2nd highest PEAK amongst defenseman?

[Cake or Death]

Thanks. This is exactly what we need more of on the HOH board. I feel the board has gotten a little too much into relying on stats and award voting - not that stats and awards voting aren't useful, but they can only tell us so much.

Thumbs up. If you can get a decent number of relatively unbiased opinions from people who have seen it with their own eyes, it's enormously helpful. You can tell someone Potvin and Stevens were great hitters, but those of us who watched players skate toward the other d-man to avoid these two saw the impact of their hits with our own eyes ... just as we saw the impact when players skated in toward Stevens and Potvin. Ouch. Stats can help, but nothing beats a few good hands-on accounts.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No, I arrived in Montreal as an almost 10-year-old immigrant from England in 1953, but spent only a short time there. Most of my four-plus years in Canada was spent in Maple Leafs territory, in Keswick on Lake Simcoe and Toronto. It was virtually the general opinion that Harvey was the better of the two, and that was evident in the pages of the major newspapers in Toronto, the Hockey News and the two major English-language hockey magazines of the time, Blueline and Hockey Pictorial, as well as among the old-timers I talked to. It wasn't even regarded as controversial; it was regarded as fact. For the cynics among you, however, I should add that I am a Montreal Canadiens fan.

As a postscript, let me add that it took a while for Harvey to catch on as No. 1. As the initial Norris trophy award shows, Kelly was regarded as better at first. But by the mid to late 1950s, Harvey was generally regarded as the greatest defenceman ever. It took some sophistication to appreciate Harvey's game. Kelly, with his frequent rushes, had more flair. Harvey made things look so easy; as one pundit of the time said, he played as if he were in a rocking chair. There was little dazzle. But he got the job done superbly.

Thanks for your input. The bolded is interesting. By all accounts, Shore definitely had more of a "wow" factor to his game than Harvey. His rushing ability is likely where the Orr comparisons are drawn from. It's certainly possible that he received more style points than Harvey did from observers comparing the two in the decades to come.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

How did people perceive Shore defensively compared to the likes of Johnson, Clancy, Mantha and the Sieberts? I believe he was usually categorized as very good defensively but not elite... but I'm not certain.

That is based on some quotes from earlier in his career. In 37-38 he was tied for 5th in scoring from the defence, and well behind top forwards, and still won the Hart. I suspect that by the end of his peak he may have been regarded as the best defensive d-man in the league. But at the start of his peak, he was not.

 

[Nordic*]

It's funny when people picks players they've never even seen play

 

[Hardyvan123]

He has 1st or 2nd Team All Star selections at defenseman in all of those years. That should be a pretty good indicator

Yes and recently a DH who played something like 28 innings at 1B in the season won a gold glove at the position in Baseball (Forgot his name but he was the never ever guy in steroids scandal).

Voting needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Not sure exactly how is was done in the 06 era but it is common knowledge that western teams in the NHL during the 70's and 80's were almost ignored by Eastern voters as they had all went to bed when the scoring highlights came out in the late evening on the West Coast.

I also wonder how often Kelly took a shift at forward but it's a hard case because he was an excellent player and known primarily as a Dman.

Also the overall level of competition back then makes it really hard to say how great he actually was.

There is this myth perpetuated by some that the 120 players in 06 are somewhat equivalent to the top 120 players today.

If one subscribes to this myth then it's easy to place Kelly among the all time greats but if the level of play was actually not as good as reported then it's all very subjective and it would be hard to place Kelly ahead of Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, Lidstrom ect...

 

[JackSlater]

There is this myth perpetuated by some that the 120 players in 06 are somewhat equivalent to the top 120 players today.

If one subscribes to this myth then it's easy to place Kelly among the all time greats but if the level of play was actually not as good as reported then it's all very subjective and it would be hard to place Kelly ahead of Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, Lidstrom ect...

I don't know if anyone puts Kelly ahead of any of those guys other than Coffey. Kelly very likely wins four consecutive Norris trophies had they existed for the duration of his career, three of them over Harvey, and he also finished second twice to Harvey. Harvey, Quackenbush and then later Gadsby is pretty good competition.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know if anyone puts Kelly ahead of any of those guys other than Coffey. Kelly very likely wins four consecutive Norris trophies had they existed for the duration of his career, three of them over Harvey, and he also finished second twice to Harvey. Harvey, Quackenbush and then later Gadsby is pretty good competition.

