2nd highest PEAK amongst defenseman?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ah, I see. I guess I'd counter with the fact that the two greatest centermen of all time managed to come along just a few years apart from each other. It seems statistically unlikely that we could go from the 1890's up until the 1980's without a center appearing that was even close to the level of Gretzky/Lemieux, but such was the case.

Oh I know. I almost put the Gretzky/Lemieux caveat in the post itself. It's certainly very possible that the three greatest defensemen in history all played between 1930 and 1975.

But those that say that it's harder to stand out in the modern game may have a valid point. How much harder is it? I don't know. But we get to, say, 2025 and there hasn't been a defenseman in the 50 year post-Orr period better than Bourque, then I'd say Bourque probably actually was as good or better than Harvey/Shore. Does that make sense?

There are a great many people who witnessed the full careers of both Harvey and Bourque, and the majority of them prefer Harvey. Collective opinion can't always be taken as gospel, but given the large number of people associated with the game who saw both and rank Harvey a shade higher, I don't have a problem trusting "historical canon" on the matter.

Agreed for the most part. Like I said above, the fact that almost everyone who saw both prefers Harvey is why I rank Harvey ahead too.

But like I also said, there is always the point that maybe advances in the game make it more difficult to stand out now. I'm certainly not willing to say that it isn't possible to be better than Harvey without being as dominant as Orr.

Shore vs Bourque would be trickier, as there is definitely a much smaller number of qualified people who saw and appreciated the full careers of both players. A direct comparison would be challenging to say the least. However, there would be plenty who saw both Harvey and Shore, so that comparison could be used to extrapolate a Bourque-Shore comparison.

It would be interesting to know what the opinion on Shore vs Harvey was back in the 60's or 70's, when there were still lots of people around who saw both and had stories to tell. When Orr came along and established himself as the best defender of all-time, who's throne was he stealing in the eyes of his contemporaries? Any insight from the posters in here old enough to answer this question would be much appreciated.

I've always assumed Shore/Harvey was seen as a tossup by those who saw both, but I honestly don't know why I think this.

Harvey was thought of as better by the THN Top 100, for what it's worth.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Oh I know. I almost put the Gretzky/Lemieux caveat in the post itself. It's certainly very possible that the three greatest defensemen in history all played between 1930 and 1975.

But those that say that it's harder to stand out in the modern game may have a valid point. How much harder is it? I don't know. But we get to, say, 2025 and there hasn't been a defenseman in the 50 year post-Orr period better than Bourque, then I'd say Bourque probably actually was as good or better than Harvey/Shore. Does that make sense?

Yes, makes perfect sense. This hypothetical re-evaluation of Bourque would cause some problems though. Does the standing of Bourque's contemporaries also rise? Some might think it illogical to raise Bourque's standing to that of Shore and Harvey, but have Potvin, Lidstrom, Coffey, and Chelios remain static. But there's also the idea that being the best of a lengthy time span (50 years as per your example) comes with certain "benefits" for lack of a better term...the perspective that, if we ignore Orr, Shore was the best pre-war d-man, Bourque the best modern era d-man, and Harvey the best in between, and therefore all are simply entitled to equal standing.

 

[Merya]

Lidström - whole career is a peak. :|

Fetisov in international competition in early-mid 80s.

Coffey in Edmonton and Pingus.

 

[lextune]

It would be interesting to know what the opinion on Shore vs Harvey was back in the 60's or 70's, when there were still lots of people around who saw both and had stories to tell.

In the 70's I spoke with many old-timers at the Garden who definitely saw Shore as superior to Harvey. It has to be said that they were demonstrably big Bruins fans, but they never struck me as having "homer-glasses" on about it; for what that is worth, (it was worth a lot to me, but I was there......).

When Orr came along and established himself as the best defender of all-time, who's throne was he stealing in the eyes of his contemporaries?

Again, without a doubt Orr was seen as taking Shore's title. In fact, (this is a story I've shared here before), there were more than a few who, as much as they loved Bobby, still thought Shore was the better D-Man....

