Eddie Shore vs. Howie Morenz

[BenchBrawl]

With the exception of Bobby Orr, can we claim with confidence that any player was a better all-around and dominant skater than Howie Morenz?

I mean skater as in skating, not player.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

With the exception of Bobby Orr, can we claim with confidence that any player was a better all-around and dominant skater than Howie Morenz?

I mean skater as in skating, not player.

Do we have any sources comparing Morenz to Cyclone Taylor in skating ability? I thought that the greatest skater from the earliest days of hockey way Taylor (but it's possible he was the greatest until Morenz surpassed him).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Do we have any sources comparing Morenz to Cyclone Taylor in skating ability? I thought that the greatest skater from the earliest days of hockey way Taylor (but it's possible he was the greatest until Morenz surpassed him).

Hmm, that would be interesting. Skimming the two available ATD profiles of Morenz I didn't find anything, but I'm sure some quote exist somewhere where Morenz' and Taylor's skating abilities are directly compared. Someone with a subscription to newspapers.com might be able to help in that regard (unfortunately I don't have one currently, but I will by the next ATD so I'll keep it in mind).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

A potential point in Shore's favour is that finishing in 1st place was generally seen as a grander accomplishment back then than it is today. I'm not sure if Boston was ever referred to as a dynasty during Shore's career, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were, despite it seeming non-sensical by modern conventions.

As modern observers, we likely assign more value to Cups and individual playoff performances than contemporaries of Shore and Morenz did. That said, it doesn't seem that the competitive drive of the players to win hockey games was any less back then than in subsequent eras. It more seems that dwelling over a lost Stanley Cup after the fact or showing up in training camp with the singular goal of winning the Cup next April was a lot less of a thing than it is today. But that's just my impression.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

A potential point in Shore's favour is that finishing in 1st place was generally seen as a grander accomplishment back then than it is today. I'm not sure if Boston was ever referred to as a dynasty during Shore's career, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were, despite it seeming non-sensical by modern conventions.

As modern observers, we likely assign more value to Cups and individual playoff performances than contemporaries of Shore and Morenz did. That said, it doesn't seem that the competitive drive of the players to win hockey games was any less back then than in subsequent eras. It more seems that dwelling over a lost Stanley Cup after the fact or showing up in training camp with the singular goal of winning the Cup next April was a lot less of a thing than it is today. But that's just my impression.

Even in the 1960s the gap between regular season and playoff success was nothing like today's all or nothing mentality on winning the Cup. Winning the regular season title was celebrated.

 

[Iapyi]

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.

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."

I already apologized to the other poster for misinterpreting his intent.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Even in the 1960s the gap between regular season and playoff success was nothing like today's all or nothing mentality on winning the Cup. Winning the regular season title was celebrated.

When do you feel the shift to the modern mentality occurred? Gradually throughout the 1970s?

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

How do you mean they won 9 regular season championships? They finished first in '30, '31, '33, '38, '39. One of those was of those was closed out with a Cup, so 1/5.

By comparison, Morenz's Habs finished first in '28, '29, '32 and were knocked out of the playoffs all three times -- 0/3.

The most interesting run of years for the purposes of this conversation:

Year	1st place	Eliminated by	Cup champion
1928	Canadiens	Maroons (semis 0-1-1, OT elimination)	Rangers
1929	Canadiens	Bruins (semis 0-3)	Bruins
1930	Bruins	Canadiens (finals 0-2)	Canadiens
1931	Bruins	Canadiens (semis 2-3, OT elimination)	Canadiens
1932	Canadiens	Rangers (semis 1-3)	Maple Leafs
1933	Bruins (tie*)	Maple Leafs (semis 2-3, OT elimination) * Detroit also eliminated in the semis	Rangers

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

During this period between expansion and WWII, teams that managed to run the table from a 1st place finish to the Cup usually did so by dodging bullets in OT:

