Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Rhiessan71]

One day somebody will look at all the games on tape and count the number of rushes by Dmen and more but it's been my general impression from watching parts of 1000's of games that Dmen are being coached to not take as many chances and to play defense and safe 1st even at the lower levels like Jr.

Dmen certainly have less time and space to move the puck post lockout than in the clutch and grab era and before.

You're 100% correct man.
Instead of being coached to win, players have been coached to not lose for a long time now.
Look at PK Subban in Montreal. JM puts more weight into not giving up a scoring chance than he does in creating one and it's that way pretty much around the entire league.

So PK and any other dynamic player gets a harness and a leash real quick like.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You'll have to qualify that. Last I checked in just the years that both Bourque and Lidstrom played at the same time, Bourque beats Lids by a fair margin, 80 points if I remember right.
In fact breaking Lidstrom's career into halves, he is far from dominating everyone offensively....
First Half:
Bourque 645
Leetch 631
Lidstrom 567
MacInnis 549

What's more is that Lidstrom has any where from 30 to 100+ more games played than the other 3 players on that list.

So tell me, how is it that Lidstrom is only 3rd in points and something like 5th or 6th in PPG for the first half of his career despite scoring almost identical point totals for each. 567 first half, 551 second half.
Then for the second half of his career he is dominating everyone by such a huge margin.
How in the holy hell is that not competition level plain and simple?
Seriously, show me another actual logical way to view this?

We're talking about a player who was 27 years old when he was first a postseason All Star and 30 years old when he first won the Norris. Why are you judging him by the first half of his career?

 

[Dreakmur]

One day somebody will look at all the games on tape and count the number of rushes by Dmen and more but it's been my general impression from watching parts of 1000's of games that Dmen are being coached to not take as many chances and to play defense and safe 1st even at the lower levels like Jr.

I can tell you from experience that the coaching of defensemen at the minor hockey level is just pathetic. Either they get ignored or they get told to dump the puck off the boards.

Every year I get a new group of 6 defensemen, and every year I am shocked at how much they haven't been taught. Simple stuff like D-to-D passes are a completely foreign concept.

 

[Dreakmur]

We're talking about a player who was 27 years old when he was first a postseason All Star and 30 years old when he first won the Norris. Why are you judging him by the first half of his career?

He hasn't changed his game much over the years. He has just been slow to get noticed.

There's nothing wrong with using the offense from his first half.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Without question. Kelly was one of the greatest defenders of the 1950s (only Harvey was his equal), but Lidstrom has been arguably the best player period in the NHL throughout the 2000s, in addition to his impressive body of work in the 1990s. Even taking into account retroactive Norris Trophies (of which I believe Kelly receives three) Lidstrom's all-star and hardware voting record is far superior to Kelly's. He was also more dominant at the position for a vastly longer period of time and has significantly more post-season experience and playoff success. Four Stanley Cups achieved in a twenty six to thirty team league is incredibly impressive. Most of Kelly's team success occurred after he had made the transition to centre with the Leafs upon converting from defence.

Fully agree here as I had Kelly just outside of my top 5 with both Lidstrom and Potvin ahead of him.

I rank Lidstrom over Kelly too (whether or not you consider Kelly's time at forward), but you're vastly underestimating Kelly as a defenseman. He was the second most important part of the Detroit dynasty* that won 4 Cups in 6 years

*behind Gordie Howe but over Ted Lindsay and Terry Sawchuk

I plan on posting more about Kelly next week - I don't think he has much of a case to be ranked in the 2-5 range, but there is a case that he could be ranked as high as 6th IMO. Potvin vs. Kelly is an interesting comparison to me, as both men had relatively short but dominant peaks.

Potvin I had ranked slightly higher mainly due to his incredible start to his career, given the nature of his team situation and his role on the incredible Islander 5 year run to the finals.

Shore IMO will be ranked too high based on his Hart record and at the end of the project one will need to ask how many bruins from Shore's teams are going to be on these lists with only 2 cups to show for it.

Shore was one of 17 HHOF players to play for the Bruins at least in some part from 27-39 when Shore was there and made the playoffs.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[Rhiessan71]

We're talking about a player who was 27 years old when he was first a postseason All Star and 30 years old when he first won the Norris. Why are you judging him by the first half of his career?

Hey you started it by saying how he was completely dominating his competition. I asked what competition because obviously you have already broken his career into halves by stating that he was dominating because the only time he has held the edge you speak of has been in the second half.
YOU brought up his second half and listed his dominance during it, I just brought his first half into the conversation.
I simply want to know how he goes from 3rd in points and 5-6th in PPG to suddenly completely dominating his competition despite scoring even less in his second half?

He plays the same, gets even less points yet his margin increases exponentially. Nothing strikes you as a tad odd?

You asked me if I believe that d-men are that bad today.
Overall, no they're not, offensively, damned straight they're worse.

 

[Mancini0518]

The hardest part for me and i think most will agree is deciphering how much weight to put the effect that a dynasty and the team around the player had on the players career. While its certainly hard to penalize players like Harvey, Potvin and Robinson for being on such dominate teams their numbers are inflated as a result.

I also believe that a lot of posters here are downplaying Eddie Shore. Voting shows that he would have won 9 norris trophies in his career along with 4 harts. This alone IMO puts him in the 2-4 range. Then i have to factor in that he played in a league that was not as watered down as the league that Bourque and Lidstrom played in. I also for one don't detract what Shore did based on his conduct on the Ice. I believe that it was a far different time and put more blame on the era than Shore himself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

First Half vs Second Half

The issue of first half vs second half of a career touches all positions and eras. Basically comes down to actual talent vs experience within the context of circumstances,level of competition, rules and supporting cast which includes non- player issues such as coaching, management etc.

Effectively trying to balance whether the player became much better over time or did circumstances create advantages or disadvantages that impacted perceptions of performance.

Injuries are the biggest factor. Bobby Orr never had an opportunity to mature as a defenseman because injuries shortened his career. Second half of his career becomes an unknown. Red Kelly moved to center which raises a different issue that of talent slippage vs his contemporaries.

Circumstances that are advantageous are another issue. Harry Howell won a Norris Trophy late in his career. Combination of factors - the truly elite defenseman of his time - Harvey, Kelly, Pilote, Horton, Gadsby had aged and a young Bobby Orr had just entered the league.
Playing with Doug Harvey in New York during a couple of seasons had polished his game and an infusion of talent combined with better Ranger coaching and management favoured Howell. Yet these advantages were very temporary, slippage quickly followed and Howell's career is viewed accordingly.

The issue of player's with better second halves to their career gets clouded by two factors.

First you have the bogus argument from their proponents that the player actually was great much earlier in his career but the whole hockey world did not recognize their greatness.

The second factor is weight given to circumstances especially level of competition and supporting cast. If the level of competition decreases and the supporting cast improves then as in the case of Harry Howell the player may win a Norris Trophy and get AS recognition when previously he did not. The remaining issue is determining the extent and length of the advantages before slippage starts.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Negatives

The hardest part for me and i think most will agree is deciphering how much weight to put the effect that a dynasty and the team around the player had on the players career. While its certainly hard to penalize players like Harvey, Potvin and Robinson for being on such dominate teams their numbers are inflated as a result.

I also believe that a lot of posters here are downplaying Eddie Shore. Voting shows that he would have won 9 norris trophies in his career along with 4 harts. This alone IMO puts him in the 2-4 range. Then i have to factor in that he played in a league that was not as watered down as the league that Bourque and Lidstrom played in. I also for one don't detract what Shore did based on his conduct on the Ice. I believe that it was a far different time and put more blame on the era than Shore himself.

Cannot ignore the negatives. Harvey, Robinson and Potvin never lost their composure and negated the efforts of teammates by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like Eddie Shore did. Shore also benefited from a strong supporting cast but at times he negated the efforts of his teammates.

 

[Dreakmur]

Cannot ignore the negatives. Harvey, Robinson and Potvin never lost their composure and negated the efforts of teammates by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like Eddie Shore did. Shore also benefited from a strong supporting cast but at times he negated the efforts of his teammates.

The good Eddie Shore was probably the 2nd best guy outside of Orr. The bad Eddie Shore was a detriment to his team - bad penalties, poor defensive play, and being a complete freakshow.

 

[Pear Juice]

I also believe that a lot of posters here are downplaying Eddie Shore. Voting shows that he would have won 9 norris trophies in his career along with 4 harts. This alone IMO puts him in the 2-4 range. Then i have to factor in that he played in a league that was not as watered down as the league that Bourque and Lidstrom played in. I also for one don't detract what Shore did based on his conduct on the Ice. I believe that it was a far different time and put more blame on the era than Shore himself.

By what voting would he have won 9 Norris trophies? He was a 1st-team allstar 7 times. Even if he won all of those (there is always two 1st-team defensemen) it doesn't equal 9. Bourque was a 1st-team allstar 13 times but he has nowhere near 13 Norris trophies. Is there any other voting conducted more similar to the Norris trophy than the all-star teams?

 

[Pear Juice]

As a Swede, I obviously have a special relation to Slava Fetisov. Here's som information about his career prior to his trailblazing move to the NHL

He joined the red army team CSKA Moscow at 16 years of age, playing for the junior team and was a regular almost immediately. They won the World Junior Championships three years in a row and Fetisov was elected best defenseman in both 1977 and 78. At 19 years of age he was introduced by Viktor Tikhonov to the army heads when they asked who would take over after the stars Kharlamov, Mikhailov and Vasiliev. Tikhonov proudly said Fetisov will be the leader of the new generation. The army heads snuffed at Tikhonov and said that the kid didn't look like he'd bear such a load.

Tikhonov, as always, proved to be right and in 1982 by his 24th birthday Fetisov, in his fourth full season was given the award as the best overall player in the Soviet league, an award he would again claim in 1986. During his 15 years with the CSKA Moscow team, he was elected to the allstar team 9 times as they won the championship 14 times.

All this however was not very well reported in his heyday, what was however, was his dominance at the international scene.

Between 1978 and 1991 Slava Fetisov was an integral part and through the entire 1980s the given leader on a Soviet team that absolutely demolished all other competition. They won a total of 7 World Championships, 2 Olympic gold medals, 1 Canada Cup and 5 other medals. Between 1977 and 1987 the Swedish national team played 50 straight games against the Soviet national team. They didn't win a single one. Losing by double figures was not uncommon as the green unit rolled onto the ice. Fetisov was elected to the World Championships allstar team 10 times, and was given the best defenseman award 5 of those times. Along with Jiri Holecek that's more times than any other player, at any position. He was also an allstar in the 1987 Canada Cup.

Slava Fetisov was a magnificent allround defenseman, he knew exactly when and how to deliver a hit aswell as take one. He knew when to join the rush and when not to. Incredibly consistant it was extremely rare to see Fetisov have a bad day at the office. The captain and cornerstone of possibly the greatest hockey line ever seen.

When the IIHF voted for their centennial allstar team, 56 voters participated. Out of those 56, 54 voted for Slava Fetisov. At the international stage, without a doubt the best defenseman ever.

 

[Mancini0518]

By what voting would he have won 9 Norris trophies? He was a 1st-team allstar 7 times. Even if he won all of those (there is always two 1st-team defensemen) it doesn't equal 9. Bourque was a 1st-team allstar 13 times but he has nowhere near 13 Norris trophies. Is there any other voting conducted more similar to the Norris trophy than the all-star teams?

All we can relatively go by is Hart voting and to put the top Hart defenseman as the Norris Winner

1927-28 third in Hart voting, top defenseman
1928-29 third in Hart Voting, top defenseman
1931-32 More first team votes than Ching Johnson as top defenseman
1930-31 second in Hart voting to Howie Morenz, top Defenseman
1932-33 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1934-35 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1935-36 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1937-38 Hart Trophy top defenseman in voting
1938-39 5th in Hart voting top defenseman

I believe that is all of them, excuse me and my lack of sleep . However, that is eight years where we can see that he was the top defenseman voted in for the Hart or as a first team selection. We can make the assumption that had there been a Norris equivalent trophy that he would have won it all of these years.

 

[Epsilon]

All we can relatively go by is Hart voting and to put the top Hart defenseman as the Norris Winner

1927-28 third in Hart voting, top defenseman
1928-29 third in Hart Voting, top defenseman
1931-32 More first team votes than Ching Johnson as top defenseman
1930-31 second in Hart voting to Howie Morenz, top Defenseman
1932-33 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1934-35 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1935-36 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1937-38 Hart Trophy top defenseman in voting
1938-39 5th in Hart voting top defenseman

I believe that is all of them, excuse me and my lack of sleep . However, that is eight years where we can see that he was the top defenseman voted in for the Hart or as a first team selection. We can make the assumption that had there been a Norris equivalent trophy that he would have won it all of these years.

The problem with this sort of analysis is that it's looking at the Hart trophy through far too much of a modern lens where it's often come to mean "best player". There are so many "weird" Hart trophy victories in the past when viewed in a present-day context that I actually find counting Hart trophies to be among the least useful exercises here unless they are backed up with detailed quotes regarding why the player won/why voters voted the way they did. This becomes less relevant post-expansion, since from that point on the Hart trophy has (mostly) been awarded in roughly the same way.

 

[Dreakmur]

All we can relatively go by is Hart voting and to put the top Hart defenseman as the Norris Winner

1927-28 third in Hart voting, top defenseman
1928-29 third in Hart Voting, top defenseman
1931-32 More first team votes than Ching Johnson as top defenseman
1930-31 second in Hart voting to Howie Morenz, top Defenseman
1932-33 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1934-35 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1935-36 Hart trophy top defenseman in voting
1937-38 Hart Trophy top defenseman in voting
1938-39 5th in Hart voting top defenseman

I believe that is all of them, excuse me and my lack of sleep . However, that is eight years where we can see that he was the top defenseman voted in for the Hart or as a first team selection. We can make the assumption that had there been a Norris equivalent trophy that he would have won it all of these years.

We actually have relatively complete all-star voting from Shore's era. He was first in voting among defensemen 7 times. I think it is fair to use those all-star votes as substitutes for the Norris. It is extremely rare for the leader in all-star voting doesn't also lead the Norris. That gives him 7 that are very solid.

Here are the results: 1st(1931), 1st(1932), 1st(1933), 1st(1935), 1st(1936), 1st(1938), 1st(1939), 4th(1934), *10th(1940)

Before the introduction of the All-Star selections, our best tool is Hart voting. As you already showed, Shore was the top Hart-getting defenseman in 1928 and 1929. He was second to Clancy in 1927 and 1930. Those 2 Hart leads should give him another 2. These two are not quite as solid as the above 7, but they are still somewhat reliable.

There are also GM-voted all-star teams from before 1931, but they are tough to find complete results for. I found one where Eddie Shore was one of the defensemen, but can't piece together the other ones.

 

[Mancini0518]

We actually have relatively complete all-star voting from Shore's era. He was first in voting among defensemen 7 times. I think it is fair to use those all-star votes as substitutes for the Norris. It is extremely rare for the leader in all-star voting doesn't also lead the Norris. That gives him 7 that are very solid.

Here are the results: 1st(1931), 1st(1932), 1st(1933), 1st(1935), 1st(1936), 1st(1938), 1st(1939), 4th(1934), *10th(1940)

Before the introduction of the All-Star selections, our best tool is Hart voting. As you already showed, Shore was the top Hart-getting defenseman in 1928 and 1929. He was second to Clancy in 1927 and 1930. Those 2 Hart leads should give him another 2. These two are not quite as solid as the above 7, but they are still somewhat reliable.

There are also GM-voted all-star teams from before 1931, but they are tough to find complete results for. I found one where Eddie Shore was one of the defensemen, but can't piece together the other ones.

I see i went the long way to find the answer. Thanks for clearing that up. The dominance that Shore showed in this ten year prime IMO puts him no lower than 4th on the list. While it is hard to say if he would have won the Norris each of these years i can't see how he can be punished because the award was not created yet. Other than Orr i believe Shore had the most dominant prime.

I guess this debate is coming down to preference. Do people put more weight on prime years and give the nod to Orr and Shore or longevity with Lidstrom, Bourque and Chelios type careers.

ps. I am also putting a lot of weight into the fact that Shore was Bobby Orr before Orr was for the lack of a better phrase. He revolutionized the defense position in the 30's and did what Bobby Orr would do 40 years later. I feel as though this outweighs and at worst cancels out his mean streak and what he did to hurt his team through bad penalties etc.

 

[Dreakmur]

ps. I am also putting a lot of weight into the fact that Shore was Bobby Orr before Orr was for the lack of a better phrase. He revolutionized the defense position in the 30's and did what Bobby Orr would do 40 years later. I feel as though this outweighs and at worst cancels out his mean streak and what he did to hurt his team through bad penalties etc.

I don't really see what Shore did to revolutionize the game. There were plenty of rushing defensemen before and after, so what did he change? Same goes for Havey - what did he actually change?

I'm not even really sold on Orr revolutionizing the game.... I'm on the fence on that one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Please keep this thread on topic. Keep in mind that "thread hijacking" is against site rules and can be sanctioned. I'd rather not go down that path, though.

This project only works if we can focus the thread on the 10 defensemen up for voting now. I moved the off-topic posts to the project's general discussion thread... though they were awfully close to being moved to the "players of today vs. players of yesterday" thread.

Talking about related information is fine, but I just removed a 14 post tangent to the other thread, where only one of the posts even mentioned any of the relevant defensemen. I am quoting that post here and responding to it.

This is true, you definitely have to also weigh the differing levels of competition that each player faced during their dominance.

Bourque's competition outweighs Lidstrom's and while Orr's d-man competition was indeed inferior to most, you also have to factor that Orr was whooping everyone's *****, not just other d-men.

Best player trumps best D-man

I'm glad to see people starting to admit that Bobby Orr may have faced the worst competition of any NHL defenseman listed here, at least early in his career (later in his career, he had Brad Park). Does it make him a worse defenseman? Of course not! Not when he was dominating the forwards in the league, too.

But can't the "best player trumps best D-man" also apply to Nicklas Lidstrom, albeit to a lesser extent? The guy is practically the consensus player of the last decade.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He hasn't changed his game much over the years. He has just been slow to get noticed.

There's nothing wrong with using the offense from his first half.

If you truly believe Lidstrom has "just been slow to get noticed," does that mean the we can consider him Bourque's equal in terms of longevity as an elite player? Or possibly even better than Bourque? Lidstrom has certainly had a better career after the age of 35 than Bourque did.

Note that I don't actually believe that Lidstrom is Bourque's equal or superior in terms of longevity as an elite player, but you pretty much have to if you don't think that Lidstrom improved as he got older.

Hey you started it by saying how he was completely dominating his competition. I asked what competition because obviously you have already broken his career into halves by stating that he was dominating because the only time he has held the edge you speak of has been in the second half.
YOU brought up his second half and listed his dominance during it, I just brought his first half into the conversation.
I simply want to know how he goes from 3rd in points and 5-6th in PPG to suddenly completely dominating his competition despite scoring even less in his second half?

Please refer to the hockey reference link I provided - I did not break Lidstrom's career into halvese. The link I proved listed defenseman offense over the course of Lidstrom's career. He was well ahead in points, and MacInnis (whose career barely overlapped with Lidstrom and generally played the higher scoring half of Lidstrom's career) was the only one ahead of Lidstrom in points per game. If you wish to break Lidstrom's career into halves, feel free to do so, but please do not just focus on the first half of his career, when he probably wasn't at his best.

He plays the same, gets even less points yet his margin increases exponentially. Nothing strikes you as a tad odd?

Nothing strikes me as odd about it. First off, I think it's pretty obvious that Lidstrom got better in his late 20s - not exactly unheard of among defensemen. Most of the improvement was defensively, but I think he probably got a bit better offensively too.

As for his margin increasing, Lidstrom's raw point totals stayed the same while overall league scoring dropped in the late 90s.

You asked me if I believe that d-men are that bad today.
Overall, no they're not, offensively, damned straight they're worse.

I agree that top end defensemen are not as productive offensively than they were, but how much of that is because of the increased focus on defense? If we are going to discredit recent defensemen for not scoring as much in absolute numbers, shouldn't we also credit them for becoming more effective at preventing goals?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The hardest part for me and i think most will agree is deciphering how much weight to put the effect that a dynasty and the team around the player had on the players career. While its certainly hard to penalize players like Harvey, Potvin and Robinson for being on such dominate teams their numbers are inflated as a result.

Kind of playing Devil's Advocate here, but rather than punishing such players, perhaps we should reward them for being arguably the most important players on those dynasties? You play to win.

I also believe that a lot of posters here are downplaying Eddie Shore. Voting shows that he would have won 9 norris trophies in his career along with 4 harts. This alone IMO puts him in the 2-4 range. Then i have to factor in that he played in a league that was not as watered down as the league that Bourque and Lidstrom played in. I also for one don't detract what Shore did based on his conduct on the Ice. I believe that it was a far different time and put more blame on the era than Shore himself.

When you say "the league was not as watered down" then, you mean it had fewer teams? How does fewer teams make Shore a better defenseman? Everyone he competed against played in similar circumstances.

The good Eddie Shore was probably the 2nd best guy outside of Orr. The bad Eddie Shore was a detriment to his team - bad penalties, poor defensive play, and being a complete freakshow.

The most perfect description I've seen of Eddie Shore in this thread, and it really shows why it's so difficult to rank him. I know I want to rank Shore in my 3-5 range; I just don't know where!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I see i went the long way to find the answer. Thanks for clearing that up. The dominance that Shore showed in this ten year prime IMO puts him no lower than 4th on the list. While it is hard to say if he would have won the Norris each of these years i can't see how he can be punished because the award was not created yet. Other than Orr i believe Shore had the most dominant prime.

I guess this debate is coming down to preference. Do people put more weight on prime years and give the nod to Orr and Shore or longevity with Lidstrom, Bourque and Chelios type careers.

ps. I am also putting a lot of weight into the fact that Shore was Bobby Orr before Orr was for the lack of a better phrase. He revolutionized the defense position in the 30's and did what Bobby Orr would do 40 years later. I feel as though this outweighs and at worst cancels out his mean streak and what he did to hurt his team through bad penalties etc.

As of now, I really don't see a reason to believe that Shore peaked higher than Bourque or Harvey and little reason to believe he peaked higher than Lidstrom. Is there an argument I am missing that is not just based on Hart voting?

Actually, longevity is a huge point in Shore's favor, as he was basically an elite defenseman for 15 seasons during an era in which careers tended to be shorter than today. I'm not sure he peaked any higher than Kelly or Potvin, but he was definitely elite for longer than they were.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 5 finishes in Hart voting by defensemen by season

I originally posted this in the General Discussion thread, but I think it's applicable here:

1923-24 2) Sprague Cleghorn 4) Georges Boucher
1924-25 none
1925-26 2) Sprague Cleghorn
1926-27 5) King Clancy
1927-28 3) Eddie Shore 5) Ching Johnson
1928-29 3) Eddie Shore 4) Sylvio Mantha 5) King Clancy
1929-30 2) Lionel Hitchman 4) King Clancy
1930-31 2) Eddie Shore 3) King Clancy 4) Ebbie Goodfellow?
1931-32 2) Ching Johnson 4) Red Dutton (we only have the top 4)
1932-33 1) Eddie Shore (we only have the top 3)
1933-34 2) Lionel Conacher 3) King Clancy 4) Earl Seibert
1934-35 1) Eddie Shore 3) Art Coulter
1935-36 1) Eddie Shore 5) Red Dutton
1936-37 1) Babe Siebert 2) Lionel Conacher 3) Ebbie Goodfellow
1937-38 1) Eddie Shore 3) Babe Siebert
1938-39 5) Eddie Shore
1939-40 1) Ebbie Goodfellow 3) Dit Clapper
1940-41 2) Dit Clapper
1941-42 1) Tom Anderson
1942-43 none
1943-44 1) Babe Pratt 4) Earl Seibert
1944-45 4) Flash Hollett
1945-46 5) Jack Stewart
1946-47 none
1947-48 none
1948-49 none
1949-50 none
1950-51 3) Red Kelly
1951-52 none
1952-53 3) Red Kelly
1953-54 2) Red Kelly
1954-55 5) Doug Harvey
1955-56 4) Red Kelly 5) Doug Harvey
1956-57 5) Doug Harvey
1957-58 3) Doug Harvey
1958-59 none
1959-60 none
1960-61 none
1961-62 2) Doug Harvey
1962-63 none
1963-64 none
1964-65 none
1965-66 none
1966-67 5) Harry Howell
1967-68 4) Bobby Orr
1968-69 3) Bobby Orr
1969-70 1) Bobby Orr 5) Brad Park
1970-71 1) Bobby Orr
1971-72 1) Bobby Orr
1972-73 3) Bobby Orr
1973-74 3) Bobby Orr
1974-75 3) Bobby Orr
1975-76 2) Denis Potvin 5) Brad Park
1976-77 4) Borje Salming 5) Larry Robinson
1977-78 5) Brad Park
1978-79 4) Denis Potvin
1979-80 none
1980-81 none
1981-82 none
1982-83 4) Rod Langway 5) Mark Howe
1983-84 2) Rod Langway 5) Ray Bourque
1984-85 4) Rod Langway 5) Ray Bourque
1985-86 3) Mark Howe 4) Paul Coffey
1986-87 2) Ray Bourque
1987-88 none
1988-89 none
1989-90 2) Ray Bourque
1990-91 4) Ray Bourque
1991-92 none
1992-93 none
1993-94 none
1994-95 4) Paul Coffey
1995-96 none
1996-97 none
1997-98 none
1998-99 none
1999-00 1) Chris Pronger
2000-01 none
2001-02 none
2002-03 none
2003-04 none
2004-05 lockout
2005-06 none
2006-07 none
2007-08 4) Nicklas Lidstrom
2008-09 none
2009-10 none
2010-11 none

What can be drawn from this?

• I would be awfully careful with using Eddie Shore's Hart record as an argument for him against defensemen from other eras. It's clear that it was the norm for defensemen to get Hart consideration prior to World War 2, but it became the exception afterwards
• I would be awfully careful with using Nicklas Lidstrom's lack of Hart consideration as an argument against him, considering the fact that defensemen just don't get recognized for the Hart anymore
• Bobby Orr's Hart record speaks for itself
• Look at how much better Red Kelly and Doug Harvey were than any other defenseman of the Original 6 era!
• Ray Bourque's Hart record is quite impressive, but I don't think it is directly comparable to Lidstrom's, as defensemen seem to have gotten a bit more consideration for the Hart in the 1980s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Revolutionizing the Game

I don't really see what Shore did to revolutionize the game. There were plenty of rushing defensemen before and after, so what did he change? Same goes for Havey - what did he actually change?

I'm not even really sold on Orr revolutionizing the game.... I'm on the fence on that one.

Doug Harvey revolutionized the game in the following manner.

Doug Harvey was a LHS but could play both LD and RD with equal proficiency. Until Harvey came along the ideal defensive pairings were a LHS playing LD and a RHS playing RD. Since you coach dmen you must appreciate that this was the most efficient approach from the standpoint of going into the corner to control/clear the puck, eliminating time consuming movement. Also it facilitated the various one hand on the stick moves by a dman in the defensive zone, etc. In the offensive zone it allowed a wider spread for puck movement especially on the PP amongst other advantages. The dynasty Leaf teams from the forties and sixties were very efficient moving the puck out of their zone because they had LHS / RHS pairings -sixties LHS Stanley with RHS Horton, LHS Brewer with RHS Baun.

Harvey appreciated the geometry showing the basic changes in body position required for a LHS dman to be equally proficient on either side. The Soviets caught on very quickly especially after a first hand experience playing against Harvey with 5 AHLers plus juniors in 1964. Check the Soviet dmen from the early seventies on almost all LHS. Young Slava Fetisov transitioning the puck from any point in the defensive zone almost as well as Harvey did.

Harvey mastered the transition game. Post Red Line introduction teams still had the center come back and get the puck or receive a short pass from the dman to start the rush or head man the puck.Harvey would head man the puck accelerating the attack. The old truism that a pass travels faster than any skater optimized.

Harvey was the master at supporting the offense at the blueline. Previously the dmen used to hang at center ice, or midway to the blueline.

All of these things are now part of a defensemans tool box, but someone had to initiate the changes from the traditional.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

The problem with this sort of analysis is that it's looking at the Hart trophy through far too much of a modern lens where it's often come to mean "best player". There are so many "weird" Hart trophy victories in the past when viewed in a present-day context that I actually find counting Hart trophies to be among the least useful exercises here unless they are backed up with detailed quotes regarding why the player won/why voters voted the way they did. This becomes less relevant post-expansion, since from that point on the Hart trophy has (mostly) been awarded in roughly the same way.

This is a very prescient point that deserves to be brought up again in my opinion. Too often I believe that we have a tendency on here to allow contemporary biases and modern perspectives cloud our judgement with respect to award voting. One only has to look into the past and see the numerous Hart Trophy recipients that we would consider patently bizarre based on the modern methodology and interpretation of what the award should reflect.

Tommy Anderson winning for a seventh place Brooklyn Americans squad in 1942, Buddy O'Connor capturing the award for the fourth place Rangers in 1948, Al Rollins winning for the last place Black Hawks in 1954, and Ted Kennedy's universally-acknowledged "lifetime achievement" MVP selection in 1955 are just several of the past Hart selections that many modern observers would have a hard time putting in the appropriate period context given what the Hart stands for in 2011.

I think that Eddie Shore's career is evaluated appropriately on here most of the time and retroactive award selections (or trying to evaluate who would win what accolades in a specific season) has its own value for providing further context into past names and the value of their respective careers.

However, at the same time we do a disservice to the other players of Shore's contemporary period by outright assuming that his Hart wins carry the same weight as an Original Six, post-expansion, or even modern day player winning the award. The voters at the time looked at different factors and as Epsilon accurately pointed out in his post, too often in the present we tend to look at it as a "most outstanding player" award rather than a player providing individual value to his team.

Given the past voting history of the award and the interpretations of voters during the defenceman-friendly 1930s specifically, it would not surprise me if Eddie Shore won several Harts that he would not have won during the present, or specifically the post 1940s period when defencemen began to get virtually no consideration for league MVP. Two notable stars during Shore's prime, Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson, for instance, never won a single Hart between them playing on the dominant Leafs of the 1930s that captured the Canadian Division four times in nine seasons, won a Stanley Cup title, and lost in the Finals on six other occasions.

This despite leading the league in points or goal-scoring a combined three and five times. Under the modern day interpretation of the award Conacher probably takes home at least one Hart Trophy, but Shore won four of them in just six years. Would Denis Potvin, Nicklas Lidstrom, or Red Kelly have fared just as well had they been inserted into that same era of favourable defenceman voting as Shore? It's an important consideration to raise, not to take away from Shore's legacy or merit as one of the all-time greats, nor to discredit his MVP record, but simply because voting practices have changed so significantly over time and I think it is important to recognize that when comparison him to other greats in this project.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Voters definitely took the "most valuable" thing to heart when they voted for the Hart Trophy in the first few decades of the award and paid very little attention to the "best player" criteria that is important today.

I don't think "best player" even came up for consideration until Gordie Howe started demolishing records, and even then, it probably wasn't until Wayne Gretzky that "best player" became more important than "most valuable to his team."

Shore won 4 Harts in 6 years. The other two years, he was injured for significant games, and Boston failed to make the playoffs. He was definitely helped in voting by how much is team relied on him.