Eddie Shore vs. Howie Morenz

[Dennis Bonvie]

Wa?

He wasn't well liked.

 

[tinyzombies]

Comparing players of a different era where the rules changed and where the definitions of defense were totally different than today. And with no way to gauge what kind of playmakers they were.

I've read that Shore's defense wasn't exactly elite - at least at the beginning of his career. Morenz was an excellent two-way player by all accounts.

Shore was well built for his era, at 190 lbs despite being only 5’11”.
Morenz was 170 lbs and 5'9".

The Dean Robinson bio has the following comments that could be relevant:

Lionel Conacher: "There is only one Man O'War. There may have been horses just as good but if there were we don't know about them. It could be possible that someone will come along, for instance, and break Babe Ruth's home run record, but it's hard for me to believe that he who comes along will ever replace Ruth as the really great player. That's how it is with Morenz in hockey." And: "I think that when hockey records are written and they are both in the past, people will know and hear tales of Morenz when the Rocket will be in a class, possibly, of just another great hockey player."

Joliat: "He was the greatest hockey player who ever lived."

King Clancy: "(T)o me M was the greatest but I think Bobby Orr was in his class."

Frank Patrick in 1942: 'Close to Taylor and Morenz, Patrick had a special place for Joliat and Nighbor ... On defense he had Lester Patrick and Eddie Shore.'

Mike Rodden (1,100 NHL games reffed): "In any era Morenz would have been a hurtling, sensational figure, too elusive to be trapped or harried by lesser lights in the trade."

Shore's teammate Weiland said: "No other player I ever saw could skate as fast as (Morenz) could."

Marty Burke: "Please stop anyone from comparing present-day hockey players to the late HM. When M wasn't on the ice for 45 minutes in a game he was mad at the world. He could go like blazes both ways and he would have been terrific under any hockey rules."

Selke Sr.: "Bobby Orr is maybe as good a hockey player as I ever saw, you might even say the best (insinuating Morenz was just as good). And: "Maurice Richard gave me tremendous thrills playing for the Canadiens, and when I was with the Leafs and he played against us, because from the blueline in he was like a strike of lightning. But he couldn't skate or give you the impression like Morenz did about compelling force in the game. There's nobody like him now."

Hap Day: "There's no doubt he was one of the greatest and probably the fastest hockey player I've ever seen, and the includes Bobby Orr."

Nighbor: "HM was a grand player. He had enough speed for two men. The only way you could stop him was through team play ... Maybe I had something to do with it in the end, but it was my wingmen who turned the trick."

 

[Boxscore]

Comparing players of a different era where the rules changed and where the definitions of defense were totally different than today. And with no way to gauge what kind of playmakers they were.

I've read that Shore's defense wasn't exactly elite - at least at the beginning of his career. Morenz was an excellent two-way player by all accounts.

Shore was well built for his era, at 190 lbs despite being only 5’11”.
Morenz was 170 lbs and 5'9".

The Dean Robinson bio has the following comments that could be relevant:

Lionel Conacher: "There is only one Man O'War. There may have been horses just as good but if there were we don't know about them. It could be possible that someone will come along, for instance, and break Babe Ruth's home run record, but it's hard for me to believe that he who comes along will ever replace Ruth as the really great player. That's how it is with Morenz in hockey." And: "I think that when hockey records are written and they are both in the past, people will know and hear tales of Morenz when the Rocket will be in a class, possibly, of just another great hockey player."

Joliat: "He was the greatest hockey player who ever lived."

King Clancy: "(T)o me M was the greatest but I think Bobby Orr was in his class."

Frank Patrick in 1942: 'Close to Taylor and Morenz, Patrick had a special place for Joliat and Nighbor ... On defense he had Lester Patrick and Eddie Shore.'

Mike Rodden (1,100 NHL games reffed): "In any era Morenz would have been a hurtling, sensational figure, too elusive to be trapped or harried by lesser lights in the trade."

Shore's teammate Weiland said: "No other player I ever saw could skate as fast as he could."

Marty Burke: "Please stop anyone from comparing present-day hockey players to the late HM. When M wasn't on the ice for 45 minutes in a game he was mad at the world. He could go like blazes both ways and he would have been terrific under any hockey rules."

Selke Sr.: "Bobby Orr is maybe as good a hockey player as I ever saw, you might even say the best.

And the pages are cut, but I think he says this too, or at least one of the Leafs did: "Maurice Richard gave me tremendous thrills playing for the Canadiens, and when I was with the Leafs and he played against us, because from the blueline in he was like a strike of lightning. But he couldn't skate or give you the impression like Morenz did about compelling force in the game. There's nobody like him now."

Hap Day: "There's no doubt he was one of the greatest and probably the fastest hockey player I've ever seen, and the includes Bobby Orr."

Nighbor: "HM was a grand player. He had enough speed for two men. The only way you could stop him was through team play ... Maybe I had something to do with it in the end, but it was my wingmen who turned the trick."

Some good digs there.

 

[tinyzombies]

 

[tinyzombies]

His arms are just as long as Charlie Conacher, who was 6'1", 210 lbs. and their legs are pretty close in length too, tho Conacher is slightly behind Morenz. Both considered to have the best shots of their era (Conacher generally considered to have the hardest at that time). Amazing to see Conacher in Habs socks!