• 1927 - Ottawa beat Boston 2-0-2 in the Final when Frank Calder called both OT games ties (a personal decision relating to ice conditions), and then refused to extend the series to avoid accusations of game-fixing. Ottawa's second win, mathematically clinching the series, was the one where the Bruins' frustration spilled over and Billy Coutu ended up getting banned for life.
• 1936 - Detroit won the playoffs in a walk
• 1937 - Detroit advanced in the semis on a 3OT goal in the decisive 5th game
• 1939 - Boston advanced in the semis on a 3OT goal in the decisive 7th game

If those OT breaks go the other way, we get 1928, 1931, 1933 results. All in all, it seems to have broken pretty evenly both ways. It was an interesting era in terms of playoff series length causing everything to hinge on a very small number of plays... even more so than in the total-goals era where a series might be all but over after a Game 1 blowout.

In regard to Shore's individual playoff performances, years ago I wrote a game-by-game breakdown (mercifully not deleted in the purge) which can be found here. I linked the summary post, but the individual season/game recaps can be found in the preceding pages. In sum, I found that there were two playoffs where Shore's performance fell flat:

• 1933, when he was just quiet by his standards
• 1936, where he infamously hit the ref with the puck and then threw it into the stands (the puck, not the ref). Shore's only penalties in the series were a minor earlier that game (2 PP goals against) and that Unsportsmanlike minor (3 PP goals against). The rest of the series, with Shore on the ice, Boston outscored Toronto 6-3. Final goal totals: 8-6 for Toronto.

I believe that 1936 meltdown is the main source of Shore's reputation for playoff penalties. While he certainly was a high-PIM, agitating type player, he was pretty deliberate about keeping that behavior confined to late-game situations and blowouts. During tight games he took penalties at a normal rate for any 60-minute defenseman, and they didn't link cleanly to game or series outcomes. The emphasis on his temper seems to come from Boston getting shellacked in the 1936 incident, where the Bruins had something like a 75.00 GAA on the penalty kill.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

When do you feel the shift to the modern mentality occurred? Gradually throughout the 1970s?

Seemed to have come with the first expansion.

 

[tarheelhockey]

When do you feel the shift to the modern mentality occurred? Gradually throughout the 1970s?

I am going to go out on a limb and speculate that it may have been connected to national television broadcasts.

Bear in mind the extreme growth of marketing around comparable events like the Super Bowl, NCAA championship game, etc during the 70s and 80s. Per the chart here, Super Bowl viewership rose from around 40M in 1968 to around 80M in 1988. During that same 20-year timeframe, the cost of 30 seconds of ad time rose from around $50,000 to around $650,000. These end-of-season payoffs were a huge factor in ballooning pro sports into an entirely different caliber of industry by the end of the 80s.

My theory, completely unsupported by any research, is that the windfall to be made from playoff broadcasts led the NHL to market the Stanley Cup as the be-all and end-all of the hockey season. To hit those revenue targets, you must be certain of a huge audience... and to get that audience you must convince people that they MUST clear their schedule for the event. That means marketing the Stanley Cup to mythical proportions, to the point of overshadowing everything else about the season.

 

[Theokritos]

Even in the 1960s the gap between regular season and playoff success was nothing like today's all or nothing mentality on winning the Cup. Winning the regular season title was celebrated.

Just logically speaking, that makes a lot of sense in a one-division league with a balanced schedule.

 

[tinyzombies]

Do we have any sources comparing Morenz to Cyclone Taylor in skating ability? I thought that the greatest skater from the earliest days of hockey way Taylor (but it's possible he was the greatest until Morenz surpassed him).

From the Dean Robinson book:

Frank Patrick: ""You may think I'm making a ridiculous statement when I say that Taylor could skate faster than Morenz but no truer statement was ever made. Taylor was the fastest thing that ever stepped on ice. His stickhandling was beautiful and, while not possessing a bullet shot, he had a way of picking the openings that was uncanny." Patrick admitted, however, that Morenz had assets that outshone Taylor, in particular his ability to bodycheck, his dynamic rushes and his devastating shot."

Cyclone Taylor was 5'8", 165
Howie Morenz was 5'9", 170

Selke Sr.: "(Morenz) skated as fast as Cyclone Taylor..."

