Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Perhaps this is the case but without alot of video from that era, are to disregard what is pretty obvious and just take onlookers written words aas 100% reliable?




Shore went really high, mainly on reputation, in my opinion and a serious indepth look at him seemed lesser than where some of the evidence led to.

Shore's reputation is probably at an all-time low in these parts. I think he was #6 or 7 when we did this project a decade ago; #14 is an enormous drop. Shore is probably the best example we have so far of people looking past trophy-counting and instead using re-discovered archival evidence to inform their opinion. Bourque>Shore would have been a pretty controversial position in the past; not so today. Passage of time has allowed Bourque's overall impact to be better appreciated in a historical sense.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
Shore's reputation is probably at an all-time low in these parts. I think he was #6 or 7 when we did this project a decade ago; #14 is an enormous drop. Shore is probably the best example we have so far of people looking past trophy-counting and instead using re-discovered archival evidence to inform their opinion. Bourque>Shore would have been a pretty controversial position in the past; not so today. Passage of time has allowed Bourque's overall impact to be better appreciated in a historical sense.

Yes Shore seems to have slipped a bit, not as much as Mikita and Nighbor seems to be the biggest riser.

Hopefully the next round will have some fresh blood and some good discussion on the arguments.

Speaking of this round, I was thinking about Brimsek and Tretiak and how goalies might be able to develop elite skills more independent than skaters.

But the more I thought about it I was less sure as goalies are an odd lot, maybe even more so before the goalie mask and more modern protective equipment.

Dryden when you read his thoughts in his books, doesn't sound like how we imagine a hockey player should sound.

Both Brimsek and Tretiak seemed to develop despite maybe not the best conditions for development as in goalies to look up to in their formative years and to learn from under immediate circumstances and perhaps had more organic paths than position players did?

Perhaps that old time goalie Killion (or another crazed person who wanted to stand in front of shots with no mask) could shed some thoughts on the goalies this round as I'm having a hard time placing them and if I had a vote I have no idea on where they would be except they wouldn't be at the bottom.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Yes Shore seems to have slipped a bit, not as much as Mikita and Nighbor seems to be the biggest riser.

Hopefully the next round will have some fresh blood and some good discussion on the arguments.

Speaking of this round, I was thinking about Brimsek and Tretiak and how goalies might be able to develop elite skills more independent than skaters.

But the more I thought about it I was less sure as goalies are an odd lot, maybe even more so before the goalie mask and more modern protective equipment.

Dryden when you read his thoughts in his books, doesn't sound like how we imagine a hockey player should sound.

Both Brimsek and Tretiak seemed to develop despite maybe not the best conditions for development as in goalies to look up to in their formative years and to learn from under immediate circumstances and perhaps had more organic paths than position players did?

Perhaps that old time goalie Killion (or another crazed person who wanted to stand in front of shots with no mask) could shed some thoughts on the goalies this round as I'm having a hard time placing them and if I had a vote I have no idea on where they would be except they wouldn't be at the bottom.

I would contend that slipping from being a contender for best non-Big 4 player ever to being somewhere in the middle of the cluster below that group (that is, below the group of contenders for #5) is more than "a bit". Shore was the consensus best pre-WWII player a decade ago. He has now been surpassed by Morenz in most people's opinion, and at least threatened by Nighbor as well. Has any other player we've examined so far experienced such a significant paradigm shift? Terry Sawchuk perhaps, who seems to have slowly slipped from "arguably best goaltender ever" to "arguably not a top 5 goaltender ever".
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
Perhaps this is the case but without alot of video from that era, are to disregard what is pretty obvious and just take onlookers written words aas 100% reliable?




Shore went really high, mainly on reputation, in my opinion and a serious indepth look at him seemed lesser than where some of the evidence led to.

It’s funny that you say that cause I’ve been thinking the opposite. I guess that’s the nature of a project like this. I had Shore I think 18 or so on my round one list. But I ended up voting him first in round three. I feel like an in depth look at Shore leads me to putting him higher (I actually had Morenz above him in R2 but then moved Shore and Crosby ahead of Morenz in R3). To me the Shore was a puck rusher and egomaniac ergo he was bad defensively argument sounds way too much like an assumption and not a look at the facts. If Shore isn’t Lionel Hitchman does that mean he’s Phil Housley? I don’t see it. I certainly respect you Farkas and your scouting skills but on this one I have to ask where’s the beef? I was very swayed by seventies look at Boston’s GA stats during Shore’s tenure myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Bonvie

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
I would contend that slipping from being a contender for best non-Big 4 player ever to being somewhere in the middle of the cluster below that group (that is, below the group of contenders for #5) is more than "a bit".