Didn't you get the memo? There were only 6 teams in the league back then, so the competition was poor by definition.

Everyone knows that every player in the NHL doubled in talent when the league finally expanded to 12 teams.

....

 

[lextune]

If one subscribes to this myth then it's easy to place Kelly among the all time greats but if the level of play was actually not as good as reported then it's all very subjective and it would be hard to place Kelly ahead of Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, Lidstrom ect...

Do you see posters putting Kelly ahead of Bourque, Potvin and Lidstrom very often?

I can't honestly ever recall seeing that......

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you see posters putting Kelly ahead of Bourque, Potvin and Lidstrom very often?

I can't honestly ever recall seeing that......

He's ranked slightly ahead of Potvin and Lidstrom on the last HOH Top 100 (granted for his entire career, not just his time as a defenseman).

 

[lextune]

He's ranked slightly ahead of Potvin and Lidstrom on the last HOH Top 100 (granted for his entire career, not just his time as a defenseman).

Oh yeah, I should have know that since I was in on the voting, lol.

....but they were #20 Potvin, #22 Lidstrom, #25 Kelly on my list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Didn't you get the memo? There were only 6 teams in the league back then, so the competition was poor by definition.

Everyone knows that every player in the NHL doubled in talent when the league finally expanded to 12 teams.

....

Well actually the league got watered down a bit, and I realize the above is a shot at me but seriously why does everyone believe the closed circle argument of the greatness of the original 6 other than a lot of HHOF players came from that era and the 2 statements do not stand independent but rather rely on each other to stand up.

 

[Tumsh]

Pardon me for butting in, but it seems very intuitive to me that is should be harder to stand out in today's NHL than it was in the past. I think mainly due to coaching. Coaches spend a whole lot of time teaching players who don't understand the game very well what to do. They also develop strategies which let's the team as a whole make up for lack of skill, hockey IQ, and so forth.

As an example, compare man-man defense versus a more intricate version where you support each other more. In man-man defense, if you are a good dangler and pass the defender, say, 50% of the time, then you will look "dominant" because you have a 50% success rate at running through the defense. On the other hand, if the defender instead of really engaging you simply angles you outward, and the second defender drops back a bit to cover up behind you in case he gets by, the same dangler wouldn't look nearly as dominant.

Of course, this reasoning can be applied on a team scale, not just a defense-pairing.
I guess this is a bit OT. But I keep seeing it pop up, and it does confuse me a bit that it's not taken for granted that it is harder to stand out in today's NHL. It's not clear how much of a difference there is, but I bet there is one. If someone is of a different opinion I'd love to hear it, as I haven't watched a whole lot of old hockey.

If this really isn't relevant here, I apologize for the potential derailing.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pardon me for butting in, but it seems very intuitive to me that is should be harder to stand out in today's NHL than it was in the past. I think mainly due to coaching. Coaches spend a whole lot of time teaching players who don't understand the game very well what to do. They also develop strategies which let's the team as a whole make up for lack of skill, hockey IQ, and so forth.

As an example, compare man-man defense versus a more intricate version where you support each other more. In man-man defense, if you are a good dangler and pass the defender, say, 50% of the time, then you will look "dominant" because you have a 50% success rate at running through the defense. On the other hand, if the defender instead of really engaging you simply angles you outward, and the second defender drops back a bit to cover up behind you in case he gets by, the same dangler wouldn't look nearly as dominant.

Of course, this reasoning can be applied on a team scale, not just a defense-pairing.
I guess this is a bit OT. But I keep seeing it pop up, and it does confuse me a bit that it's not taken for granted that it is harder to stand out in today's NHL. It's not clear how much of a difference there is, but I bet there is one. If someone is of a different opinion I'd love to hear it, as I haven't watched a whole lot of old hockey.

If this really isn't relevant here, I apologize for the potential derailing.

I think you're absolutely right. And I think nobody has any idea just how much harder it is to stand out in today's NHL. That's why I said that if another defenseman hasn't come along in the next 20 years who is as good as Bourque, then maybe we really should re-evaluate whether Bourque was actually better than Harvey/Shore, but wasn't able to stand out as much do to the realities of the modern game.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think you're absolutely right. And I think nobody has any idea just how much harder it is to stand out in today's NHL. That's why I said that if another defenseman hasn't come along in the next 20 years who is as good as Bourque, then maybe we really should re-evaluate whether Bourque was actually better than Harvey/Shore, but wasn't able to stand out as much do to the realities of the modern game.

