Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Very little discussion on Mikita so far. Looking at his career numbers and awards, it looks pretty incredible. What's the feeling on him? The thing I could see with him is that he seemed to have won his Art Ross trophies when there was a slight lull in the league for a few years. All the old stars of yesterday was getting old and the influx of new talent seems to have lacked a bit. Though he did beat Bobby freakin' Hull after all.

He racked up his points against second rate competiton, while Hull took the hard matchups. His time is coming in a round or two, but I don't like him over Crosby or Morenz, who were defining players of their respective eras. I know @pappyline would disagree. Morenz vs Mikita was a lively topic during the HOH centers project, with Morenz ultimately prevailing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,975
5,841
Visit site
Best seasons by tier (*with reasonable consideration for missed games)

Tier 1


Jagr 95/96
Jagr 98/99
Jagr 99/00*
Ovechkin 07/08
Ovechkin 09/10*

Tier 2

Jagr 94/95
Jagr 97/98
Jagr 96/97*
Jagr 00/01
Jagr 05/06
Ovechkin 08/09
Ovechkin 12/13
Ovechkin 05/06
Ovechkin 14/15

Tier 3

Jagr 01/02*
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 15/16
Ovechkin 17/18

Tier 4
Jagr 93/94
Jagr 06/07
Ovechkin 06/07
Ovechkin 13/14

ADDED MORE SEASONS

It actually is closer than I thought. Still an edge to Jagr for top end seasons and for spending more time at, or very close to, his peak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobholly39

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,333
15,039
Hope just 1-10. Gives individual posters less power to tank a player they have a hate-on for (this matters more in larger groups of players)

We've tried it 3 different ways before (ranking top 5, ranking top 10, and ranking everyone), and ranking top 10 works out the best.

Related question - what happens next round? If we rank 5 do we add 5 for next round? Or do we only add 3 (assuming none are too close to each other) to get back to discussing 10 players? i'd rather add 5 and stick with 12 names+ moving forward, than try to get it back down to 10 and only add 3 names. Of course 7-8 rounds from now if we keep doing this we might be discussing 20 names or more at a time doing that..
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Related question - what happens next round? If we rank 5 do we add 5 for next round? Or do we only add 3 (assuming none are too close to each other) to get back to discussing 10 players? i'd rather add 5 and stick with 12 names+ moving forward, than try to get it back down to 10 and only add 3 names. Of course 7-8 rounds from now if we keep doing this we might be discussing 20 names or more at a time doing that..

Add 5 every round, unless there is a tie or maybe a virtual tie for 5th.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,781
29,313
Also - did this last round so I want to do it again. First I'll do my relative rankings, and sometime tomorrow I'll do my "Why *not* to vote for this guy" ranking.

Peak
  • Hasek (by far the highest of the bunch)
  • Potvin
  • Shore
  • Jagr
  • Crosby
  • Morenz
  • Bourque
  • Ovechkin
  • Plante
  • Mikita (I give a lot of credit to Hull here - maybe I shouldn't)
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
Prime
  • Bourque
  • Jagr
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
  • Crosby
  • Ovechkin
  • Shore
  • Morenz
  • Hasek
  • Potvin
  • Plante
  • Mikita
Longevity
  • Bourque
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
  • Plante
  • Messier
  • Jagr
  • Shore
  • Ovechkin*
  • Crosby*
  • Mikita
  • Hasek
  • Potvin
Playoffs
  • Potvin
  • Plante
  • Messier
  • Crosby
  • Morenz
  • Lidstrom
  • Bourque
  • Shore
  • Jagr
  • Hasek
  • Mikita
  • Ovechkin
Je Ne Sais Quoi (Intangibles, eye-test, personal preference)
  • Hasek
  • Potvin
  • Bourque
  • Morenz
  • Crosby
  • Shore
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
  • Ovechkin
  • Jagr
  • Plante
  • Mikita

I way peak and prime pretty heavily (and duration of peak and prime are also important). One thing I noted when thinking this through.... a lot of these guys are pretty damn close in my mind when it comes to peak. Basically the gap between 1-4 is wider IMO than the gap between 4-10, although I think 11 and 12 are a tier below.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,863
7,901
Oblivion Express
Morenz didn't dominate the league to the level commensurate to the amount of praise he's getting, except when he put up the best offence RS season from a Non Top-4 player. Or when he does things like scoring all the GWG goals for the NHL Finals and the Stanley Cup Final during the SAME playoffs.