I think a lot of the contender for 5th best player outside of the big 4 rested on Hart trophies and his career doesn't look so grand the more critically we look at it.

Perhaps the earlier project was more inclined to weigh his Harts than this time?

Shore was the consensus best pre-WWII player a decade ago. He has now been surpassed by Morenz in most people's opinion, and at least threatened by Nighbor as well. Has any other player we've examined so far experienced such a significant paradigm shift?

All 3 of these guys are hard for me to place because each has their faults and strengths in their arguments.

Morenz IMO relies too much on his "legendary status" and part of that is due to his death from an injured suffered while playing.

Shore relies too much on his Hart record and his playoff resume (as with many players from the 30s) seems to be treated a bit differently than some other guys (Malkin and Boom Boom are the prime examples off the top of my head).

Nighbor is really helped a lot by being a winner, the project loves SC winners by and large and his defensive play, at a time when the forward pass wasn't allowed, is given too much weight IMO.

Realistically with another 15 different participants added any of those 3 guys could come out in different orders in such a project.

Terry Sawchuk perhaps, who seems to have slowly slipped from "arguably best goaltender ever" to "arguably not a top 5 goaltender ever".

I think Sawchuck suffered from more scrutiny as his career was a bit like his life, uneven with untreated depression issues which sadly affected him and his family alot.

That being said he is being judged on his hockey career and after his peak years in the early 50's with Detroit his resume isn't as impressive looking deeper into it.

I'll be frank, I'm a lot more confident in raking position players than goalies who often like a Sp in baseball or QB in football get too much credit and/or too much blame for their teams fortunes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Hansen

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
@quoipourquoi is there any chance I could send in my votes around 10 or 11 pm EST? My wife is under the impression that us going for dinner with her recently-divorced friend is more important than this week’s vote.

I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one that will say this, happy wife happy life.

Ssaying that you can't make it because you are voting on this project is something I wouldn't want for anyone.:nod:
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
@quoipourquoi is there any chance I could send in my votes around 10 or 11 pm EST? My wife is under the impression that us going for dinner with her recently-divorced friend is more important than this week’s vote.

Tell your wife that if she doesn't want to end up like her friend she better wise up...I expect your vote to be in by 8 pm sharp, thanks...

(That's right, friends...not only am I good at the hockey, I'm great with lady relations too... *winks and points finger gun at no one in particular* )
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
I think a lot of the contender for 5th best player outside of the big 4 rested on Hart trophies and his career doesn't look so grand the more critically we look at it.

Perhaps the earlier project was more inclined to weigh his Harts than this time?

I think this is absolutely the case. There wasn't nearly as much information readily available ten years ago as there is now. The 4 Hart wins was Shore's trump card. New information, including a much better understanding of differences in award voting trends in previous eras, has undoubtedly weakened Shore's historical reputation.

All 3 of these guys are hard for me to place because each has their faults and strengths in their arguments.

Morenz IMO relies too much on his "legendary status" and part of that is due to his death from an injured suffered while playing.

Shore relies too much on his Hart record and his playoff resume (as with many players from the 30s) seems to be treated a bit differently than some other guys (Malkin and Boom Boom are the prime examples off the top of my head).

Nighbor is really helped a lot by being a winner, the project loves SC winners by and large and his defensive play, at a time when the forward pass wasn't allowed, is given too much weight IMO.

Realistically with another 15 different participants added any of those 3 guys could come out in different orders in such a project.

I really don't understand the points you raise regarding Shore. He is clearly ranked lower than his Hart Trophy record would suggest, and he has been heavily criticized for costing his team in the playoffs due to lack of discipline. You seem to be suggesting that he should have fallen even further (not a unique position to take, of course), but at the same time you imply that the contemporaries that overtook/threatened his place in the hierarchy have also been overrated. Seems rather fishy...
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
I think this is absolutely the case. There wasn't nearly as much information readily available ten years ago as there is now. The 4 Hart wins was Shore's trump card. New information, including a much better understanding of differences in award voting trends in previous eras, has undoubtedly weakened Shore's historical reputation.



I really don't understand the points you raise regarding Shore. He is clearly ranked lower than his Hart Trophy record would suggest, and he has been heavily criticized for costing his team in the playoffs due to lack of discipline. You seem to be suggesting that he should have fallen even further (not a unique position to take, of course), but at the same time you imply that the contemporaries that overtook/threatened his place in the hierarchy have also been overrated. Seems rather fishy...

