was far more parity and competition than in Howe's heyday.

Also, you can't ignore the fact that Mario's greatness is on a per-game basis, and that means something to most people. While his seasonal production wasn't what it could have been if he had played every game, in the games that he played he was clearly the greatest player in the world. Greatness isn't only judged at the end of the season by looking at the stats - it's judged every time a player steps on the ice. Mario at his best dominated as much as anyone ever has.

First the concept of top end talent has never been clearly defined so the whole issue is rather vague from the start.

Next you have to look at the NHL coaching from the early fifties and onward. Tommy Ivan / Detroit was the only NHL coach who could coach the speed game. The other coaches from the era could not. Hap Day and Joe Primeau in Toronto were great at designing a defensive strategy to counter the speed game and win. The remaining coaches were dinosaurs like Dick Irvin Sr, who surpressed offensive talent like Doug Harvey while not having the basic sense(like Mike Keenan) to realize that your best player is more valuable on the ice then in the penalty box or fighting or other former players from the thirties who did not adapt to the speed game - Conacher, G. Boucher, Goodfellow, etc.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
183
Mass/formerly Ont
True, he left after a handful of games in the 1963-64 season. Red Sullivan as coach with Doug Harvey as a player simply would not work on various levels given their previous history.

Your other observation supports the view that there were players outside the NHL in the AHL and other leagues who could definitely play in the NHL during the O6 era.
Wasn't there a change in the waiver draft around that time. Could someone be sent to the minors without other teams being able to pick them up on waivers/
 

lextune

I'm too old for this.
Jun 9, 2008
11,773
3,021
New Hampshire
I really thought I put these types of misconceptions to bed in the last list. Why people have this impression that Lemieux's peak and dominance vs. his peers was higher than Howe's is beyond me. Gordie Howe was not some Phil Esposito garbage goal guy. He was every bit as skilled as Richard or Lemieux or Gretzky, and more dominating than all but one.
I don't have that impression (nor was I attempting to give it) at all.

I never eliminated Gordie (or Wayne for that matter) from the 'peak' debate. I was just arguing (however poorly worded), that there is a "Big Four" (as opposed to a "Big Three").
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Clarification

When discussing Shore vs Harvey at offense and playoff performances, I think Shore's playing style and its effect on his point totals has to be taken into consideration.

During Shore's playoff years, who were the most penalized players in the playoffs?

Player |Pos |GP |G |A |TP |PPG | PIM
Eddie Shore |D |55 |7 |12 |19 |0.35 |181
Red Horner |D |71 |7 |10 |17 |0.24 |170
Ching Johnson |D |61 |5 |2 |7 |0.11 |161
Hooley Smith |C |52 |11 |8 |19 |0.37 |95
King Clancy |D |47 |7 |8 |15 |0.32 |76
Lionel Hitchman |D |31 |2 |2 |4 |0.13 |69
Bill Cook |RW |46 |13 |11 |24 |0.52 |68
Sylvio Mantha |D |35 |5 |4 |9 |0.26 |64
Clarence Abel |D |38 |1 |1 |2 |0.05 |58
Earl Seibert |D |35 |9 |5 |14 |0.40 |58

And the most penalized players in the playoffs during Harvey's playoff years?

Player |Pos |GP |G |A |TP |PPG | PIM
Doug Harvey |D |129 |8 |60 |68 |0.53 |140
Ted Lindsay |LW |92 |37 |45 |82 |0.89 |138
Gordie Howe |RW |91 |40 |63 |103 |1.13 |117
Tom Johnson |D |111 |8 |15 |23 |0.21 |109
Maurice Richard |RW |99 |51 |28 |79 |0.80 |109
Jimmy Thomson |D |43 |1 |11 |12 |0.28 |104
Bert Olmstead |LW |115 |16 |43 |59 |0.51 |101
Dickie Moore |LW |107 |38 |55 |93 |0.87 |99
Jack Evans |D |50 |2 |2 |4 |0.08 |93
Dollard St. Laurent |D |92 |2 |22 |24 |0.26 |87

Compared to the second guy on their respective teams in the playoffs during these years, who provided the points and PIMs?

Player |GP |TP |C-TP
Bill Cowley |26 |23 |1.15
Dit Clapper |51 |20 |1.00
Cooney Weiland |36 |18 |0.90
Eddie Shore |52 |17 |0.85
Roy Conacher |18 |13 |0.65

Player | GP |PIM |C-PIM
Eddie Shore |52 |179 |2.59
Lionel Hitchman |31 |69 |1.00
Dit Clapper |51 |37 |0.54
Marty Barry |20 |26 |0.38
George Owen |21 |25 |0.36

Player |GP |TP |C-TP
Bernie Geoffrion |110 |111 |1.28
Dickie Moore |101 |87 |1.00
Jean Beliveau |69 |83 |0.95
Maurice Richard |99 |79 |0.91
Doug Harvey |123 |67 |0.77

Player | GP |PIM |C-PIM
Doug Harvey |123 |138 |1.27
Maurice Richard |99 |109 |1.00
Tom Johnson |111 |109 |1.00
Dickie Moore |101 |91 |0.83
Henri Richard |55 |86 |0.79

Does Harvey still have the edge in playoffs and offense? I'll concede that he probably does, but I thought that a statement like Shore's playoff ranking during his active years needed some clarification.

Sure needs clarification. Over the life of their careers Doug Harvey averaged ~ 1.2 PMG per game while Eddie Shore averaged ~3.3 PMG
in an era where the 10 minute misconduct was rare. Also in some of the series when the first place Bruins were upset, rather common 1930's happening Shore averaged ~ 5.0 PMG.

Again the best players have to stay on the ice. Goes along way towards explaining the difference in Stanley Cups winning teams that Shore and Doug Harvey played on.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
183
Mass/formerly Ont
Sure needs clarification. Over the life of their careers Doug Harvey averaged ~ 1.2 PMG per game while Eddie Shore averaged ~3.3 PMG
in an era where the 10 minute misconduct was rare. Also in some of the series when the first place Bruins were upset, rather common 1930's happening Shore averaged ~ 5.0 PMG.

Again the best players have to stay on the ice. Goes along way towards explaining the difference in Stanley Cups winning teams that Shore and Doug Harvey played on.
I think PMG is quite meaningless. I think Doug Harvey is great but he won all those SC's because he played on great teams. Those Montreal teams of the late 50's had incredible talent
 

Ad

Upcoming events

  • Finland vs Norway
    Finland vs Norway
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $300.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Slovakia vs USA
    Slovakia vs USA
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $150.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Lecce vs Udinese
    Lecce vs Udinese
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $50.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Czechia vs Switzerland
    Czechia vs Switzerland
    Wagers: 4
    Staked: $875.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Sweden vs Germany
    Sweden vs Germany
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad