Round 2, Vote 1 (2009 update)

[DaveG]

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'm not sure if it was trying to be argued as a positive or a negative, but personally I see it as a negative for the same reason you state. It's one thing to play with a serious edge to your game but to take yourself off the ice for significant stretches for each game when you're one of if not the best player in the league then you're doing a disservice to your team in the process.

 

[MXD]

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

The thing is... of all those great talents, he was probably the best of them all.

 

[pappyline]

The thing is... of all those great talents, he was probably the best of them all.

Agree and I rate him higher than all the other stars on those teams.. However if he had played for Boston, chicago, NY, he wouldn't have won those cups & probably wouldn't have been rated so highly..

 

[Canadiens1958]

June Draft

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/

Players could only be claimed at the June Intra League draft. Established players could be sent down on a whim.

Two weeks into the season the teams were set.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pmg

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

Old adage that games are rarely won but often lost.PMG is not meaningless when you are losing. Shore during his Boston career played on six regular season first place teams but those first place teams only resulted in one SC for him and Art Ross.

Killing penalties is more tiring than playing at even strength.

If the respective teams played each other a coach would be thrilled to have an extra two minutes per game from an elite defenseman.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think you have the voter bias backwards. It's not that Shore benefited, it's that Harvey was hurt by a voter bias. (And Colville didn't play defence until a few years after Shore retired.) From all my research of the 1930's, near as I can tell, defence was the dominant position. After Gardiner died, goaltending struggled. Forwards were having the same kind of odd parity that existed in the end of the dead puck era that indicates a lack of high end quality.

Fair enough, but I don't think it really matters whether Shore benefited from more generous voters, or whether Harvey was penalized by voter bias. Either way, Shore really benefited in Hart voting simply due to the era he played in.

As I discuss below there are definitely different standards for defensemen & Hart voting in Shore and Harvey's eras and I don't think the quality of defensemen in their eras can account for that difference.

I agree.I think Ray Bourque deserves to be compared with these two and I don't see why you left him out of this comparision.

For the record I agree that Bourque, Harvey and Shore are quite close. I was trying to focus specifically on Harvey and Shore as these two are often compared to each other.

Shore played in a league with more forwards, which meant he had to compete against more first liners.

This is a valid point -- it would make it a bit harder for Shore to rank higher among the league's top scorers.

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.

This is a valid point as well, though it's tough to say how much of an impact this had.

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.

I think this clearly shows the different standards during their eras. The fact remains that Gadsby and Pilote were elite defensemen and got basically no Hart votes during their careers while clearly inferior defensemen like Coulter, Dutton, Hitchman, etc earned votes during Shore's era.

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

I don't think anyone is saying that Harvey is a great player because he won six Stanley Cups -- but it is fair to say that Harvey was a great player because he really improved his level of performance in the playoffs. In my post I showed that Harvey's level of offense increased significantly, even more than Richard, Beliveau, Geoffrion, etc. The fact that Harvey stepped up his game, more than any of his numerous HOF teammates, is significant.

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.

Jekyll, you make a good case for Hull. Of course, it's tough to compare (excuse the simplification) an offensive winger to a two-way defenseman. I'm debating between Harvey and Hull for 5th place and it's tough to make a persuasive argument for either one. I mean, how do you compare seven Norris trophies to seven goal-scoring titles?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

From 1950 to 1959, the top ten scorers (excluding Howe) were Lindsay, Richard, Geoffrion, Olmstead, Beliveau, Kelly, Sloan, Moore, Bathgate and Delvecchio.

From 1987 to 1996, the top ten scorers (excluding Lemieux) were Gretzky, Yzerman, Messier, Robitaille, Oates, Gilmour, Francis, Hawerchuk, Hull and Lafontaine.

Overall I think Howe faced slighlty tougher competition. Obviously Lemieux competed against Gretzky but Howe faced 7 players ranked in our previous list's top sixty (versus 3 for Lemieux). Howe faced 8 players on our top one hundred (versus 4 for Lemieux). I'd argue that Lemieux faced more star players (ie Hawerchuk, Oates, etc) but in terms of elite, generational talent (who would be most likely to actually compete with Howe for the Hart & Art Ross) Howe faced tougher competition.

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.

Obviously it can't be denied that Howe played with good teammates, but I think you're exaggerating the impact it had. Howe & Lindsay played together in 1957; Howe scored 89 points (1st in league) and Lindsay scored 85 pts (2nd in league). Lindsay was traded to Chicago the next year and fell to just 39 points (31st in the league) while Howe lead the league in scoring on a per-game basis (though he finished 4th in the actual scoring race due to missing six games). When they split up, Howe still maintained Art Ross level production and only Lindsay showed any signs of slowing down.

Howe won the Art Ross in 1963 without Red Kelly, and won the Ross in 1957 when Kelly had an uncharacteristic off year. (Since we're talking about Howe vs Lemieux, it's worth mentioning that Lemieux had Coffey for a few of his Art Ross seasons).

Abel retired in 1952, so Howe still won four Art Ross trophies without him. (Of the two Art Ross trophies Howe won with him, Abel was 25 points behind in 1951 and 33 points behind in 1952, so it's unlikely Abel was the main reason for his success).

I think there's evidence that Sawchuk was at least partially a product of the Wings' strong defensive play, but I'll save that for another time.

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.

Agreed that Mario dominated as much as any of the big four, but even if he was slightly better than Gretzky or Howe I don't think it makes up for either of their enormous advantage in consistency and longevity. FissionFire has already shown that, at the very least, Howe and Lemieux have comparable peaks -- but Howe was a Hart trophy finalist fifteen times while Lemieux only played 40+ games in a season thirteen times. Lemieux's peak advantage, if any, is very small and it just doesn't make up for Howe's massive advantage with so many Hart calibre seasons.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

I'm not sure if it was trying to be argued as a positive or a negative, but personally I see it as a negative for the same reason you state. It's one thing to play with a serious edge to your game but to take yourself off the ice for significant stretches for each game when you're one of if not the best player in the league then you're doing a disservice to your team in the process.

It can be both positive and negative, in most cases it's a normal result of a certain playing style. Let's look into the 'penalties will cost your team/might cause you to lose games' argument.

Top 5 most penalized defensemen in the playoffs:

Player |GP |TP |PPG |PIM
Chris Chelios |266 |144 |0.54 |423
Scott Stevens |233 |118 |0.51 |402
Marty McSorley |115 |29 |0.25 |374
Andre Dupont |140 |32 |0.23 |352
Dave Manson |112 |31 |0.28 |343

There's a Broad Street Bully, two HOFers and two others. One of them never won the Cup.

Let's assume that the HOFers could have cut the PIMs in half by making changes to their playing style. Would that have made their play more or less effective? Would that have helped their respective teams win more games?

Top 5 most penalized defensemen in the playoffs, 1918-1968:

Player |GP |TP |PPG |PIM
Eddie Shore |55 |19 |0.35 |181
Red Horner |71 |17 |0.24 |170
Ching Johnson |61 |7 |0.11 |161
Doug Harvey |137 |72 |0.53 |152
Jack Stewart |80 |19 |0.24 |143

These five (HOFers) combine for 13 Stanley Cups, 4 Hart Trophies, 7 Norris Trophies and 22 First All-Star Team selections. So I'll ask again: Would cutting their penalties in half by changes made to their playing style have made their play more or less effective? Would that have helped their respective teams win more games?

 

[DaveG]

It all breaks down into the context of the roles the players were in for me. I would argue that Chelios and Stevens did not hurt their teams overly much based on how the PIM/Game breaks down. It's still essentially less then 1 penalty per game assuming all penalities were 2 minute minors (which they obviously weren't). It was their role to "police" in the case of Manson and McSorely, either way neither would have made my top 25 players in the league for any single season they played. Dupont is somewhat different but his PIM numbers fit the persona of the team he played on more then anything he did individually.

Shore I would put well above either Stevens and Chelios in terms of his importance to teams so I personally view his rather high PIM/game ratio as a negative. Obviously not too much of one since I'm still juding him as a top 10 all time player, but enough so that I would put him behind Bourque and Harvey with all other things being relatively equal. And hopefully I'm not coming across as obsessed about this, Shore is hardly Tiger Williams in terms of his penalties.

I would argue that cutting their PIMs in half in the case of Harvey and Stewart would have reduced their effectiveness by a slight margin, but in the case of Johnson and Shore would have made them more effective by a similar margin. To me it's somewhat of a fine line with physical play and PIMs. But I still think that if you're in the box for over 3 minutes a game (Shore) that can be a limit on your effectiveness as a player if you are among the elite in the sport.

 

[Canadiens1958]

PMG Maters

It can be both positive and negative, in most cases it's a normal result of a certain playing style. Let's look into the 'penalties will cost your team/might cause you to lose games' argument.

Top 5 most penalized defensemen in the playoffs:

Player |GP |TP |PPG |PIM
Chris Chelios |266 |144 |0.54 |423
Scott Stevens |233 |118 |0.51 |402
Marty McSorley |115 |29 |0.25 |374
Andre Dupont |140 |32 |0.23 |352
Dave Manson |112 |31 |0.28 |343

There's a Broad Street Bully, two HOFers and two others. One of them never won the Cup.

Let's assume that the HOFers could have cut the PIMs in half by making changes to their playing style. Would that have made their play more or less effective? Would that have helped their respective teams win more games?

Top 5 most penalized defensemen in the playoffs, 1918-1968:

Player |GP |TP |PPG |PIM
Eddie Shore |55 |19 |0.35 |181
Red Horner |71 |17 |0.24 |170
Ching Johnson |61 |7 |0.11 |161
Doug Harvey |137 |72 |0.53 |152
Jack Stewart |80 |19 |0.24 |143

These five (HOFers) combine for 13 Stanley Cups, 4 Hart Trophies, 7 Norris Trophies and 22 First All-Star Team selections. So I'll ask again: Would cutting their penalties in half by changes made to their playing style have made their play more or less effective? Would that have helped their respective teams win more games?

Your use of the data is interesting. Doug Harvey contributes six of the Stanley Cups so the remaining seven SCs are contributed by 4 players .

The PMG figures for Harvey between the the regular season and the playoff barely vary ~ 1.09 to 1.11PMG. Insignificant because you are not playing the weaker non-play off teams.

Now if you look at your charts you will notice that Eddie Shore played the fewest number of playoff games 55 amongst all the defensemen listed yet had the highest swing in PMG regular season ~1.90 PMG vs 3.29 PMG in the playoffs. During their careers Eddie Shore played on six first place teams while Doug Harvey played on only five first place teams.

For the other HHOF defensemen the PMG swing regular season to playoffs is from ~ -.15 to +.8. Consensus seems to be that Eddie Shore was vastly superior to Ching Johnson, Jack Stewart, Red Horner even Andre Dupont and regular season standings reveal that Eddie Shore played on better teams yet his playoff success is below expectations on a par second/third level HHOF defensemen. Why?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

You may feel Lemieux was the "best" player to ever lace up skates, but at some point the reality of what he actually accomplished has to set in.

Lemieux was top 5 in points 9 seasons
Gretzky was top 5 in points 16 seasons
Howe was top 5 in points 20 seasons

Gretzky dominated the league to a much greater extent than Lemieux ever did, and Howe actually had a very similar level of domination to Lemieux. It's not like you're tacking on mediocore seasons in these players' careers -- they are premiere seasons where they were on top of the entire league, 7-11 extra years of them. With the benefit of hindsight, as a GM, I know what player I would select last of these three, and it is an easy choice. Howe and Gretzky simply brought a lot more value.

I agree with the sentiment that Bourque is extremely close to Harvey and Shore, and the arguments for Harvey over Shore are very compelling, it's just hard to shake the notion that Shore was the "Gretzky" of his time -- adjusting stats for eras (at 6 GPG) has Shore scoring 80+ pts multiple seasons and Harvey cracking 60 pts only a couple times.

 

[BM67]

Here are some dominance numbers to compare. They compare the player to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finisher in goals, assists and points each year in the NHL.

BG1 = Best year; CG1 = Career Total; AG1 = Average Season

Player|GP|G|Yrs|BG1|CG1|AG1|BG2|CG2|AG2|BG3|CG3|AG3|BG4|CG4|AG4
Jean Beliveau | 1,125 | 507 | 20 | 1.000000 | 11.235290 | 0.561765 | 1.236842 | 13.141593 | 0.657080 | 1.236842 | 14.066420 | 0.703321 | 1.270270 | 15.190046 | 0.759502
Raymond Bourque | 1,612 | 410 | 22| 0.397059 | 6.221912 | 0.282814 | 0.553571 | 7.266155 | 0.330280 | 0.574074 | 7.659124 | 0.348142 | 0.574074 | 7.939604 | 0.360891
Wayne Gretzky | 1,487 | 894 | 20 | 1.000000 | 12.781412 | 0.639071 | 1.553571 | 15.113244 | 0.755662 | 1.611111 | 16.048927 | 0.802446 | 1.611111 | 16.736367 | 0.836818
Doug Harvey | 1,113 | 88 | 19 | 0.250000 | 2.136288 | 0.112436 | 0.272727 | 2.494193 | 0.131273 | 0.281250 | 2.684829 | 0.141307 | 0.281250 | 2.829748 | 0.148934
Gordie Howe | 1,767 | 801 | 26 | 1.000000 | 18.061553 | 0.694675 | 1.531250 | 21.761199 | 0.836969 | 1.633333 | 23.397352 | 0.899898 | 1.750000 | 24.922218 | 0.958547
Bobby Hull | 1,063 | 610 | 16 | 1.000000 | 12.452859 | 0.778304 | 1.515152 | 15.265888 | 0.954118 | 1.677419 | 16.525413 | 1.032838 | 1.857143 | 17.761089 | 1.110068
Mario Lemieux | 915 | 690 | 17 | 1.000000 | 10.211155 | 0.600656 | 1.250000 | 11.532288 | 0.678370 | 1.307692 | 12.315541 | 0.724444 | 1.574074 | 13.036644 | 0.766861
Stan Mikita | 1,394 | 541 | 22 | 0.909091 | 10.458519 | 0.475387 | 1.000000 | 12.480998 | 0.567318 | 1.129032 | 13.411836 | 0.609629 | 1.250000 | 14.426579 | 0.655754
Howie Morenz | 550 | 271 | 14 | 1.000000 | 8.480870 | 0.605776 | 1.178571 | 9.739780 | 0.695699 | 1.222222 | 10.499063 | 0.749933 | 1.434783 | 11.497062 | 0.821219
Bobby Orr | 657 | 270 | 12 | 0.767442 | 4.606538 | 0.383878 | 0.867925 | 5.561819 | 0.463485 | 0.884615 | 5.857380 | 0.488115 | 0.920000 | 6.198236 | 0.516520
Maurice Richard | 978 | 544 | 18 | 1.000000 | 13.248896 | 0.736050 | 1.562500 | 16.143698 | 0.896872 | 1.724138 | 17.200204 | 0.955567 | 1.724138 | 18.090163 | 1.005009
Eddie Shore | 550 | 105 | 14 | 0.545455 | 3.509497 | 0.250678 | 0.571429 | 3.891834 | 0.277988 | 0.666667 | 4.217710 | 0.301265 | 0.705882 | 4.666857 | 0.333347

G1 3C = Best 3 Consecutive years; G1 5 = Best 5 Years

Player|G1 3C|G2 3C|G3 3C|G4 3C|G1 5|G2 5|G3 5|G4 5
Jean Beliveau | 2.723684 | 3.210526 | 3.236842 | 3.426136 | 4.595479 | 5.214337 | 5.361842 | 5.848869
Raymond Bourque | 1.008181 | 1.168595 | 1.285568 | 1.323675 | 1.842674 | 2.236496 | 2.312512 | 2.331245
Wayne Gretzky | 3.000000 | 4.066829 | 4.327778 | 4.529452 | 5.000000 | 6.163964 | 6.734547 | 7.004873
Doug Harvey | 0.492747 | 0.586124 | 0.609195 | 0.639153 | 0.914321 | 1.048413 | 1.120748 | 1.152546
Gordie Howe | 3.000000 | 4.071189 | 4.587097 | 4.750000 |5.000000 | 6.431549 | 7.058361 | 7.347222
Bobby Hull | 3.000000 | 4.273214 | 4.764182 | 4.991935 | 5.000000 | 6.974603 | 7.463007 | 7.989846
Mario Lemieux | 2.870968 | 3.395320 | 3.580420 | 3.894829 | 4.869433 | 5.488616 | 5.834965 | 6.316990
Stan Mikita | 2.389433 | 2.937500 | 3.122415 | 3.360599 | 4.211911 | 4.866071 | 5.122415 | 5.764001
Howie Morenz | 2.702960 | 3.000000 | 3.166667 | 3.750572 | 4.363761 | 5.020848 | 5.222222 | 5.933250
Bobby Orr | 1.814890 | 2.251204 | 2.427063 | 2.516120 | 3.096261 | 3.734514 | 3.939129 | 4.095211
Maurice Richard | 2.808511 | 3.933468 | 4.155172 | 4.275862 | 5.000000 | 6.412284 | 7.119545 | 7.528991
Eddie Shore | 1.308395 | 1.444286 | 1.554074 | 1.815722 | 2.012009 | 2.240582 | 2.423122 | 2.779359

Hopefully I'll get assists and points up later today.

 

[BM67]

As for Shore's teams lack of playoff success compared to the regular season, remember that Shore played in a time where the top 2 teams/division winners met in the first round of the playoffs. Being first generally got you the hardest first round series.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

Consensus seems to be that Eddie Shore was vastly superior to Ching Johnson, Jack Stewart, Red Horner even Andre Dupont and regular season standings reveal that Eddie Shore played on better teams yet his playoff success is below expectations on a par second/third level HHOF defensemen. Why?

Individuals don't win the Stanley Cup. Teams win the Cup. Not even Gretzky could carry an entire team on his back, although he came really close in 1993. There's a reason why we can vote for Maurice Richard, Beliveau and Plante along with Harvey as some of the top 15 players of all time, and not any of Shore's team mates.

It all breaks down into the context of the roles the players were in for me.

...

I would argue that cutting their PIMs in half in the case of Harvey and Stewart would have reduced their effectiveness by a slight margin, but in the case of Johnson and Shore would have made them more effective by a similar margin. To me it's somewhat of a fine line with physical play and PIMs. But I still think that if you're in the box for over 3 minutes a game (Shore) that can be a limit on your effectiveness as a player if you are among the elite in the sport.

The point I was trying to make earlier is basically what you're saying - that it's a matter of their roles on their teams and that it's a fine line between having a positive and negative influence in this matter. And where should we choose to draw the line?

Now, why don't we take a look at how Shore's different seasons add up, and just look at PIMs.

Regular season

Season |GP |PIM |% of career PIM
1926-27|40 |130 |12.4
1927-28 |43 |165 |15.8
1928-29 |39 |96 |9.2
1929-30 |42 |105 |10.0
1930-31 |44 |105 |10.0
1931-32 |45 |80 |7.6
1932-33 |48 |102 |9.7
1933-34 |30 |57 |5.4
1934-35 |48 |32 |3.1
1935-36 |45 |61 |5.8
1936-37 |20 |12 |0.6
1937-38 |48 |42 |4.0
1938-39 |44 |47 |4.5
1939-40 |14 |13 |1.2
| 550 | 1047

At some point during the 1930-31 season, Eddie has collected half of all the penalty minutes he's going to get. Following the 1932-33 season two things happen; Eddie is dominant enough in the league to win consecutive Harts, and he takes less penalties. So I'd say that 'Hart winner spends 3 minutes every game in the penalty box, ruining his teams chances of winning' just isn't a correct interpretation of the stats. But wait, were the Bruins great in the regular season and then folded in the playoffs because of Shore's antics?

Playoffs

Year |GP |PIM |% of career playoff PIM
1927 |8 |40 |22.1
1928 |2 |8 |4.4
1929 |5 |28 |15.5
1930 |6 |26 |14.4
1931 |5 |24 |13.3
1933 |5 |14 |7.7
1935 |4 |2 |1.1
1936 |2 |12 |6.6
1938 |3 |6 |3.3
1939 |12 |19 |10.5
1940 |3 |2 |1.1
| 55 | 181

In the regular season 50% was reached during the 1930-31 season, here 50% is reached during the 1930 playoffs. Even so, the Bruins won the Cups in the years when Eddie had his second and fifth highest playoff PIMs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Counterpoint

As for Shore's teams lack of playoff success compared to the regular season, remember that Shore played in a time where the top 2 teams/division winners met in the first round of the playoffs. Being first generally got you the hardest first round series.

Also true for the other first place team compensated by the fact that the two, first place teams would have to win only two series while the others would have to win three series to win the Stanley Cup.

Once past the first round the final would feature a team having played one series against a team having played two series.Net advantage in terms of fatigue.

Still comes down to two issues. When you are playing better teams there is an advantage to having your best player on the ice longer.
To win the Stanley Cup you have to beat the other teams regardless of the rankings in the most efficient fashion. With Eddie Shore the Bruins fell short in both areas.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

The Bruins were as succesful as the Canadiens, Black Hawks and Red Wings during Shore's active years as far as Cup wins go, and only trailing the Rangers. How is that a failure on Eddie's part? Do you feel that Shore should have been able to carry his teams to more Cups on his own to really be effective?

Sorry, but if that's your criteria for a truly great player, you're out of luck.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Why Hasek deserves to be ranked higher

It seems many struggle with where to put goaltenders, whether in the top 10 or outside of it....

Asides from the obvious that a goaltender is usually the most important player on the ice, I'd like to make a case that the top goaltender(s) easily belongs in the Top 10 of all-time, and could actually compete for that #5 spot most have Hull at.

I think it is a handy comparison between Hasek (whom I do consider the greatest goalie of all-time) and Hull because while Hull spent a portion of his career lighting up the WHA, Hasek spent a portion of career earning top goalie (5 times) and player (3 times) awards in Czechoslovakia.

Comparing awards first:

Hart:
2 = Hasek with 3 more top 3 finishes
2 = Hull with 6 more top 3 finishes

I consider this pretty darn even, as only 6 goalies have ever won the Hart in the history of the NHL, and Hasek is the only to win 2.... this may even be an edge to Hasek. Both could be considered "best player in the world" for a stretch.

Vezina & Art Ross (essentially top awards for goalies and forwards):
6 = Hasek
3 = Hull (3 runner-ups)

Edge to Hasek.

All-Star Teams:
6 (1st Team) for Hasek
10 (1st Team) and 2 (2nd Team) for Hull

Definite advantage for Hull. He led the left-wing position (though not as much as the "forward" postition) for longer than Hasek dominated as goalie. Hasek had much better competition for goalie than Hull did for left wing.

Both players have won a Stanley Cup (Hasek technically has 2), carried less than spectacular teams, elevating their play in the playoffs and have had Conn-Smythe worthy performances (though I would argue Hasek in '99 is greater than any Bobby Hull post-season performance).

Looking at individual statistics and trying to compare them:

Points vs. Save Percentage (I'd argue these are the two most important ind. stats at their respective position):
6 = times Hasek led the league in SV %, with 3 more top 5 finishes
3 = times Hull led the league in points, with 5 more top 5 finishes

Definite advantage to Hasek.

Goals vs. Shutouts (your "glamorous" ind. stat):
4 = times Hasek led the league in shutouts, with 3 more top 5 finishes
7 = times Hull led the league in goals, with 5 more top 5 finishes

Large advantage to Hull.

Assists vs. Goals Against Average (both arguably have a lot to do with team):
2 = Hasek with 7 more top 5 finishes
0 = Hull with 3 top 5 finishes

Huge advantage to Hasek

Level of dominance over peers:
I have to think Hasek's domination over his peers and the rest of the NHL in his two Hart seasons was greater than Hull's. In their two Hart years:

Hasek received 50 out of 54 1st place votes in 1997 (92.6%)
43 out of 55 1st place votes in 1998 (78.2%)
Hull received 88 out of 143 1st place points in 1965 (61.5%)
79 out of 143 1st place points in 1966 (55.2%)

I think peak pretty easily goes to Hasek.
Hasek also fares significantly better in international play.
Hull has better longevity, though Hasek was stuck behind the Iron Curtain and Eddie Belfour for years and won the Vezina his very first year as a starter in the NHL.

Are these players that far apart?

Are the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th best defensemen all-time better than the greatest goalie in history?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Consider

Individuals don't win the Stanley Cup. Teams win the Cup. Not even Gretzky could carry an entire team on his back, although he came really close in 1993. There's a reason why we can vote for Maurice Richard, Beliveau and Plante along with Harvey as some of the top 15 players of all time, and not any of Shore's team mates.



The point I was trying to make earlier is basically what you're saying - that it's a matter of their roles on their teams and that it's a fine line between having a positive and negative influence in this matter. And where should we choose to draw the line?

Now, why don't we take a look at how Shore's different seasons add up, and just look at PIMs.

Regular season

Season |GP |PIM |% of career PIM
1926-27|40 |130 |12.4
1927-28 |43 |165 |15.8
1928-29 |39 |96 |9.2
1929-30 |42 |105 |10.0
1930-31 |44 |105 |10.0
1931-32 |45 |80 |7.6
1932-33 |48 |102 |9.7
1933-34 |30 |57 |5.4
1934-35 |48 |32 |3.1
1935-36 |45 |61 |5.8
1936-37 |20 |12 |0.6
1937-38 |48 |42 |4.0
1938-39 |44 |47 |4.5
1939-40 |14 |13 |1.2
| 550 | 1047

At some point during the 1930-31 season, Eddie has collected half of all the penalty minutes he's going to get. Following the 1932-33 season two things happen; Eddie is dominant enough in the league to win consecutive Harts, and he takes less penalties. So I'd say that 'Hart winner spends 3 minutes every game in the penalty box, ruining his teams chances of winning' just isn't a correct interpretation of the stats. But wait, were the Bruins great in the regular season and then folded in the playoffs because of Shore's antics?

Playoffs

Year |GP |PIM |% of career playoff PIM
1927 |8 |40 |22.1
1928 |2 |8 |4.4
1929 |5 |28 |15.5
1930 |6 |26 |14.4
1931 |5 |24 |13.3
1933 |5 |14 |7.7
1935 |4 |2 |1.1
1936 |2 |12 |6.6
1938 |3 |6 |3.3
1939 |12 |19 |10.5
1940 |3 |2 |1.1
| 55 | 181

In the regular season 50% was reached during the 1930-31 season, here 50% is reached during the 1930 playoffs. Even so, the Bruins won the Cups in the years when Eddie had his second and fifth highest playoff PIMs.

Consider the following.

Eddie Shore won his consecutive Hart Trophies when Frank Patrick a great PCHA rushing defenseman who once scored six goals coached the Bruins, winning the fourth after Patrick left.All four Harts were after his penalty minutes started decreasing, three times after his prime and when the PMG were decreasing. Indicating that his value was on the ice and not in the penalty box

Thru the 1930 playoffs Eddie Shore had a playoff PMG surpassing 5.
Afterwards it dropped to under 2 PMG with one bad year when the Bruins were eliminated in two games. His last SC win saw 19 PIM in 12 games.

Richard's PIM and PMG dropped significantly after Blake became coach and the "Incidents" that marked his career with Dick Irvin as coach stopped. Result five consecutive Stanley Cups. Also Beliveau saw his PIM totals decline during the five consecutive Stanley Cup run.

Simply the best players have to play.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Rabbins Hull was a LW not a RW, which means he was the greatest ever at his position. This is also undisputed, whereas, many do not consider Hasek the best goalie ever.

Comparing goals,assists,points to GAA, SO, and SV% is pretty useless. Which is equivalent to which??? If you set it up differently, with goals vs. SV% and points vs. SO it looks more like Hull and Hasek each win one and the third is a tie.

Some of the other stats and points you made are good, but it really just comes back to the fact that it's extremely hard to compare a forward/defenseman and a goalie.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Rabbins Hull was a LW not a RW, which means he was the greatest ever at his position. This is also undisputed, whereas, many do not consider Hasek the best goalie ever.

Comparing goals,assists,points to GAA, SO, and SV% is pretty useless. Which is equivalent to which??? If you set it up differently, with goals vs. SV% and points vs. SO it looks more like Hull and Hasek each win one and the third is a tie.

Some of the other stats and points you made are good, but it really just comes back to the fact that it's extremely hard to compare a forward/defenseman and a goalie.

Ha, oops!

Though I think the best goalie ever should have a fair shake at competing for the 5-10 spots, especially ahead of the #2-4 best defensemen and #4-8 best forwards. If Hasek was not stuck behind the Iron Curtain and playing for a pretty awful Sabres team in his prime, I think very few would argue against him being the greatest ever. Even ignoring that, he comes up incredibly strong for #1. It's actually harder to argue any of the other top goalies can compete with Bobby Hull.

I think most can give credence that as far as ind. stats go, for forwards the following is relatively accetable: Points > Goals > Assists and for goalies: Save Percentage > Goals Against Average > Shutouts

I probably should have compared GAA to Goals and SOs to Assists -- which would end in two draws instead of a big win for each player. But the end result is the same -- I think these are 2 very comparable players.

No matter how you set up the comparisons (I like mine, but admit it is subjective and dicey at best), they both come away being very comparable players at their respective positions.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

Although I kind of see your point and agree with you on Patrick being a good influence, I can't agree with everything you say.

I'll be blunt: Would you say that the calmer Shore (no pun intended) was a great player? Is one conclusion of your argument that the more dominant Shore was great, but that his peak years aren't enough to overshadow Harvey's career?

More importantly, I still think you are seeing individual efforts in winning Cups as more important than they are, as one player can't win it on his own. That even goes for Gretzky, Howe, Orr and Lemieux.

 

[seventieslord]

Here are some dominance numbers to compare. They compare the player to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place finisher in goals, assists and points each year in the NHL.

BG1 = Best year; CG1 = Career Total; AG1 = Average Season

Player|GP|G|Yrs|BG1|CG1|AG1|BG2|CG2|AG2|BG3|CG3|AG3|BG4|CG4|AG4
Jean Beliveau | 1,125 | 507 | 20 | 1.000000 | 11.235290 | 0.561765 | 1.236842 | 13.141593 | 0.657080 | 1.236842 | 14.066420 | 0.703321 | 1.270270 | 15.190046 | 0.759502
Raymond Bourque | 1,612 | 410 | 22| 0.397059 | 6.221912 | 0.282814 | 0.553571 | 7.266155 | 0.330280 | 0.574074 | 7.659124 | 0.348142 | 0.574074 | 7.939604 | 0.360891
Wayne Gretzky | 1,487 | 894 | 20 | 1.000000 | 12.781412 | 0.639071 | 1.553571 | 15.113244 | 0.755662 | 1.611111 | 16.048927 | 0.802446 | 1.611111 | 16.736367 | 0.836818
Doug Harvey | 1,113 | 88 | 19 | 0.250000 | 2.136288 | 0.112436 | 0.272727 | 2.494193 | 0.131273 | 0.281250 | 2.684829 | 0.141307 | 0.281250 | 2.829748 | 0.148934
Gordie Howe | 1,767 | 801 | 26 | 1.000000 | 18.061553 | 0.694675 | 1.531250 | 21.761199 | 0.836969 | 1.633333 | 23.397352 | 0.899898 | 1.750000 | 24.922218 | 0.958547
Bobby Hull | 1,063 | 610 | 16 | 1.000000 | 12.452859 | 0.778304 | 1.515152 | 15.265888 | 0.954118 | 1.677419 | 16.525413 | 1.032838 | 1.857143 | 17.761089 | 1.110068
Mario Lemieux | 915 | 690 | 17 | 1.000000 | 10.211155 | 0.600656 | 1.250000 | 11.532288 | 0.678370 | 1.307692 | 12.315541 | 0.724444 | 1.574074 | 13.036644 | 0.766861
Stan Mikita | 1,394 | 541 | 22 | 0.909091 | 10.458519 | 0.475387 | 1.000000 | 12.480998 | 0.567318 | 1.129032 | 13.411836 | 0.609629 | 1.250000 | 14.426579 | 0.655754
Howie Morenz | 550 | 271 | 14 | 1.000000 | 8.480870 | 0.605776 | 1.178571 | 9.739780 | 0.695699 | 1.222222 | 10.499063 | 0.749933 | 1.434783 | 11.497062 | 0.821219
Bobby Orr | 657 | 270 | 12 | 0.767442 | 4.606538 | 0.383878 | 0.867925 | 5.561819 | 0.463485 | 0.884615 | 5.857380 | 0.488115 | 0.920000 | 6.198236 | 0.516520
Maurice Richard | 978 | 544 | 18 | 1.000000 | 13.248896 | 0.736050 | 1.562500 | 16.143698 | 0.896872 | 1.724138 | 17.200204 | 0.955567 | 1.724138 | 18.090163 | 1.005009
Eddie Shore | 550 | 105 | 14 | 0.545455 | 3.509497 | 0.250678 | 0.571429 | 3.891834 | 0.277988 | 0.666667 | 4.217710 | 0.301265 | 0.705882 | 4.666857 | 0.333347

G1 3C = Best 3 Consecutive years; G1 5 = Best 5 Years

Player|G1 3C|G2 3C|G3 3C|G4 3C|G1 5|G2 5|G3 5|G4 5
Jean Beliveau | 2.723684 | 3.210526 | 3.236842 | 3.426136 | 4.595479 | 5.214337 | 5.361842 | 5.848869
Raymond Bourque | 1.008181 | 1.168595 | 1.285568 | 1.323675 | 1.842674 | 2.236496 | 2.312512 | 2.331245
Wayne Gretzky | 3.000000 | 4.066829 | 4.327778 | 4.529452 | 5.000000 | 6.163964 | 6.734547 | 7.004873
Doug Harvey | 0.492747 | 0.586124 | 0.609195 | 0.639153 | 0.914321 | 1.048413 | 1.120748 | 1.152546
Gordie Howe | 3.000000 | 4.071189 | 4.587097 | 4.750000 |5.000000 | 6.431549 | 7.058361 | 7.347222
Bobby Hull | 3.000000 | 4.273214 | 4.764182 | 4.991935 | 5.000000 | 6.974603 | 7.463007 | 7.989846
Mario Lemieux | 2.870968 | 3.395320 | 3.580420 | 3.894829 | 4.869433 | 5.488616 | 5.834965 | 6.316990
Stan Mikita | 2.389433 | 2.937500 | 3.122415 | 3.360599 | 4.211911 | 4.866071 | 5.122415 | 5.764001
Howie Morenz | 2.702960 | 3.000000 | 3.166667 | 3.750572 | 4.363761 | 5.020848 | 5.222222 | 5.933250
Bobby Orr | 1.814890 | 2.251204 | 2.427063 | 2.516120 | 3.096261 | 3.734514 | 3.939129 | 4.095211
Maurice Richard | 2.808511 | 3.933468 | 4.155172 | 4.275862 | 5.000000 | 6.412284 | 7.119545 | 7.528991
Eddie Shore | 1.308395 | 1.444286 | 1.554074 | 1.815722 | 2.012009 | 2.240582 | 2.423122 | 2.779359

Hopefully I'll get assists and points up later today.

I love your numbers as always, but I think more people would be more receptive to them if they didn't look so....... numbery.

I am sure you understand what significant figures are. You can stand to cut off all of the above numbers at two decimal places. The rest of the digits after that do nothing but convolute the results.

Points vs. Save Percentage (I'd argue these are the two most important ind. stats at their respective position):
6 = times Hasek led the league in SV %, with 3 more top 5 finishes
3 = times Hull led the league in points, with 5 more top 5 finishes

Definite advantage to Hasek.

Goals vs. Shutouts (your "glamorous" ind. stat):
4 = times Hasek led the league in shutouts, with 3 more top 5 finishes
7 = times Hull led the league in goals, with 5 more top 5 finishes

Large advantage to Hull.

Assists vs. Goals Against Average (both arguably have a lot to do with team):
2 = Hasek with 7 more top 5 finishes
0 = Hull with 3 top 5 finishes

Huge advantage to Hasek

I appreciate the efforts, but these things in no way relate to eachother.

Shutouts are far from an individual stat. The only goaltending stat that can be called individual is save percentage, and even that is still impacted by the team.

GAA are just a rehashing (inverse) of sv% with shots against (something that the goalie has no control over) thrown in. So yes, it has a lot to do with team. A lot more than assists. Immensely more than assists!

If anything, I can see goals and sv% loosely relating to eachother as "individual" stats. But assists and points (the sum of goals and assists) don't relate to GAA and shutouts in any theoretical way.

I applaud the efforts to compare Hasek's dominance to Hull's and I am open to the argument but the above is not very strong.

Rabbins Hull was a LW not a RW, which means he was the greatest ever at his position. This is also undisputed, whereas, many do not consider Hasek the best goalie ever.

You are right, however; there is no rule that says the best at one position has to be better than the second best at another position.

 

[God Bless Canada]

If Ray Bourque is good enough to be one of the top 10 players ever, then he should be in the top 10. Period. I don't care if he'd be the only defenceman or the fourth defenceman. I won't have Bourque in my top 10 (he's close), but it has nothing to do with position.

In the same breath, we should be voting in goalies for the sake of having a goalie in the top 10. If you think Plante is good enough to be in the top 10, it should be on his own merits. It shouldn't be because you feel the need to have a goalie.

I have four centres in my top 10. Gretzky (the smartest player ever), Lemieux (the most physically blessed player ever) and Beliveau (the ultimate combination of size, skill, toughness, leadership and big-game mentality) are the gimmies. Howie Morenz is my other centre in the top 10. The clincher for Morenz, ahead of Plante and Bourque, is impact on the game. We're talking about the greatest players of all-time here. And when I look at the greatest players ever, I try to look beyond the stats, the shiny things, and all that, and try to look at a player's impact on the game.

Very few players have truly transcended the sport like Morenz. Whatever they call him - "the Babe Ruth of hockey" or "Hockey's First Superstar" - the bottom line is he had an impact on the game that Bourque never had. And while Plante had a major impact on the game with the mask, I believe Morenz's contributions on and off the ice were more significant. Morenz was the right man in the right place at the right time: a dynamic, explosive, thrilling, aggressive player who played in Montreal, and who played most of his best hockey after the last of the western leagues folded in 1926, making the NHL The Hockey League. He had that "larger than life" nature that drew people to the sport. You can count on one hand the number of players who have transcended the game, and meant more to the game, than Howie Morenz. That's not to say he's better than Harvey or Shore (I have both ahead of Morenz). But Morenz's overall impact on the game, at the game's highest level, is greater than Harvey or Shore.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

You are right, however; there is no rule that says the best at one position has to be better than the second best at another position.

Totally agree...hence 2 C's in the consensus top 4

 

[lextune]

If Ray Bourque is good enough to be one of the top 10 players ever, then he should be in the top 10. Period. I don't care if he'd be the only defenceman or the fourth defenceman. I won't have Bourque in my top 10 (he's close), but it has nothing to do with position.

In the same breath, we should be voting in goalies for the sake of having a goalie in the top 10. If you think Plante is good enough to be in the top 10, it should be on his own merits. It shouldn't be because you feel the need to have a goalie.

This is exactly what I was saying....(although you said it better, lol).