Eddie Shore vs. Howie Morenz

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

Maybe early Shore. Later Shore was elite in his own end as his offense slowed down a bit

 

[Michael Farkas]

I have my doubts...I think well into his prime he was covered for by a partner, namely Hitchman...after he calls it quits, Shore wins the majority of his Harts, so there may be something there...I'm just having trouble shaking my sneaking suspicions behind Eddie Shore, needs more film...desperately...

Frustrated incredulity: There isn't two whole consecutive periods of hockey available from the 1930's anywhere on earth? Is that what you're telling me? Give me one Montreal/Boston game from 1933, I'll get be all set with both players named in this thread forever...one game.

 

[tinyzombies]

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

 

[tinyzombies]

I have my doubts...I think well into his prime he was covered for by a partner, namely Hitchman...after he calls it quits, Shore wins the majority of his Harts, so there may be something there...I'm just having trouble shaking my sneaking suspicions behind Eddie Shore, needs more film...desperately...

Frustrated incredulity: There isn't two whole consecutive periods of hockey available from the 1930's anywhere on earth? Is that what you're telling me? Give me one Montreal/Boston game from 1933, I'll get be all set with both players named in this thread forever...one game.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

View attachment 367972

Thanks for that. As a (former) Montrealer, I feel like that's something I should have known.

 

[tinyzombies]

 

[tinyzombies]

Thanks for that. As a (former) Montrealer, I feel like that's something I should have known.

Early 30's. His partner ripped him off so the restaurant wasn't open long.

 

[tinyzombies]

Here is Morenz, the bottom-most guy on the screen. He turns and counterattacks, takes a pass and scores. Probably the best sequence we have on film of him:





Here's another rush, Red Horner knocks him down (or trips him maybe):


Here's more:

Throwing a hit:

Here's Joliat with a head of steam skating around the outside at 30 seconds, Shore (2) tries to intercept him as he comes around the other side of the net: https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=31

 

[tinyzombies]

Shore compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPV3wv8MXhA

Here is Shore grabbing the puck and rounding the net:


Here is Morenz coming in on Shore, but Hitchman skates hard at him and he lets off a weak backhander before we can see Morenz and Shore meet:

Here is Shore making a poor defensive read (actually looks like he thinks Hitchman has the middle and it's Hitchman that leaves the guy wide open):


Here is Morenz stopping a guy with a sweep check at the line:

https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=112

Joliat nutmegs Shore!, Morenz spins around and throws a weak backhander at the net, Joliat scores on rebound, Shore arrives late to watch the puck go in:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=119

Here Shore kind of turns the wrong way on a guy:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=1131

 

[tinyzombies]

Morenz rush:


Morenz tripping a guy, but showing good acceleration:

 

[buffalowing88]

I'm always going to be a big Shore proponent. I'm unhappy where he landed on the latest HHOF all-time ranking. With that said, it's a privilege to see these new Morenz highlights. What an incredible performer and someone who was stickhandling far before it became even accepted. I think both deserve a few spots higher in the all-time list. Thank you for sharing this!

 

[buffalowing88]

Shore compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPV3wv8MXhA

Here is Shore grabbing the puck and rounding the net:


Here is Morenz coming in on Shore, but Hitchman skates hard at him and he lets off a weak backhander before we can see Morenz and Shore meet:

Here is Shore making a poor defensive read (actually looks like he thinks Hitchman has the middle and it's Hitchman that leaves the guy wide open):


Here is Morenz stopping a guy with a sweep check at the line:

https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=112

Joliat nutmegs Shore!, Morenz spins around and throws a weak backhander at the net, Joliat scores on rebound, Shore arrives late to watch the puck go in:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=119

Here Shore kind of turns the wrong way on a guy:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=1131

Fantastic stuff. Thank you!

 

[tarheelhockey]

One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.

Those skates left little margin for error when it came to keeping your balance in a stop or turn. The puck carrier’s best bet was to attack in a north-south fashion without trying to dance around too much. The defender’s best bet, rather than skating with him, was to sit back like a cobra and lunge at the opportune moment.