....crazy, I know, but a fact nonetheless.

 

[JackSlater]

But those that say that it's harder to stand out in the modern game may have a valid point. How much harder is it? I don't know. But we get to, say, 2025 and there hasn't been a defenseman in the 50 year post-Orr period better than Bourque, then I'd say Bourque probably actually was as good or better than Harvey/Shore. Does that make sense?

Talent pool increases make it more difficult for players to stand out, as an increase generally makes the level of elite competition stronger. The third best defenceman in a large talent pool is likely to be superior to the third best defenceman in a smaller talent pool due to basic probability, which holds true to varying degrees for players ranked at each position. I would imagine that if Bourque's competition was the same level as Shore's his reputation would be better than it is currently. That being said, I think that the talent pool increase for defencemen has been quite a bit smaller than it has been for forwards.

 

[nik jr]

There are a great many people who witnessed the full careers of both Harvey and Bourque, and the majority of them prefer Harvey. Collective opinion can't always be taken as gospel, but given the large number of people associated with the game who saw both and rank Harvey a shade higher, I don't have a problem trusting "historical canon" on the matter.

Shore vs Bourque would be trickier, as there is definitely a much smaller number of qualified people who saw and appreciated the full careers of both players. A direct comparison would be challenging to say the least. However, there would be plenty who saw both Harvey and Shore, so that comparison could be used to extrapolate a Bourque-Shore comparison.

It would be interesting to know what the opinion on Shore vs Harvey was back in the 60's or 70's, when there were still lots of people around who saw both and had stories to tell. When Orr came along and established himself as the best defender of all-time, who's throne was he stealing in the eyes of his contemporaries? Any insight from the posters in here old enough to answer this question would be much appreciated.

Agreed for the most part. Like I said above, the fact that almost everyone who saw both prefers Harvey is why I rank Harvey ahead too.

But like I also said, there is always the point that maybe advances in the game make it more difficult to stand out now. I'm certainly not willing to say that it isn't possible to be better than Harvey without being as dominant as Orr.

I've always assumed Shore/Harvey was seen as a tossup by those who saw both, but I honestly don't know why I think this.

Harvey was thought of as better by the THN Top 100, for what it's worth.

seems to be true, but what is the evidence for this?

it seems not to have helped morenz much that he was generally ranked above shore. sawchuk seems to have been usually ranked above plante. richard seems to have been usually ranked above hull and beliveau.

 

[steve141]

I know this is going to make some people cringe, but the name Paul Coffey has to be thrown out there, at least for the sake of discussion. Forget about the disaster that he was after leaving Edmonton for a moment. From 1982-1986, a five year stretch in Edmonton, the man put up numbers that can only be described as ludicrous. He averaged 36 goals, 77 assists, and 102 PIM per season. Anyone who averages 113 points per season over 5 straight years deserves some consideration in this thread. Not to mention, he was dynamite in the playoffs in 1984 and was downright dominant in 1985. He has a good argument for the Smythe in 1985, built on his surprisingly strong defensive play and brilliant Cup Finals. Even Gretzky said, regarding the Conn Smythe, "From my heart I wish I could Paul's name next to mine". SI said that in the postseason, "Coffey played at a level unrivaled by any defenseman since Orr."

Aside from Orr, no defenseman has ever had an offensive peak like that.

Depends on how you see it. Sure Coffey was a better offensive player, but Pierre Pilote actually dominated his contemporary defencemen to a greater extent than Coffey. The game, and the role of defencemen changed a lot between the 60s and the 80s.

In the five years between 1961 and 1965 Pilote had 52% more points than the second best defenceman, and 85% more than the average point totals of the top ten defencemen after him (2nd-11th).

In the five years between 1982 and 1987 Coffey had 43% more points than the second best defenceman, and 76% more than the average point totals of the top ten defencemen after him (2nd-11th).

Once again raw totals are nothing, context is everything.