The biggest reason imo that it's harder to standout in today's NHL is because the onus is more on speed than talent.
Guys like Jason Allison for example who definitely had the talent to produce in the top end of the league but skated like he was in mud are falling out of the league because they can't keep up in other aspects.
The league is definitely faster now than it was in the 80's but can you truly say it's more talented?

 

[BraveCanadian]

The biggest reason imo that it's harder to standout in today's NHL is because the onus is more on speed than talent.
Guys like Jason Allison for example who definitely had the talent to produce in the top end of the league but skated like he was in mud are falling out of the league because they can't keep up in other aspects.
The league is definitely faster now than it was in the 80's but can you truly say it's more talented?

The big question I have is will there be a team come along soon that uses talent to neutralize pure speed and creativity to defeat the robotic technical and high percentage defenses and goaltending we have now. After all no one is faster than the puck.

It will be hard to assemble in a cap world.

I really hope so cause I know which one I'd rather watch.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think "stand-out" is being used in two different context's here.

On one hand, I'd agree that it's much harder to make great plays that make you "stand-out" now than in past decades. There simply aren't scrub defensemen who can't pivot having forwards embarrass them on highlight reels, or a guy picking the top off the rush on a play that would have the goalie tarred-and-feathered today. This was commonplace in the 70's and 80's though.

If stand out is being taken to mean "amassing of scoring titles and trophies", then I'd disagree that it is clearly harder today than in the past. Only the very best in the world can do it, regardless of era. Sidney Crosby wouldn't suddenly win 10 Art Ross if he was in the Original Six, nor would Gordie Howe's 1st and 2nd place finishes suddenly become 8th and 9th.

 

[JackSlater]

If stand out is being taken to mean "amassing of scoring titles and trophies", then I'd disagree that it is clearly harder today than in the past. Only the very best in the world can do it, regardless of era. Sidney Crosby wouldn't suddenly win 10 Art Ross if he was in the Original Six, nor would Gordie Howe's 1st and 2nd place finishes suddenly become 8th and 9th.

The factor wouldn't be as strong as you indicate, but it would exist. If Crosby was playing today under the same circumstances as Howe was, he would very likely have 3 Art Ross trophies as opposed to 1, for example.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The factor wouldn't be as strong as you indicate, but it would exist. If Crosby was playing today under the same circumstances as Howe was, he would very likely have 3 Art Ross trophies as opposed to 1, for example.

It's possible; I won't get into that debate again. But this is why subscribing to trophy counting/top-10 counting without context in any era is flawed from the get-go for a variety of reasons. If two players were consistently top-10 scorers in their era, it's often enough to say they were both great offensively and look at other factors. Saying one guy is a little better than the other because he has a couple extra 9th place finishes usually amounts to splitting hairs. It's like the Bourque/Messier 1990 Hart fiasco. Who cares who actually got their name on the trophy, both had great seasons, neither of which was discernably better than the other.

 

[JackSlater]

It's possible; I won't get into that debate again. But this is why subscribing to trophy counting/top-10 counting without context in any era is flawed from the get-go for a variety of reasons. If two players were consistently top-10 scorers in their era, it's often enough to say they were both great offensively and look at other factors. Saying one guy is a little better than the other because he has a couple extra 9th place finishes usually amounts to splitting hairs. It's like the Bourque/Messier 1990 Hart fiasco. Who cares who actually got their name on the trophy, both had great seasons, neither of which was discernably better than the other.

No disagreement on that really.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The factor wouldn't be as strong as you indicate, but it would exist. If Crosby was playing today under the same circumstances as Howe was, he would very likely have 3 Art Ross trophies as opposed to 1, for example.

On the other hand though, if Crosby was playing today under the same circumstances as Yzerman was, he not only wouldn't have any but he wouldn't even be within sniffing distance.

Before all the Crosbyites get a burr in their saddle over this, it's not an insult to Sid.
It's simply a testament to the enormous shadow #99 and #66 cast for almost 2 decades.