These guys were trained in an era where the best teams sent 2-3 players on rushes, making a drop pass at the right instant to change the direction of the attack and get around those defenders. Resting your hopes on solo rushes by a superstar was generally a losing proposition. But Morenz was a good enough skater to defy that principle.

This also gives some sense of why it was so dangerous to have an Eddie Shore in the lineup. A defenseman who could carry the puck from his own end into a dangerous scoring position at the other end, which in this dynamic meant occupying the defenders with three forwards trailing, would open up a lot of space for his teammates.

On a less tactical and more experiential level, the number of bodies flying around gives us a sense of why pro hockey got so popular so quickly.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.

Those skates left little margin for error when it came to keeping your balance in a stop or turn. The puck carrier’s best bet was to attack in a north-south fashion without trying to dance around too much. The defender’s best bet, rather than skating with him, was to sit back like a cobra and lunge at the opportune moment.

These guys were trained in an era where the best teams sent 2-3 players on rushes, making a drop pass at the right instant to change the direction of the attack and get around those defenders. Resting your hopes on solo rushes by a superstar was generally a losing proposition. But Morenz was a good enough skater to defy that principle.

This also gives some sense of why it was so dangerous to have an Eddie Shore in the lineup. A defenseman who could carry the puck from his own end into a dangerous scoring position at the other end, which in this dynamic meant occupying the defenders with three forwards trailing, would open up a lot of space for his teammates.

On a less tactical and more experiential level, the number of bodies flying around gives us a sense of why pro hockey got so popular so quickly.

Morenz and Shore both played many seasons before the forward pass was legal. Being able to carry the puck into the offensive zone was even more critical.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Morenz and Shore both played many seasons before the forward pass was legal. Being able to carry the puck into the offensive zone was even more critical.

And even in the 1930s, while the forward pass was allowed in all 3 zones, it was still not allowed between zones, so being able to carry the puck into the offensive zone remained critical.

*1944 is when the red line was added and the pass between zones was allowed with close to modern offsides rules

 

[Boxscore]

One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.

Not to simplify this by any means, but man, those skates were absolutely horrific--not really made for pivoting and cutting, etc. One disruption and it was extremely easy to lose balance and traction. You've probably seen this before--but this is Ekman-Larsson trying out vintage equipment--and this is stuff from the 80's.

 

[tinyzombies]

Not to simplify this by any means, but man, those skates were absolutely horrific--not really made for pivoting and cutting, etc. One disruption and it was extremely easy to lose balance and traction. You've probably seen this before--but this is Ekman-Larsson trying out vintage equipment--and this is stuff from the 80's.

But if you look at Morenz's crossovers above he is great at gaining speed. I've seen other skaters from back then on the little video that exists and none of them have that. The next guy I remember seeing that from is Max Bentley, who was an incredible skater in all respects and would rank with the best today. Wish we had video of Cyclone Taylor.

 

[Boxscore]

But if you look at Morenz's crossovers above he is great at gaining speed. I've seen other skaters from back then on the little video that exists and none of them have that. The next guy I remember seeing that from is Max Bentley, who was an incredible skater in all respects and would rank with the best today. Wish we had video of Cyclone Taylor.

No doubt, I completely agree. Just saying it was easy to go down, even for elite skaters like Morenz. Makes it more impressive how those guys could skate so well on those flimsy skates.

 

[Professor What]

Not to simplify this by any means, but man, those skates were absolutely horrific--not really made for pivoting and cutting, etc. One disruption and it was extremely easy to lose balance and traction. You've probably seen this before--but this is Ekman-Larsson trying out vintage equipment--and this is stuff from the 80's.

I don't think you are simplifying at all by talking about the technology. I have no doubt that absolutely was the issue. I also wonder about the quality of the ice back then. I'm sure it was a lot rougher than what they play on today.

 

[tinyzombies]

I don't think you are simplifying at all by talking about the technology. I have no doubt that absolutely was the issue. I also wonder about the quality of the ice back then. I'm sure it was a lot rougher than what they play on today.

When Montreal won in 1924 (Morenz scored the Cup winning goal as a rookie), they had to move game 2 to Ottawa because Mont-Royal Arena had natural ice and it was melting. Habs moved to the Forum as we know that Fall (actually I think it was in December maybe?).