 

[Theokritos]

Great quotes.

The comparison with Richard...

"Maurice Richard gave me tremendous thrills playing for the Canadiens, and when I was with the Leafs and he played against us, because from the blueline in he was like a strike of lightning. But he couldn't skate or give you the impression like Morenz did about compelling force in the game."

...reminds me a bit of this one:

"Moving over the entire length of the rink, Morenz was faster; [meanwhile] from the blue line to the net of the opponents, there was no equal to Richard. To return to the defence, Morenz was the perfect skater thanks to his speed; but in evading an opposing defenceman, Richard is the ace of aces."

 

[tinyzombies]

Great quotes.

The comparison with Richard...



...reminds me a bit of this one:

I'll check later, I have the book downstairs.

===

Found the book, the quote was from Selke Sr. as I had guessed.

Also from 1926, Morenz won a league-wide speed contest with a 17.0. Shore, Nighbor and others had "17.6 or better," whatever that means.

More quotes:

Nels Stewart: "They don't come like Morenz very often. He had everything, could rush, score goals, backcheck. You couldn't put the Rocket in the same breath as Howie, and that goes for everybody else, including Bill Cook. None of them were in the same stable." Stewart did conclude, however, that "from the blueline in there isn't any better than Richard."

Toe Blake: "I don't think from end to end I ever saw a guy like Morenz. He was small, stocky, with the most powerful legs you've ever seen. He'd make rush after rush - at least 20 a game - and it never mattered how hard he got hit. Shot up into the seats in one rush, by killers like Eddie Shore and Taffy Abel and the like, and he'd come right back as if they didn't exist. And I'll tell you another thing, one of the greatest backcheckers I ever saw. He was just a terrific hockey player."

Dean Robinson: "In the spring of 1945 the board of governors for the newly-established International Hockey Hall of Fame put Morenz at the top of their list of charter members." Eddie Shore who retired five years before was not inducted the first year, but that could be for several reasons. Morenz was the first man inducted into the HHOF, but that also could be because of the sympathy factor.

Eddie Shore: "Morenz had a heart that was unsurpassed in athletic history."

 

[tinyzombies]

 

[tinyzombies]

1927-28: Hec Kilrea won the speed contest with 16.4 seconds. Morenz had a 17.0 again, but so did several other players it says.

Morenz is criticized on here (ATD) for doing nothing in the 30-31 playoffs, but Robinson says he was injured: "When they showered the ice with debris Howie slipped on something and slid into the boards, aggravating his already injured back and shoulder."

People raise up Nighbor here, but neglect to mention that Morenz was also a great defensive player and a much better offensive player (and a solid bodychecker). It also says he would bend the rules to win (there is Youtube video of him kneeing a guy pretty badly).

 

[Iapyi]

Someone is on an agenda. I suspect finding a bunch of quotes lauding Shore's play could be presented as well [though it won't be me doing it].

 

[tinyzombies]

Someone is on an agenda. I suspect finding a bunch of quotes lauding Shore's play could be presented as well [though it won't be me doing it].

No agenda, I just have the book. Not saying who is better, but Morenz gets undervalued in the ATD in my humble opinion and I've seen a steady rise in opinion for Shore (and Bourque). There is also video of Morenz going around Shore, but then he takes some weak-ass backhander from the half-boards, so we have to keep the era in mind.

Again, hard to say because hard to gauge what kind of passers either would have been under different rules. Also, we don't have special teams info and a lot of other info. We don't know Morenz was a good defensive player, we only have quotes. But seems like he had the puck a lot, could hit, and would backcheck "like blazes," so those are three important qualities for defensive players.

 

[Iapyi]

No agenda, I just have the book. Not saying who is better, but Morenz gets undervalued in the ATD in my humble opinion and I've seen a steady rise in opinion for Shore (and Bourque). There is also video of Morenz going around Shore, but then he takes some weak-ass backhander from the half-boards, so we have to keep the era in mind.

Again, hard to say because hard to gauge what kind of passers either would have been under different rules. Also, we don't have special teams info and a lot of other info. We don't know Morenz was a good defensive player, we only have quotes. But seems like he had the puck a lot, could hit, and would backcheck "like blazes," so those are three important qualities for defensive players.

That's cool and sorry about the misinterpretation, just seemed like you were trying to beef up Morenz, glad to hear you're not.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why would anyone have an agenda to pimp out a player who was before their time?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Why would anyone have an agenda to pimp out a player who was before their time?

If you’re interested in a detailed exploration of this topic, click here for more information.

 

[Iapyi]

It's certainly not uncommon.

 

[wetcoast]

When I was young old-timers at Boston Garden said Orr was no Eddie Shore

Family legend says my mother dated Shore before she met my father at a Bruins game.

Morenz was a legend and yet the Habs traded him during the depression to try and stay afloat. That backfired and the team almost moved to Cleveland.

Both players are NHL icons

Wow that would have some changes in NHL history no doubt.

 

[wetcoast]

The answer is...

Frank Nighbor.