And Morenz a 1-way forward? Please.

There are issues with Morenz (the very obvious one starts by "L" and ends with "ongevity"; we can't quite see longevity THEN vs. longevity NOW in a one-for-one way, but there are contemporaries with better longevity than him), but lack of domination and one-way play aren't one of them.

I never said he was a one way forward to be fair. But there is nowhere near enough on his defense (believe me I've read it all) to put him anywhere near Nighbor's level or even Frank Boucher IMO. And his biggest dominance came before 1927. That matters to me. It's not huge but it matters. Pre consolidation hockey is not the same thing as post in terms of rules or consolidated talent, top end or depth.

And as I said, his playoffs are uneven. No two ways about it. I've been up and down this a bunch of times. He's got 1 signature run to his name, pre consolidation. There are many players who are more accomplished in the postseason.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,299
6,492
South Korea
Did Mikita add ANYTHING to his top level all-time resume during HIS LAST TEN 10 YEARS?

I'm struck at how virtually everything significant in his career happened in the 1960's.

His last ten seasons...

ZERO top-10 goal seasons
One 8th in assists season
ZERO top-10 point seasons

Zero 1st or 2nd team all-star honors

He did help Chicago get to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1971, though five Blackhawks scored more goals, two of them more assists, he one of three behind Hull. Two years later he was 4th in playoff assists in another run.

A compiler until the 1979-80 season, through his last ten regular seasons and last half dozen playoffs.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,863
7,901
Oblivion Express
MXD rightfully criticized your claim that Morenz was a "1 way player," which flies in thr face of the available evidence.

But I'm going to focus on this - you really need to check your dates again.

The last western competitor to the NHL folded in 1926. That means that starting in 1926-27, all the best players were in the NHL. Howie Morenz's prime was from 1924-25 to 1932-33, and yes, his longevity wasn't the best. But only 2 of his 9 relavant seasons were pre-consolidation.

And his 1927-28, the best season by any player available this round, was against all the continent's talent in the NHL.

As I said to @MXD I NEVER said he was a one way player. Ever. He simply wasn't as good a 2 way guy as others. There's a difference.

I'd appreciate if people didn't invent things I didn't say. That's all.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
I never said he was a one way forward to be fair. But there is nowhere near enough on his defense (believe me I've read it all) to put him anywhere near Nighbor's level or even Frank Boucher IMO. And his biggest dominance came before 1927. That matters to me. It's not huge but it matters. Pre consolidation hockey is not the same thing as post in terms of rules or consolidated talent, top end or depth.

And as I said, his playoffs are uneven. No two ways about it. I've been up and down this a bunch of times. He's got 1 signature run to his name, pre consolidation. There are many players who are more accomplished in the postseason.

Bolded is not even an opinion. It is factually inaccurate. You should stop repeating it.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Did Mikita add ANYTHING to his top level all-time resume during HIS LAST TEN 10 YEARS?

I'm struck at how virtually everything significant in his career happened in the 1960's.

His last ten seasons...

ZERO top-10 goal seasons
One 8th in assists season
ZERO top-10 point seasons

Zero 1st or 2nd team all-star honors

He seemed to become a strong two-way player in the 1970s, but I sure wish it came with some postseason success.
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,606
10,249
Melonville
I'm struck at how virtually everything significant in his career happened in the 1960's
Then again, good luck finding a tighter or tougher decade (at least until '67-68). And he did end up in the top 10 nine times, four times with the Art Ross and a couple of Harts. He earned his spot on this list by '68.
 

overg

Registered User
Dec 15, 2003
1,228
235
Indianapolis, IN
Visit site
I realize we're getting perilously close to beating-a-dead-horse territory on Bourque vs Lidstrom, but since it was specifically requested, here's a post from 2014:

That's it! Thanks so much for digging that up, Hockey Outsider. And for doing the original math, for that matter.