 

[Professor What]

When Montreal won in 1924 (Morenz scored the Cup winning goal as a rookie), they had to move game 2 to Ottawa because Mont-Royal Arena had natural ice and it was melting. Habs moved to the Forum as we know that Fall (actually I think it was in December maybe?).

I had artificial ice in mind when I said that, but, yeah, you're right, they hadn't completely gotten away from natural ice in the NHL's early years, which makes it even worse. It really just makes me respect what those trailblazers did even more when thinking about what they had to put up with that players today don't.

 

[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 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

OK, circling back to this. Here's a merged version of the work that @overpass and I did in prior threads. This is just a copy/paste of the summaries for each season... we can drill down and look at it game-by-game as needed.

1927

Overpass - Not a great final series for Eddie Shore as he appears to have taken a lot of penalties, some of which cost his team goals against. King Clancy was clearly the best skater in the final, and had been the best defenceman in the world in 1926-27, with 9 of 10 managers placing him on their first all-star team. However, Shore was not yet a superstar at this point, only placing on the third all star team in the managers' voting, with teammates Lionel Hitchman and Sprague Cleghorn as honorable mentions.

Tarheelhockey - Even as a rookie [note: as pointed out in a reply, better to say "first year NHL'er" than "rookie"] Shore was clearly on a level with the Bruins' star defensemen Cleghorn and Hitchman as a playoff factor. All indications are that Art Ross sent him out consistently with the objective of agitating the other teams' starting defenders into taking matching penalties, which allowed Boston to use their depth to its greatest advantage. But when the chips were down, as in the tied games and trailing-by-1 situations, Shore was probably most potent offensive option for Boston including their forwards, and his penalties disappeared. Boston fell short of a Cup against the #1 seeded Senators, but took down the division-leading Rangers and gave Ottawa a decent run for its money.

1928

Overpass - Only a two game series, and it appears to have turned on the Rangers scoring the first goal in Game 2. Shore was not mentioned as standing out, although he was considered the best defenceman in hockey by now based on the managers' all star voting.

Tarheelhockey - Tough loss for Shore who was held scoreless in both games. Up until the Rangers' outburst late in the third period of game 2, the teams had combined for only 3 goals in 5 1/2 periods of play. Boston scored only one meaningful goal in the series, plus a throwaway with 30 seconds left. Clearly they were trying to beat the Rangers with a more conservative, defensive gameplan than in the previous season, and it might have worked out if not for consecutive defensive breakdowns down the middle of the ice.

1929

Overpass - Boston appears to have had a very strong team, and won the Cup. Shore received high praise for his play in the Canadiens game when he led the attack, although he was also in the penalty box for the goals that put his team down. Boston locked down the Rangers defensively in the final.

Tarheelhockey - Though "discipline" is always relative when talking about Shore, it's clear that he was no longer playing the agitator role as he had in previous seasons. One gets the feeling from the recaps that Boston's defense was the main factor in their playoff success, allowing 1 or fewer goals in four of their five playoff games, and Shore was a huge part of that success. Probably one of the most interesting playoff games for any defenseman was his Game 3 of the Montreal series, where he put his team behind 2-0 and then scored 2 points in a 3-2 win. If that doesn't showcase Eddie Shore hockey, I don't know what does.

1930

Overpass - This was a major upset for Boston to lose to Canadiens after their dominant regular season. Only a 2 game series, but it wasn't close. Boston's defence of Shore and Hitchman performed poorly. Not Eddie Shore's finest hour.

Tarheelhockey - Shore was twice called out in the press as hands-down the best player on the ice for two of Boston's playoff games. He was burned for a goal in the first game of the Finals, and was the focus of Montreal's defense during that game. He was apparently one of the only Bruins to show up for Game 2. Noteworthy that the unexpected hero of the second game for Montreal, Nick Wasnie, playing on the right wing on the other side of the ice from Shore. This suggests that the game was lost on the side of the ice where Shore couldn't have an impact. That, and the fact that the Bruins' famous Dynamite Trio scoring line was half-injured and didn't show up until the final period of the final game.