 

[jkrx]

It doesnt matter if you score 85% more if the talent pool is weaker than the guy you are comparing to.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Depends on how you see it. Sure Coffey was a better offensive player, but Pierre Pilote actually dominated his contemporary defencemen to a greater extent than Coffey. The game, and the role of defencemen changed a lot between the 60s and the 80s.

In the five years between 1961 and 1965 Pilote had 52% more points than the second best defenceman, and 85% more than the average point totals of the top ten defencemen after him (2nd-11th).

In the five years between 1982 and 1987 Coffey had 43% more points than the second best defenceman, and 76% more than the average point totals of the top ten defencemen after him (2nd-11th).

Once again raw totals are nothing, context is everything.

But how much of that is only Pilote had licence to explore offensive opportunities? While in Coffey's era hacks were given more freedom that icons were in Pilot's day...

it seems not to have helped morenz much that he was generally ranked above shore. sawchuk seems to have been usually ranked above plante. richard seems to have been usually ranked above hull and beliveau.

It does help. But in a hang on effect. Everyone knows you cant have Morenz far from Shore or Sawchuk far from Plante. What happens is context changes. Sawchuk had the better peak, heck, he may have the best peak ever for a goalie. But, in the modern era we hold his flame out against him more strongly, while we have new found appreciation for how Plante changed the game. Morenz is often seen as a style over substance effect. Since so many reports talk about how breathtaking he was to watch in person, but, when analyzed statistically, it becomes difficult to say he was clearly better than Bill Cook. So in the modern era, having not seen them, we assume style has caused a bump in old views of Morenz. Where as Shore was notoriously disliked by everyone but Bruins fans.

Are the changes correct? Who knows, but there is always reasons. But with the traditional analysis, we are unable to change the argument to say Shore was head and shoulders above Morenz etc...

For a modern example of perception changes mid-career look at Niklas Lidstrom. While he refined his game over his first six seasons, he was still vastly underrated, as many analysts saw him as a defenceman who doesn't hit, lacks a big shot and doesn't rush the puck. Thus, lacking the attributes they were looking for in defensive greatness. But after seeing him neutralize Lindros, appreciation for his passive positioning/active stick defence rose greatly. He didn't improve leaps and bounds, but perception of him did.

 

[Cake or Death]

Depends on how you see it. Sure Coffey was a better offensive player, but Pierre Pilote actually dominated his contemporary defencemen to a greater extent than Coffey. The game, and the role of defencemen changed a lot between the 60s and the 80s.

In the five years between 1961 and 1965 Pilote had 52% more points than the second best defenceman, and 85% more than the average point totals of the top ten defencemen after him (2nd-11th).

In the five years between 1982 and 1987 Coffey had 43% more points than the second best defenceman, and 76% more than the average point totals of the top ten defencemen after him (2nd-11th).

Once again raw totals are nothing, context is everything.

If you combine totals of all 5 seasons, I suppose you could twist it that way. But you'd have to ignore certain realities to do that. Pilote was the top scoring d-man twice in that 5 year span: the last 2 seasons. The first 3 seasons, Harvey outscored him 108 pts to 103. Yes, Pilote outscored Harvey in that 5 year span, but this ignores the fact that Harvey played 14 games in 63-64 and 0 games in 64-65. It ignores the fact that the three full seasons Harvey did play (61-63), he outscored Pilote 108-103 and twice finished 1st in d-men scoring, while Pilote didn't finish first any of those three seasons.

When you combine all 5 seasons, situational factors come into play. The fact that Harvey played 3 full seasons in that 5 season span, and outscored Pilote 2 of those 3 seasons, while Coffey finished first all 5 seasons, perfectly illustrates that Pilote was not more dominant than Coffey. Pilote was the most dominant scorer for two seasons, the three seasons prior to that Harvey outscored him and twice led the league. Pilote was the best scorer in 2 of 5 seasons. Coffey, conversely, finished first all 5 seasons mentioned.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Red Kelly had a long solid peak where his offensive numbers were pretty up there as well.