One question about your calculations though. In adjusting for era, you used total goals scored per game. Wouldn't it be more accurate to adjust by the average goals per-game per team? After all, Lidstrom and Bourque weren't trying to prevent all goals scored, just goals against.

It's been a long while since I've had to do math, so maybe I'm off. But I suspect if this were to be recalculated in that manner, Lidstrom's defensive lead would grow a bit, and Bourque's offensive lead would grow a bit. I also suspect that it would still lead to the same result that Seventieslord's numbers and the eye test give . . . Bourque's offensive gap over Lidstrom trumps Lidstrom's defensive gap (to the extent one even exists) over Bourque.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
As I said to @MXD I NEVER said he was a one way player. Ever. He simply wasn't as good a 2 way guy as others. There's a difference.

I'd appreciate if people didn't invent things I didn't say. That's all.

You're right. I apologize for misreading your post.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced Morenz was any less of a defensive player than Frank Boucher. Boucher seems to have invented the modern two-way playmaking center role by staying back and feeding his wingers, who played more aggressive offensively than he did.

Morenz seemed to have the speed to be very aggressive offensively himself, but also backcheck like a fiend. Sort of like a forward version of Orr (no, I'm not comparing Morenz to Orr in quality. Just in my reading of their biggest stength defensively).

Obviously, Morenz was no Nighbor defensively.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,812
16,549
I never said he was a one way forward to be fair. But there is nowhere near enough on his defense (believe me I've read it all) to put him anywhere near Nighbor's level or even Frank Boucher IMO. And his biggest dominance came before 1927. That matters to me. It's not huge but it matters. Pre consolidation hockey is not the same thing as post in terms of rules or consolidated talent, top end or depth.
.

The Bold + Underlined : Nighbor and Boucher aren't available this round
The Underlined is factually wrong.
I totally agree with the Bold, but, why the references to Nighbor then?

I apologize for misreading your mention for 1-way vs. 2-way. Also, Morenz wasn't as good a checker as Nighbor. No debate here.

... But we'll agree that it's not super relevant, considering Nighbor isn't up for voting, and that none of the forwards here are anywhere close to Nighbor either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,863
7,901
Oblivion Express
And I still like Morenz more than others this round. It's probably nitpicking over a few spots haha, but thanks to TDMM for correcting me on his peak offensive season.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,812
16,549
MXD rightfully criticized your claim that Morenz was a "1 way player," which flies in thr face of the available evidence.

But I'm going to focus on this - you really need to check your dates again.

The last western competitor to the NHL folded in 1926. That means that starting in 1926-27, all the best players were in the NHL. Howie Morenz's prime was from 1924-25 to 1932-33, and yes, his longevity wasn't the best. But only 2 of his 9 relavant seasons were pre-consolidation.

And his 1927-28, the best season by any player available this round, was against all the continent's talent in the NHL.

Not only that, but one of his legendary playoffs performance was prior to consolidation (and, frankly, he might have only one).

I mean... I get that consolidation made teams stronger. But the fact is -- we're talking about playoffs. He and his team did face the teams from the Western leagues.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,863
7,901
Oblivion Express
You're right. I apologize for misreading your post.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced Morenz was any less of a defensive player than Frank Boucher. Boucher seems to have invented the modern two-way playmaking center role by staying back and feeding his wingers, who played more aggressive offensively than he did.

Morenz seemed to have the speed to be very aggressive offensively himself, but also backcheck like a fiend. Sort of like a forward version of Orr (no, I'm not comparing Morenz to Orr in quality. Just in my reading of their biggest stength defensively).

Obviously, Morenz was no Nighbor defensively.

I think having read so many of the Montreal and Toronto papers over the years of the ATD, I saw a good bit more about Boucher's defense in relation to Morenz. I certainly think Morenz was a strong defensive player but simply 2 tiers below Nighbor who one could argue as the best of all time, and a notch below Boucher. But again, we're possibly splitting hairs on the latter.

I don't think Howie's a top 15 lock, but if he ended up 14th or 15th I wouldn't mind or think it crazy. He's definitely above Shore, Potvin, and Jagr without batting an eye and I am nearly certain giving him the edge over Mikita and Plante. Just have to figure out the order between those guys and my top 3 of Bourque, Crosby and Hasek.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,299
6,492
South Korea
What is the argument for Morenz COMPARED to other options now?

Morenz, Mikita, Messier and Potvin ... how are any of them more like already inducted players?

The next guy we induct will be top-10 all time!!!!!!!!!!!
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,812
16,549
What is the argument for Morenz COMPARED to other options now?

Morenz, Mikita, Messier and Potvin ... how are any of them more like already inducted players?

The next guy we induct will be top-10 all time!!!!!!!!!!!

If you've seen nothing about Morenz vs. the above-mentionned players, then I surmise it's because no one thinks it's particularily relevant to specifically pit Morenz vs. those players. The comparisons seems to have mostly been made vs. Crosby, and I suspect this is because they're seen as somewhat close and comparable in the grand scheme of things.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,863
7,901
Oblivion Express
Among the C's available I have it like this:

Regular season:

1a. Mikita
1b. Crosby
1c. Morenz
4. Messier

-Really the top 3 you could put in any order. I think Crosby would have clearly been 1st here if he hadn't lost the 2nd half of his amazing start to 2010-11 or the last month of 12-13. Those were more or less 2 Hart's/Ross's off the top end which would have given him 4 of each. Messier is well below the other 3.

Postseason:

1. Messier
2. Crosby
3. Morenz
4. Mikita

-Messier was pretty f***ing legendary in the postseason. Crosby really silenced people with the back to back Cups. Morenz is a bit behind Sid IMO, with Mikita bringing up the rear by a pretty large gap.

-And Crosby was better as an international player for Canada than Messier, with the other 2 not applicable for obvious reasons.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,854
4,707
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Also - did this last round so I want to do it again. First I'll do my relative rankings, and sometime tomorrow I'll do my "Why *not* to vote for this guy" ranking.

Peak
  • Hasek (by far the highest of the bunch)
  • Potvin
  • Shore
  • Jagr
  • Crosby
  • Morenz
  • Bourque
  • Ovechkin
  • Plante
  • Mikita (I give a lot of credit to Hull here - maybe I shouldn't)
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
Prime
  • Bourque
  • Jagr
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
  • Crosby
  • Ovechkin
  • Shore
  • Morenz
  • Hasek
  • Potvin
  • Plante
  • Mikita
Longevity
  • Bourque
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
  • Plante
  • Messier
  • Jagr
  • Shore
  • Ovechkin*
  • Crosby*
  • Mikita
  • Hasek
  • Potvin
Playoffs
  • Potvin
  • Plante
  • Messier
  • Crosby
  • Morenz
  • Lidstrom
  • Bourque
  • Shore
  • Jagr
  • Hasek
  • Mikita
  • Ovechkin
Je Ne Sais Quoi (Intangibles, eye-test, personal preference)
  • Hasek
  • Potvin
  • Bourque
  • Morenz
  • Crosby
  • Shore
  • Messier
  • Lidstrom
  • Ovechkin
  • Jagr
  • Plante
  • Mikita

I way peak and prime pretty heavily (and duration of peak and prime are also important). One thing I noted when thinking this through.... a lot of these guys are pretty damn close in my mind when it comes to peak. Basically the gap between 1-4 is wider IMO than the gap between 4-10, although I think 11 and 12 are a tier below.
1. You have Messier twice in Longevity. I guess you can argue he had three distinct careers.
2. Morenz's peak is second only to Hasek's.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,271
2,808
Eddie Shore in the NHL Playoffs, from the pages of the Montreal Gazette archives (unfortunately I don't have access to any Boston papers). Quotes in italics.

1927

Game 1 -- Boston beat Chicago 6-1
The Hawks were completely outplayed, their defense crumpling under the determined Boston attacks and their offensive finding it almost impossible to penetrate a well-organized Bruin five-man defense.

Frederickson and Herberts proved the chief cogs in the Boston team's brilliant attacks, but the others were not far behind. Winkler in the Bruin net was in fine fettle, but he was given almost air-tight support
throughout the game.


Shore -- scored the fifth goal of the game, took penalties in the first and third periods (0 GA during those penalties).

Game 2 -- Boston tied Chicago 4-4 (advanced on total goals)

Sheer power of the Bruins wore down the fast Hawks who showed their usual skill in stickhandling and speed in following up the loose puck in dangerous territory. But even though the Hawks lived up to their reputation as an "in and out" team. At times they sparkled and then they would go to pieces on the defence and allow easy counters by the enemy.

Shots 36-18 for Chicago

Shore -- no goals, one penalty in the third period (0 GA)

Second round, game 1 -- Boston tied Rangers 0-0

The game was scoreless primarily because of the wonderful defence of the Rangers, who devoted most of their attention to quenching the fiery attacks of Frederickson, Oliver, Galbraith, and Shore. Lester Patrick figured that if they could keep Boston out of the net here they could win on their home ice in Madison Square Garden.
The game was rough as well as fast and fourteen penalties were handed out by the referee for rules infractions.

Shore -- one penalty in the first period (0 GA)

Second round, game 2 -- Boston beat Rangers 3-1

Boston grabbed off victory tonight by a second period onslaught which netted them three goals, after the Rangers had gained the upper hand through a neat counter by Bill Cook in the initial session.

The second period provided both players and fans with the most hectic times of a rugged game. It was marked by fourteen of the twenty-seven penalties, Shore and Abel accounting for seven between them.

Abel and Johnson were penalized from the local defence along with Shore of Boston. The Bruins took advantage of their extra man power and, led by Frederickson, the big Icelander, they crashed the weakened Ranger defence for two goals in quick succession, Hitchman and Oliver crashing through to accept passes from Frederickson right in front of Chabot. The latter had no chance to stop either drive.

Johnson and Shore were benched for carrying their sticks too high...Cook was joined in the penalty box by Shore, who cross-checked Johnson...(Frederickson) was joined a moment later by Shore and Abel for roughing...Bun Cook and Shore followed one another into the penalty box for tripping offences...a flock of penalties meted out to Abel, Hitchman, Oliver, Shore, and Frank Boucher left but seven men on the ice, including the goalies. Boston had three to the Rangers four. All retured but Boucher and Shore, when Johnson joined them, leaving the Rangers one man short. The Bruins capitalized at this stage...Shore and Abel went off for bumping. The bell rang with them in the box...Coutu returned but Shore replaced him and the Bruins were still one man short..

Note that while Shore took 7 penalties, at least 4 of them saw a Ranger go off at the same time. Two of Boston's goals were scored with Shore in the penalty box, along with both regular Ranger defencemen Johnson and Abel.

Final, game 1 -- Boston 0 Ottawa 0

The dashing fearless attack of the Bruins gave them the upper hand during the three regular sessions, but though they bent the Senators defence many times they failed to crack it...

Shore – 0 goals, 1 penalty

Final, game 2 -- Ottawa 3 Boston 1

Tonight’s game was a fast and thrilling encounter. The Senators showed a vastly different style from that which they displayed in the opener and with the initial whistle started on a brilliant attack which netted them two goals in the first session, enough to win the game. In the second period they paid more attention to defensive play, but still their attack did not suffer. In the third they went to the four and five man defensive system. This, however, did not prove absolutely successful…

“Great credit is given to King Clancy for his displays in the two games at Boston, especially Saturday night’s contest, in which he “fairly flew around the ice”, scoring the goal which started Ottawa on its way to triumph.

Shore had 0 goals. Five penalties, one GA while he was off in the first period (to put Boston down 2-0).