It's more of a case of Nighbor rising even more, among some observers, and Shore falling just a bit more.

Shore went 14th and Frank went 20th and looking at the guys in between you could throw them into a blender and they would come out differently every time and not look that out of place.

Shore played with a lot of HHOF guys on those Bruins teams and yet only 2 SC to show for it.

I just think that someone might put shore ahead of Frank because he has 8 top 5 Hart finishes and well he just has to go with that.

Some of those guys might look at Nighbor more closely and say maybe he was better but it's just a guess.

I like to look at each season and try to figure out the best players (ie Hart results) for that season regardless of voting results, which admittedly has 2 faults

1) my own bias, everyone has one
2) the farther one goes back the less information there is to work with
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
I wonder what candidates might be up next round?

Bathgate, maybe another winger or 2, MacInnis, Pronger or a real brute in Cleghorn?
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Completely random hangover thought: Anyone get the impression that Brimsek might have been the first real "modern" goaltender...? That he was one of the first that played the position more closely to how it's played today than anyone before him? I feel like this is about the time where the position started to evolve and technique started to evolve...I've seen just a little bit of Brimsek play, but just based on readings on him and others from before and after, I kinda get this impression for some reason...

I am very skeptical of goaltenders from way back because what is described (or, at times, seen) doesn't give me a lot of good feelings about the specialization of the position...a point I've made previously with some minor head nodding from others (of course, we don't talk about different eras here or anything...yawn)...so if you feel like Brimsek kind of modernized the position so to speak, does that score any points with you, the voter? Innovation points, if you will?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
I think this is absolutely the case. There wasn't nearly as much information readily available ten years ago as there is now. The 4 Hart wins was Shore's trump card. New information, including a much better understanding of differences in award voting trends in previous eras, has undoubtedly weakened Shore's historical reputation.



I really don't understand the points you raise regarding Shore. He is clearly ranked lower than his Hart Trophy record would suggest, and he has been heavily criticized for costing his team in the playoffs due to lack of discipline. You seem to be suggesting that he should have fallen even further (not a unique position to take, of course), but at the same time you imply that the contemporaries that overtook/threatened his place in the hierarchy have also been overrated. Seems rather fishy...

To me, down playing 4 Hart Trophies seem to suggest the hockey community at that time didn't understand their own game. As if they should have looked at it like modern experts. Even though it was much easier to view all the players in the league at that time. And the Bruins did win two Cups with Shore and had notably weaker seasons when he was injured.

I view the fall of Eddie Shore as an injustice.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Completely random hangover thought: Anyone get the impression that Brimsek might have been the first real "modern" goaltender...? That he was one of the first that played the position more closely to how it's played today than anyone before him? I feel like this is about the time where the position started to evolve and technique started to evolve...I've seen just a little bit of Brimsek play, but just based on readings on him and others from before and after, I kinda get this impression for some reason...

I am very skeptical of goaltenders from way back because what is described (or, at times, seen) doesn't give me a lot of good feelings about the specialization of the position...a point I've made previously with some minor head nodding from others (of course, we don't talk about different eras here or anything...yawn)...so if you feel like Brimsek kind of modernized the position so to speak, does that score any points with you, the voter? Innovation points, if you will?

Brimsek was likely the first goalie to play youth, minor league and NHL hockey strictly under forward pass conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD and BenchBrawl

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,133
6,428
Was hoping to argue for an early induction of Bathgate. :(

This format hogties us from lobbying for the promotion of guys much.

I expect Cleghorn soon but also hope for Gerard.

My initial 120 list also has two Leafs yet to become candidates. I'm not a Leafs fan so there's a little childhood hee hee glee in that, though my adult sense of fairness is a bit bothered.

I really hope no modern NHLers are added next round. That is not where the best candidates lie.

A couple of Soviets look worthy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Was hoping to argue for an early induction of Bathgate. :(

This format hogties us from lobbying for the promotion of guys much.

Earlier, I did push for expanding the field of candidates beyond the base of 10 as we went along. This is why (not Bathgate in particular, though I do think he has some good comparisons with Geoffrion and Dionne).

-------

That said, the first few rounds of this project were, quite frankly a bit of a mess (going over the 40+ page count limit!!!), so I understand why QPQ would have been reluctant to expand the field. But the last few rounds make me think that we could handle a few more candidates at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sadekuuro

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
To me, down playing 4 Hart Trophies seem to suggest the hockey community at that time didn't understand their own game. As if they should have looked at it like modern experts.