1931

Overpass - High praise for Eddie Shore's performance in several games as the greatest defenceman and driving leader of Boston. However, there were a couple of warts. Shore was in the box for the first goal by Canadiens in 2 of the 3 losses. He also turned the puck over to Georges Mantha, who scored a goal, in one of the losses.

Tarheelhockey - Shore didn't have his greatest showing in Game 5, but in every other games he was the outstanding Bruin at both ends of the ice. Much like the previous season, there's little more he could have done to drag the Bruins to victory. His 3 points was the most he would score in an entire playoff until his 1939 Cup run, and he played some of the best defense of his career in this series.

1932

Overpass - Boston Bruins missed the playoffs

Tarheelhockey - The Bruins fell off the face of the planet and finished last, missing the playoffs.

1933

Overpass - By this point Boston lacked depth and really counted on Shore to drive their team. They lost to a better Toronto team despite Shore's best efforts.

Tarheelhockey - This period [note: 1932-34] represents a good chunk of Shore's athletic prime, aged 29-31. In particular, 1933 was one of the best seasons of his career -- he won the Hart, finished second overall in the league in assists, and 7 points ahead of the nearest defenseman. His only brief playoff series during this time was a mixed bag. He had a slow first two games, a brilliant game 3, a poor game 4, and a strong but futile game 5. I suspect that if we were to ask him, he would choose the 1933 playoffs as a do-over.

1934

Overpass - Missed playoffs, due to their struggles while Shore was suspended.

Tarheelhockey - The Bruins slumped again, missing the playoffs. This was the season of the Ace Bailey incident.

1935

Overpass - Boston's lack of depth really told. Frank Patrick burned out his two star defencemen Shore and Siebert by overplaying them in the first OT game, and they were unable to recover in time to get back in the series.

Tarheelhockey - This was a case where the playoff format of the time clearly put the Bruins behind the 8-ball, and the injuries to Clapper and Siebert made an upset of the Leafs very unlikely. Shore's OT play in Game 1 gave them a fighting chance, but there was not very much he could do with Siebert playing with a severe injury and the Boston forwards unable to muster any offense. By all indications Shore's main duty in this series was simply to keep the Leafs defense at bay long enough to give the Bruins a chance to chip in a goal and win. In games 1, 2 and 4 they actually did have a chance, but the goals went the other way. It's also noteworthy that Shore took only one meaningless minor penalty in the series, a remarkable change from his reckless past.

1936

Overpass - This is the playoff where Shore is remembered for losing his temper. One moment of anger led to 3 goals against and a lost series. All the same, Shore can't take all the blame -- the Bruins completely fell apart without him, allowing 5 goals in the 12 minutes he was in the penalty box. It seems harsh that one moment should make a series but that's the nature of a two game series.

Tarheelhockey - The easy way to read this series is "Shore cost his team a playoff series because of his temper". That certainly has a great deal of truth to it, but it ignores that Boston would never have been in the series in the first place without Shore. It was his performance that won the first game, and Game 2 made it clear that Shore was the only thing keeping the Leafs from running roughshod over the Bruins. He was off the ice for a total of 12 minutes, and his team was outscored 5-0 compared to outscoring the Leafs 6-3 the rest of the series. Basically, Shore was carrying a team that couldn't fend for itself, and the playoff format allowed a 12-minute surge to dictate the outcome of the series.

1937

Overpass - Shore misses most of the season and all of the playoffs with injury. Boston loses to Maroons 2-1

Tarheelhockey - Shore fractured a vertebra in February and was out for the rest of the season. Boston lost a first-round matchup to the Maroons, this being the first time that best-of-5 elimination was used in the quarterfinals.

1938

Overpass - Boston really should have won this one but Turk Broda put up a great goaltending performance, allowing only 3 goals in 3 games while being outshot by quite a bit. Shore seems to have performed well but he couldn't get the Bruins to score enough.