Taylor himself chose Morenz on his personal all-star team in 1942, with Phillips, Davidson, Lester Patrick and Shore (and Leseur). MacKay is rover. (Didn't choose himself, which is odd. But maybe he didn't have the option.)

***

Found more quotes in the book:

Joe Primeau: "It was the ambition of every forward in the Morenz time to match the feats of the great player, but his capabilities far exceeded the best the rest of us could provide."

Dunc Munro: "He was the greatest player I ever saw."

 

[BobbyAwe]

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

But honest old-timers, like Milt Schmidt (who should know) said Orr was better.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How do you mean they won 9 regular season championships? They finished first in '30, '31, '33, '38, '39. One of those was of those was closed out with a Cup, so 1/5.

By comparison, Morenz's Habs finished first in '28, '29, '32 and were knocked out of the playoffs all three times -- 0/3.

The most interesting run of years for the purposes of this conversation:

Year	1st place	Eliminated by	Cup champion
1928	Canadiens	Maroons (semis 0-1-1, OT elimination)	Rangers
1929	Canadiens	Bruins (semis 0-3)	Bruins
1930	Bruins	Canadiens (finals 0-2)	Canadiens
1931	Bruins	Canadiens (semis 2-3, OT elimination)	Canadiens
1932	Canadiens	Rangers (semis 1-3)	Maple Leafs
1933	Bruins (tie*)	Maple Leafs (semis 2-3, OT elimination) * Detroit also eliminated in the semis	Rangers

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

During this period between expansion and WWII, teams that managed to run the table from a 1st place finish to the Cup usually did so by dodging bullets in OT:

• 1927 - Ottawa beat Boston 2-0-2 in the Final when Frank Calder called both OT games ties (a personal decision relating to ice conditions), and then refused to extend the series to avoid accusations of game-fixing. Ottawa's second win, mathematically clinching the series, was the one where the Bruins' frustration spilled over and Billy Coutu ended up getting banned for life.
• 1936 - Detroit won the playoffs in a walk
• 1937 - Detroit advanced in the semis on a 3OT goal in the decisive 5th game
• 1939 - Boston advanced in the semis on a 3OT goal in the decisive 7th game

If those OT breaks go the other way, we get 1928, 1931, 1933 results. All in all, it seems to have broken pretty evenly both ways. It was an interesting era in terms of playoff series length causing everything to hinge on a very small number of plays... even more so than in the total-goals era where a series might be all but over after a Game 1 blowout.

In regard to Shore's individual playoff performances, years ago I wrote a game-by-game breakdown (mercifully not deleted in the purge) which can be found here. I linked the summary post, but the individual season/game recaps can be found in the preceding pages. In sum, I found that there were two playoffs where Shore's performance fell flat:

• 1933, when he was just quiet by his standards
• 1936, where he infamously hit the ref with the puck and then threw it into the stands (the puck, not the ref). Shore's only penalties in the series were a minor earlier that game (2 PP goals against) and that Unsportsmanlike minor (3 PP goals against). The rest of the series, with Shore on the ice, Boston outscored Toronto 6-3. Final goal totals: 8-6 for Toronto.

I believe that 1936 meltdown is the main source of Shore's reputation for playoff penalties. While he certainly was a high-PIM, agitating type player, he was pretty deliberate about keeping that behavior confined to late-game situations and blowouts. During tight games he took penalties at a normal rate for any 60-minute defenseman, and they didn't link cleanly to game or series outcomes. The emphasis on his temper seems to come from Boston getting shellacked in the 1936 incident, where the Bruins had something like a 75.00 GAA on the penalty kill.

I'm more inclined to give players a pass for perceived weak playoffs during this era than any other era. It was really an odd growing period where the game morphed from an archaic form of fire-wagon offensive play (start of Morenz career) into something that sounds like it mirrored soccer in terms of defensive rigidity (both players in their primes), and then into something that probably wouldn't look all that different from a game today (end of Shore's career).