I think it's wrong to have that exact point of view, no one is saying that they didn't understand the game, its just that different standards were being used at different times, heck even last year it's pretty clear some voters were using different standards than other and voting results are at least now transparent..

Even though it was much easier to view all the players in the league at that time. And the Bruins did win two Cups with Shore and had notably weaker seasons when he was injured.

Maybe it was easier maybe it wasn't that's entirely unclear. The history of beat writers covering hockey is somewhat lost to history.

I know that in the media section of the pacific coliseum liquor and food would flow at Canuck games and given that attitudes towards liquor went all that different up until recently it is something to consider.

Sitting near some GM's at the Malkin WJC in Vancouver in the mid 2000s and listening in on some comments they can also be a lot of groupthink at work as well.

I view the fall of Eddie Shore as an injustice.

Perhaps, after all every opinion in this project is a subjective one and we also have more information for some players than others.

I know that video that was posted about Shore was a small one but it really differs from the perception given of him.

Maybe he really is in contention for top 5 player of all time or maybe he is more of a Chris Pronger type of player, that's the range of possibilities IMO given the lack of information we have.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
Was hoping to argue for an early induction of Bathgate. :(

This format hogties us from lobbying for the promotion of guys much.

I expect Cleghorn soon but also hope for Gerard.

My initial 120 list also has two Leafs yet to become candidates. I'm not a Leafs fan so there's a little childhood hee hee glee in that, though my adult sense of fairness is a bit bothered.

I really hope no modern NHLers are added next round. That is not where the best candidates lie.

A couple of Soviets look worthy.

I can think of one Leaf to be sure, not sure of the other one off the top of my head.

I think that some guys rated a Russian that starts with F really high but there is another Russian that starts with F who should be up before him.

Agree on the modern candidates if you mean players still playing as there is a gap after Malkin.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
6 new players next round actually.

I must also admit I wouldn't exactly know what to do if there was a new modern or DPE player up for voting amongst those six players. I know I'm really high (high, comparative to the group) on two very specific players who fit that bill -- and who also shares the feature of being mostly associated with the Chicago Blackhawks -- but even I reckon they wouldn't exactly be great options.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
To me, down playing 4 Hart Trophies seem to suggest the hockey community at that time didn't understand their own game. As if they should have looked at it like modern experts. Even though it was much easier to view all the players in the league at that time. And the Bruins did win two Cups with Shore and had notably weaker seasons when he was injured.

I view the fall of Eddie Shore as an injustice.

I disagree that Shore's Harts have been downplayed. Rather, I think they were previously viewed with a modern lens, whereas now we have complete/mostly complete voting results and are better able to understand the differences in voting trends as they changed over time.

The Hart has, with the odd exception, been awarded to the player who had the best season for the last 40 years or so. It's pretty much a "best player in the NHL" award except in cases where somebody dragged a weak team into the playoffs (Theodore, Hall).

It's pretty clear though that the original definition "most valuable to his team" was taken a lot more seriously by voters from Shore's era. And defensemen featured very prominently in the voting up until the war. Since then, it is very rare for defensemen to get any consideration for the award.

So from a 2008 perspective, you have a player that won 4 Harts, but incredibly he did so as a defenseman. Bobby Orr himself only won 3 Harts. No other defenseman has ever won it twice. Eddie Shore must have been dominating games in an Orr-like fashion to get this sort of recognition...

...but wait, a decade's worth of subsequent research has revealed that defensemen actually dominated Hart voting up until the war.

It's certainly possible we're misinterpreting the voters of the past, and that they did indeed vote for the Hart in a similar manner as voters today, but I find it extremely unlikely. Of course none of us were there, but it just seems really hard to believe that Herb Gardiner was actually seen as the best player in the league in 1926-27. Or that Lionel Hitchman was arguably the best in 1930 after narrowly finishing in second place (his teammate Shore outscored him 31-9 in points that year, interestingly enough). Lionel Conacher has a pair of runner-up finishes. He was traded directly after the first of those instances, and his replacement on the Chicago defense (Art Coulter) proceeded to suddenly finish a strong third in voting for the trophy. Babe Siebert, after putting together a solid but otherwise unspectacular ten year career until his early 30's, suddenly wins the Hart and finishes third the following year. These are just some of the instances where pre-war Hart voting just doesn't seem to correlate with a player's overall ability to nearly the extent that it does today.

This isn't to say Shore doesn't still have an argument to be placed higher than he was, I think he does. But his previous ranking was definitely built upon the foundation of those 4 Harts, and we now have discovered ample reason to believe they aren't as suggestive of an Orr-level defenseman as we thought they were in the past.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->