Tarheelhockey - As usual, the Bruins couldn't get anything going unless Shore was on the attack. The Gazette makes it clear that Art Ross realized after their loss in the first game (when the Bruins were scoreless through 4 periods and lost as soon as he had Shore jump into a rush) that his team needed to be more aggressive rather than sitting back and playing mistake-free hockey. Shore clearly impressed both Canadian and American writers with his performance in Game 2 and made a clutch play to tie the final game, but in all three contests Turk Broda made the difference. Unofficially, the Bruins outshot the Leafs 73-30 in the final two games and were outscored 5-3. Shore's defensive partners played key roles in the defensive breakdowns that decided the series.

1939

Overpass - Boston was now a very deep team and Eddie Shore no longer had to do everything. He continued to start at right defence, but Boston also had Johnny Crawford (already receiving all-star votes) to spell him at right defence. Shore seems to have played strong defensive hockey, picked his spots to rush the puck, and not taken anything off the table with penalties or mistakes as Boston won the Cup. Credit to him for a Cup win as a #1 defenceman, when he no longer had to drive the offence and defence and could play more reasonable minutes.

Tarheelhockey - For the most part, this was a completely different Eddie Shore than we saw in previous playoffs. Throughout the Rangers series he played so conservatively as to avoid the box scores, and even the recap writers had to go out of their way to point out that he was outstanding despite being uninvolved in any specific highlight. In the Finals he was back to his old self, delivering key assists in games 1, 2 and 5, and altering the course of the series with a massive check on Jackson in Game 3.

1940

Overpass - [did not comment]

Tarheelhockey - This whole thing smacks of war-era silliness. Shore picked up a couple of assists but by all appearances he was playing out a contract and setting up business opportunities outside of playing. Nothing to see here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Looking over that list of posts, and with an eye toward focusing in on the potential for new research, here are the points of agreement and disagreement:

1927
Agreement: Shore took a lot of penalties. He was not yet a superstar, but had emerged as a peer of the league's top defensemen.
Disagreement: Overpass specifically identified Shore's penalties in the Finals as an issue in what he considered a weak series performance, wheres I seemed more comfortable with the penalties for reasons of game context.

1928
Agreement: Shore didn't stand out. The short series doesn't give us much to work with for '28.
Disagreement:

1929
Agreement: Shore had a signature game against the Habs in which his penalties put his team behind, then his offensive play rallied them for a win. He led the Bruins to a notably strong defensive performance in the Rangers series.
Disagreement:

1930
Agreement:
Disagreement: We have completely different reads on Shore's performance. This one needs followup for sure.

1931
Agreement: Generally a strong showing. We both noted that Shore got into a habit of taking penalties which the Habs converted into early goals, which happened in games 1, 3, and most notably the decisive Game 5.
Disagreement:

1933
Agreement: Boston was a mediocre team that expected Shore to do everything.
Disagreement: Overpass was more forgiving whereas I highlighted his inconsistency across 5 games.

1934
Agreement: The Bruins missed the playoffs in the wake of the Ace Bailey incident.
Disagreement: Overpass ties Shore's suspension directly to missing the playoffs. In my opinion, it's debatable whether Boston would have made the playoffs even if Shore had been in the lineup.

1935
Agreement: Bruins were in a hopeless situation, and Shore did everything that was realistically in his power to give them a chance against a much better team.
Disagreement:

1936
Agreement: Shore notoriously lost his temper and the result of that penalty cost the Bruins a playoff series. In his defense, Shore's absence for a few minutes was no excuse for the Bruins to completely implode, and the playoff format put a harsh emphasis on those few minutes. At the end of the day, this is the biggest stain on his playoff record.
Disagreement:

1938
Agreement: Shore had a good series and carried the Bruins, but they ran into a red-hot Turk Broda who cut their playoffs short.
Disagreement:

1939
Agreement: Shore played well in a #1 role, but he was noticeably dialed back compared to his usual dynamic style. In the context of a deeper team, he was able to sit back and play a more steady and conservative style which was quite successful.
Disagreement:



Points needing further investigation:
1927 - How big of a deal were Shore's penalties, especially in the Finals? Does this season count as a positive or a negative?
1930 - This is our biggest discrepancy. How did Shore perform in the upset against Montreal?
1933 - Was his inconsistency a serious issue? Or was he carrying the team to an extent that it's splitting hairs to hold that against him?
1934 - Did the Bailey suspension directly cost the Bruins a playoff spot?