Gaining a tactical upper hand over your opponent seems uniquely emphasized during this period. And with the rules constantly changing, it makes sense. Certain players and coaches were going to catch on and adjust quicker. You're going to see playoff series where a great scorer goes 5-0-0-0 after the other coach kept 3 guys back the whole game and won three 1-0 games. You just don't really see that type of stuff later on. And there's things like Nels Stewart winning the scoring title then getting placed on defense for the playoffs because strategy dictated so. Ice time considerations as some took advantage of expanding rosters before others probably doesn't get talked about enough either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm more inclined to give players a pass for perceived weak playoffs during this era than any other era. It was really an odd growing period where the game morphed from an archaic form of fire-wagon offensive play (start of Morenz career) into something that sounds like it mirrored soccer in terms of defensive rigidity (both players in their primes), and then into something that probably wouldn't look all that different from a game today (end of Shore's career).

Gaining a tactical upper hand over your opponent seems uniquely emphasized during this period. And with the rules constantly changing, it makes sense. Certain players and coaches were going to catch on and adjust quicker. You're going to see playoff series where a great scorer goes 5-0-0-0 after the other coach kept 3 guys back the whole game and won three 1-0 games. You just don't really see that type of stuff later on. And there's things like Nels Stewart winning the scoring title then getting placed on defense for the playoffs because strategy dictated so. Ice time considerations as some took advantage of expanding rosters before others probably doesn't get talked about enough either.

Well said. I find this era really interesting for the same reasons it's so hard to evaluate.

Just to throw in another factor, the absence or inconsistency of assist-counting makes it harder to evaluate offensive production for anyone other than pure goal-scorers.

 

[tinyzombies]

Well said. I find this era really interesting for the same reasons it's so hard to evaluate.

Just to throw in another factor, the absence or inconsistency of assist-counting makes it harder to evaluate offensive production for anyone other than pure goal-scorers.

And assists probably weren't as highly valued, depending on the rules in place.

 

[tarheelhockey]

And assists probably weren't as highly valued, depending on the rules in place.

Depending what year we’re talking about, sometimes assists were awarded on merit, as in basketball. Players who got assists in that environment were doing something very right.

Of course the problem with this is it will dramatically undervalue some players relative to others, and it’s impossible for us to know which players are which.

 

[tarheelhockey]

For what it’s worth, I’m reading Eric Zweig’s biography on Art Ross, and he mentions in passing that Shore was suffering from a bout of neuralgia during the 1928 playoffs. The Bruins also dealt with injuries to Dit Clapper, Dutch Gainor, and Harry Connor which all required surgery.

 

[tinyzombies]

BTW- I happened to be sitting in front of Morenz's old restaurant in downtown Montreal today by coincidence. I swear, it was an accident and I had just looked it up the other day. My grandmother used to work across the street, so I know where it is.

It's a block from where the Stanley Cup was first awarded at Victoria Skating Rink (long since torn down) and where the NHL (and Canadiens) were founded at the Windsor Hotel - part of that still remains.

I also bought some sushi on the site of the old Westmount Arena, where the Canadiens won their first Cup. That building also gone of course.

 

[Boxscore]

BTW- I happened to be sitting in front of Morenz's old restaurant in downtown Montreal today by coincidence. I swear, it was an accident and I had just looked it up the other day. My grandmother used to work across the street, so I know where it is.

It's a block from where the Stanley Cup was first awarded at Victoria Skating Rink (long since torn down) and where the NHL (and Canadiens) were founded at the Windsor Hotel - part of that still remains.

I also bought some sushi on the site of the old Westmount Arena, where the Canadiens won their first Cup. That building also gone of course.

I'm still devastated that I heard Dundee's on Rue Crescent closed--that was my spot--that and Winnie's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How do you mean they won 9 regular season championships? They finished first in '30, '31, '33, '38, '39. One of those was of those was closed out with a Cup, so 1/5.

I made a noob mistake and confused regular season championships with division wins; ugh!

Still, I find 1930s Boston to be a historical underachiever similar to 1960s Chicago.