From 1951 - 56 (6 years) Kelly had 31% more points than Harvey and 71% more than Gadsby in 3rd. 120% more than the 4th leading scoring defenseman during that time. Top 4 in Hart voting 4 of these years as well (on a stacked dynasty).

His goal scoring was flat-out incredible, with 125% more goals than Gadsby and 191% more than Harvey.

But unlike Coffey and Pilote, Kelly was an upper-crust, elite defensive player as well.

 

[jkrx]

Yes, I would say Kelly or Hervey.

Edit: or Bourque.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Red Kelly had a long solid peak where his offensive numbers were pretty up there as well.

From 1951 - 56 (6 years) Kelly had 31% more points than Harvey and 71% more than Gadsby in 3rd. 120% more than the 4th leading scoring defenseman during that time. Top 4 in Hart voting 4 of these years as well (on a stacked dynasty).

His goal scoring was flat-out incredible, with 125% more goals than Gadsby and 191% more than Harvey.

But unlike Coffey and Pilote, Kelly was an upper-crust, elite defensive player as well.

Has it been shown conclusively that Kelly never played forward in those years?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Has it been shown conclusively that Kelly never played forward in those years?

I dug into this once - every article I have seen shows not more than a handful of games, if at all, per season to sometimes fill in for injuries except for one year when he played 26 games at left wing in 1956 (11g and 13a during that time with incredible back-checking). Looks like that was reflected in the Norris voting (though still ended up 3rd) and he was ahead of Howe for the Hart that year at 4th.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Of those I have seen? Doug Harvey.

Did not get to see Shore, but most I conversed with who had seen him long ago spoke of him as they do Bobby Orr.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Has it been shown conclusively that Kelly never played forward in those years?

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

 

[Dark Shadows]

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

He was an all star selection at Defense the year he definitely played 26+ games out of 70 as a forward, so........

 

[Rhiessan71]

Has it been shown conclusively that Kelly never played forward in those years?

It's generally accepted that Kelly played at least some games at forward every year of his career.
He just played forward a far greater amount after arriving in Toronto.

Great player for sure but judging his production strictly as a Dman is far from accurate imo.

 

[Peter9]

I began following the NHL in 1953, and my memory, which is pretty good, is that most experts who saw both Shore and Harvey, were of the opinion that Harvey had eclipsed Shore as the best defenceman ever. The view in Boston may have been different, but even there, they were rated pretty even. I spent three years in Boston from 1965 to 1968 and talked with quite a few old-time fans.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I began following the NHL in 1953, and my memory, which is pretty good, is that most experts who saw both Shore and Harvey, were of the opinion that Harvey had eclipsed Shore as the best defenceman ever. The view in Boston may have been different, but even there, they were rated pretty even. I spent three years in Boston from 1965 to 1968 and talked with quite a few old-time fans.

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.

Just a question though - did you grow up in the Montreal area? Just curious, because I'm sure experts there would tend to favor Harvey, while Boston ones would favor Shore.

 

[jkrx]

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.

Just a question though - did you grow up in the Montreal area? Just curious, because I'm sure experts there would tend to favor Harvey, while Boston ones would favor Shore.

I grew up in the Winnipeg and Detroit area and basically heard the same thing and a bit of Kelly bias.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

I grew up in the Winnipeg and Detroit area and basically heard the same thing and a bit of Kelly bias.

That's a big area.

 

[Scott1980]

I'll actually go along with Coffey. Why not? I've been watching the Oilers playoff games from the early 80s recently and he's been all over the place!

Kelly HAD to have been a forward in 60/61. I've read that he was the center on the Mahovlich line that year.

And all Frank did was go from 18 goals to 48 that year!

 

[jkrx]

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's a big area.

Yes, maybe I should have specied that it was the area of Winnipeg and the area of Detroit and not the whole area between the two but then again I thought that reasonable people would understand that.

 

[Peter9]

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.

Just a question though - did you grow up in the Montreal area? Just curious, because I'm sure experts there would tend to favor Harvey, while Boston ones would favor Shore.

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.