 

[buffalowing88]

One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.

Those skates left little margin for error when it came to keeping your balance in a stop or turn. The puck carrier’s best bet was to attack in a north-south fashion without trying to dance around too much. The defender’s best bet, rather than skating with him, was to sit back like a cobra and lunge at the opportune moment.

These guys were trained in an era where the best teams sent 2-3 players on rushes, making a drop pass at the right instant to change the direction of the attack and get around those defenders. Resting your hopes on solo rushes by a superstar was generally a losing proposition. But Morenz was a good enough skater to defy that principle.

This also gives some sense of why it was so dangerous to have an Eddie Shore in the lineup. A defenseman who could carry the puck from his own end into a dangerous scoring position at the other end, which in this dynamic meant occupying the defenders with three forwards trailing, would open up a lot of space for his teammates.

On a less tactical and more experiential level, the number of bodies flying around gives us a sense of why pro hockey got so popular so quickly.

Really insightful analysis! I definitely didn't think about how important the drop pass was during those days...but you see every old clip and it's a real thing. Definitely makes me appreciate Morenz even more.

 

[buffalowing88]

Looking over that list of posts, and with an eye toward focusing in on the potential for new research, here are the points of agreement and disagreement:

1927
Agreement: Shore took a lot of penalties. He was not yet a superstar, but had emerged as a peer of the league's top defensemen.
Disagreement: Overpass specifically identified Shore's penalties in the Finals as an issue in what he considered a weak series performance, wheres I seemed more comfortable with the penalties for reasons of game context.

1928
Agreement: Shore didn't stand out. The short series doesn't give us much to work with for '28.
Disagreement:

1929
Agreement: Shore had a signature game against the Habs in which his penalties put his team behind, then his offensive play rallied them for a win. He led the Bruins to a notably strong defensive performance in the Rangers series.
Disagreement:

1930
Agreement:
Disagreement: We have completely different reads on Shore's performance. This one needs followup for sure.

1931
Agreement: Generally a strong showing. We both noted that Shore got into a habit of taking penalties which the Habs converted into early goals, which happened in games 1, 3, and most notably the decisive Game 5.
Disagreement:

1933
Agreement: Boston was a mediocre team that expected Shore to do everything.
Disagreement: Overpass was more forgiving whereas I highlighted his inconsistency across 5 games.

1934
Agreement: The Bruins missed the playoffs in the wake of the Ace Bailey incident.
Disagreement: Overpass ties Shore's suspension directly to missing the playoffs. In my opinion, it's debatable whether Boston would have made the playoffs even if Shore had been in the lineup.

1935
Agreement: Bruins were in a hopeless situation, and Shore did everything that was realistically in his power to give them a chance against a much better team.
Disagreement:

1936
Agreement: Shore notoriously lost his temper and the result of that penalty cost the Bruins a playoff series. In his defense, Shore's absence for a few minutes was no excuse for the Bruins to completely implode, and the playoff format put a harsh emphasis on those few minutes. At the end of the day, this is the biggest stain on his playoff record.
Disagreement:

1938
Agreement: Shore had a good series and carried the Bruins, but they ran into a red-hot Turk Broda who cut their playoffs short.
Disagreement:

1939
Agreement: Shore played well in a #1 role, but he was noticeably dialed back compared to his usual dynamic style. In the context of a deeper team, he was able to sit back and play a more steady and conservative style which was quite successful.
Disagreement:



Points needing further investigation:
1927 - How big of a deal were Shore's penalties, especially in the Finals? Does this season count as a positive or a negative?
1930 - This is our biggest discrepancy. How did Shore perform in the upset against Montreal?
1933 - Was his inconsistency a serious issue? Or was he carrying the team to an extent that it's splitting hairs to hold that against him?
1934 - Did the Bailey suspension directly cost the Bruins a playoff spot?

Why did you skip 1932? Just curious. I thought 32 was a really bad playoff year for Shore, and I love the guy.

I meant 33. I'm an idiot.