Here's overpass's summary of Shore's playoffs based off the Montreal Gazette: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

My ultra quick summary of overpass's summaries:

1927: Shore took some bad penalties that hurt his team
1928: Short series, Shore barely mentioned
1929: Boston won Cup, Shore highly praised for his dominant play (but was in the box when the Rangers scored a few)
1930: Boston lost in a major upset, Shore's D pairing was criticized
1931: Shore highly praised for his on-ice play, though he took key penalties that caused his team to be scored on
1932: no playoffs
1933: Shore played great on a team that no longer had the depth to win
1934: no playoffs
1935: Shore played well early, then was overplayed due to Boston's lack of depth
1936: This is the big Shore penalty fest that we talk about where he killed his team's chances.
1937: Shore injured
1938: Shore played fine; Boston lost when Broda stole the series
1939: Boston had a lot of depth; Shore played great in a slightly lesser role as he won his 2nd Cup

 

[tarheelhockey]

I made a noob mistake and confused regular season championships with division wins; ugh!

Still, I find 1930s Boston to be a historical underachiever similar to 1960s Chicago.

Here's overpass's summary of Shore's playoffs based off the Montreal Gazette: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

My ultra quick summary of overpass's summaries:

1927: Shore took bad penalties, hurt his team
1928: Short series, Shore barely mentioned
1929: Boston won Cup, Shore highly praised for his dominant play (but was in the box when the Rangers scored a few)
1930: Boston lost in a major upset, Shore's D pairing was criticized
1931: Shore highly praised for his on-ice play, though he took key penalties that caused his team to be scored on
1932: no playoffs
1933: Shore played great on a team that no longer had the depth to win
1934: no playoffs
1935: Shore played well early, then was overplayed due to Boston's lack of depth
1936: This is the big Shore penalty fest that we talk about.
1937: Shore injured
1938: Shore played fine; Boston lost when Broda stole the series
1939: Boston had a lot of depth; Shore played great in a slightly lesser role

Ooh, this is where we get to the good stuff. I can't get to it right this minute, but I want to comb back through my and @overpass ' accounts and see where there's any divergence, and then we can take a deep dive to clear up whatever we can. That would make for a nice peer-reviewed, primary source-based process of defining Shore's playoff reputation.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

BTW- I happened to be sitting in front of Morenz's old restaurant in downtown Montreal today by coincidence. I swear, it was an accident and I had just looked it up the other day. My grandmother used to work across the street, so I know where it is.

I never knew Morenz owned a restaurant - what was it called? What's the address?

 

[Professor What]

I made a noob mistake and confused regular season championships with division wins; ugh!

Still, I find 1930s Boston to be a historical underachiever similar to 1960s Chicago.

Here's overpass's summary of Shore's playoffs based off the Montreal Gazette: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

My ultra quick summary of overpass's summaries:

1927: Shore took some bad penalties that hurt his team
1928: Short series, Shore barely mentioned
1929: Boston won Cup, Shore highly praised for his dominant play (but was in the box when the Rangers scored a few)
1930: Boston lost in a major upset, Shore's D pairing was criticized
1931: Shore highly praised for his on-ice play, though he took key penalties that caused his team to be scored on
1932: no playoffs
1933: Shore played great on a team that no longer had the depth to win
1934: no playoffs
1935: Shore played well early, then was overplayed due to Boston's lack of depth
1936: This is the big Shore penalty fest that we talk about where he killed his team's chances.
1937: Shore injured
1938: Shore played fine; Boston lost when Broda stole the series
1939: Boston had a lot of depth; Shore played great in a slightly lesser role as he won his 2nd Cup

Eddie Shore's mean streak, which spilled out onto the ice on occasions such as his near accidental killing of Ace Bailey, was so intense that I think the argument could easily be made that he's the most talented goon to ever play the game of hockey. He's indisputably one of the two best players of the first quarter century of the NHL, yet, he simply didn't know how to (or didn't want to) keep himself in check. Give me the choice of him and anybody not named Howie Morenz out of that era, and I'm taking Shore. But, give me the choice of the two of them, and I'm taking Morenz. I don't feel bold enough to try to declare which one was more talented, but I didn't have to worry about Morenz losing his temper and hurting my team.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I liken Shore to a tougher (grimy?) version of Brent Burns stylistically...