Apparently he has been really great in the last 5 seasons....right?

 

[wetcoast]

Shore won all his Harts after Morenz was no longer a factor. And his last 2 Harts were against historically terrible competition. So I don't find the argument that he was better because he had 1 more Hart than Morenz to be compelling.

On the other hand, Shore does have a longevity advantage, which... is something I guess.

Yet Shore only has 2 SC's to show for his dominance not to mention there were always 6-9 HHOFers on his Bruin teams.

Despite the Bruins having around 40 seasons of 3 of the top 10 Dmen of all time they have only 4 SC's to show for it.

Not saying that it says or means anything but it is very interesting.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yet Shore only has 2 SC's to show for his dominance not to mention there were always 6-9 HHOFers on his Bruin teams.

To be fair, the NHL of Shore's career was much like today, in that there was a new champion virtually every year. From 1927-39, the Cup was won twice by the Bruins, Canadiens, Rangers, Red Wings, and Black Hawks, and once apiece by the Leafs, Sens, and Maroons.

(perhaps we underrate the struggles of the poor Amerks fans)

Morenz of course has more than 2 rings, but the context of what it took to win a Cup changed dramatically in just a few years.

• In '24, the Habs won the 4-team NHL with a 2-game series win over Ottawa, then hosted travel-weary Vancouver and Calgary in Montreal with different rulebooks being played each game.
• In '25, the Habs won the NHL championship on a forfeit, then lost the Stanley Cup final in Victoria under conditions comparable to those of the road teams they beat in '24.

By the time Shore entered the league in '27, most teams were facing a 3-round path to the Cup with series stretching up to 5 games. Still nothing like the modern playoff marathon, to be sure. But still, there's a big difference between going through 3 teams in best-of-X format, versus winning a goals margin over 2 games and then beating the pants off some guys who just took a 3000-mile train trip.

I'm inclined to think of Morenz having no more than a very marginal advantage over Shore when it comes to Cup-counting, which then brings up the question of whether Shore's Cup count is really all that disappointing within the context of the era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Adding to that last post, a bit of trivia:

During the timeframe of Shore's NHL career, only three players won more than 2 Stanley Cups -- Gord Pettinger (4), Hec Kilrea (3), and Paul Thompson (3).

If you combine their playoff stats from each of their first Cup rings, you get a total of 2 points (both from Kilrea).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you’re interested in a detailed exploration of this topic, click here for more information.

I guess I just find it both ignorant and insulting to accuse someone who just provided a bunch of information on a player (who they never even saw play!) of "having an agenda."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To be fair, the NHL of Shore's career was much like today, in that there was a new champion virtually every year. From 1927-39, the Cup was won twice by the Bruins, Canadiens, Rangers, Red Wings, and Black Hawks, and once apiece by the Leafs, Sens, and Maroons.

(perhaps we underrate the struggles of the poor Amerks fans)

Morenz of course has more than 2 rings, but the context of what it took to win a Cup changed dramatically in just a few years.

• In '24, the Habs won the 4-team NHL with a 2-game series win over Ottawa, then hosted travel-weary Vancouver and Calgary in Montreal with different rulebooks being played each game.
• In '25, the Habs won the NHL championship on a forfeit, then lost the Stanley Cup final in Victoria under conditions comparable to those of the road teams they beat in '24.

By the time Shore entered the league in '27, most teams were facing a 3-round path to the Cup with series stretching up to 5 games. Still nothing like the modern playoff marathon, to be sure. But still, there's a big difference between going through 3 teams in best-of-X format, versus winning a goals margin over 2 games and then beating the pants off some guys who just took a 3000-mile train trip.

I'm inclined to think of Morenz having no more than a very marginal advantage over Shore when it comes to Cup-counting, which then brings up the question of whether Shore's Cup count is really all that disappointing within the context of the era.

This is good information, but how does it look if we take into account regular season team strength?

Over Shore's career in Boston, they won 9 regular season championships and were the 2nd best regular season team 3 times. So only 2 Cups certainly looks less than expected. We also have statistical information that Shore's PIMs tended to increase in the playoffs, as well as anecdotal information that his bad penalties hurt his team on at least one occasion in the playoffs.

 

[Theokritos]

That's cool and sorry about the misinterpretation, just seemed like you were trying to beef up Morenz, glad to hear you're not.

Even if he tried to beef him up, it would have been by the mean of digging up valuable insights by the players' contemporaries. Which you dismissed as "a bunch of quotes" while simultaneously stating we shouldn't expect you to contribute anything yourself.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The 1925-1944 era is weird. Hard to get a read on it. I find it easier to grasp the 1915-1925 era despite the split leagues and what-not.

However one thing about Morenz we can see with the limited eye-test is that he was one of the greatest skaters of all-time. I saw him make sharp turns at dangerous speed in 1930's skates. All else being equal, being such a talented skater is a huge point in his favor.

 

[Fenway]

Without Shore, the Boston Bruins don't survive the Great Depression

Don Cherry has told the story that a Bruins player was teasing Shore in the late '70s that he would not be able to play in the modern NHL.

Shore flattened the player with one punch and he was 75 years old at the time.