Final, game 3 -- Boston 1 Ottawa 1

Bodies were laid freely and with devastating effect. Eddie Shore, rugged Boston defence man, and George Boucher, Ottawa guard, figured most prominently in the give and take as weight was thrown into checks in an effort to slow opponents down…King Clancy, dynamic Ottawa defence player, a little paler than usual, a little more pinched about the face than he should be, apparently weakening from the long, hard grind which has been his lot this winter, turned the tide for Ottawa. Clancy went wild in the middle period and travelled his fastest when he found Eddie Shore, Boston’s bad man, apparently over-anxious and drawing three penalties in the period for sometimes heavy and sometimes foolish play. With Boston’s guard upset by Shore’s tactics, Clancy plugged in with one rush after another. (Clancy assisted Cy Denneny on Ottawa’s goal while Shore was off).

George Boucher was racked after bodying Shore…Shore followed Hitchman for spilling Nighbor…Alex Smith and Shore crashed together on the boards by the Ottawa net. They were benched…Then Shore came on again and went back to the bench with his fourth penalty…(Clancy passed to Denneny who scored)…Clancy followed for dropping Shore with an elbow to the chin…


Shore had 0 goals, 4 penalties, and Ottawa scored while he was in the box.

Final, game 4 -- Ottawa 3 Boston 1

Ottawa battled on even terms with the rugged Bostonians in a dazzling first period, took a comfortable lead in the middle session on goals by Finnigan and Denneny, tucked the game safely away in the middle of the third period on another whistling shot by the veteran Denneny, and ended the contest with their rivals from Boston in a rowdy free-for-all, which rivaled gang warfare at its worst, during which speedy Oliver tallied Boston’s lone goal into an empty Ottawa net a few minutes before the contest ended.

Eddie Shore again took on the job of battler for his teammates and he rushed in and clouted Hooley Smith a beauty. Hooley and Shore were given the air...

Boston’s weak spot, strangely enough, had been their strong point earlier in the series. Big Lionel Hitchman did not play the same game he had shown in the first three contests.


(Ottawa started substitutes Finnigan and Kilrea in place of Denneny and Smith and they brought a lot more youthful energy to the game)

Shore – no goals, one penalty (no GA)

Summary for 1927: 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.

1928
Round 1, Game 1 -- Boston 1, Rangers 1

It was a typical Ranger-Bruin battle, with twenty-two penalties keeping the teams below strength constantly. Eddie Shore, Boston, and Ching Johnson, New York, lived up to their season’s reputation and records as “bad men” with four minors a piece.

All four of Shore’s penalties came before either team had scored (both goals came in the third period).

Round 1, Game 2 -- Rangers 4, Boston 1

Tonight’s was a much closer hockey game than the score indicates. Up to the twelfth minute of the third period, the Rangers led by a single goal. As the period advanced, the Bruins sent four and five men up the ice in an effort to get back that one large goal. They let the defence take care of itself and Murray Murdock, Fred Cook and Frank Boucher got away in succession to romp in on Winkler without opposition.

The B’s did not yield their place in the world series without the hardest kind of a battle and without maintaining their reputation for aggressive hockey. It was not their night, and when the Rangers took the brunt of their attack at the outset without yielding even one goal it began to be apparent that it was theirs.
Frank Boucher, Ching Johnson, and Lorne Chabot were named as the stars of the Ranger victory.


No goals, no penalties for Shore.

Summary for 1928: 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.

1929
Round 1, Game 1 -- Boston beats Canadiens 1-0

The prominent fact of the game was that the Bruins displayed the aggressiveness, while Canadiens, noted for their dazzling attack, were content to rely on a more defensive game than is their wont…

…The great backchecking of the Bruin front line was an invaluable asset to the Shore-Hitchman-Owen combination on the defense.


Shore – 0 goals, 3 penalties

Round 1, Game 2 -- Boston beats Canadiens 1-0

Cooney Weiland scores the lone goal again, this time early in the game on the power play. Tiny Thompson starred.

The Bruins saw another victory and set about to protect their lead with that great defensive system of theirs. But Canadiens saw differently…

Doc Carson turned in a valuable performance at centre, while Shore, Weiland, Hitchman, and Dit Clapper were their usual useful selves.

Fifteen penalties were imposed, Eddie Shore getting a third of the total number.


Round 1, Game 3 -- Boston beats Canadiens 3-2

From the drop of the first puck the game gave evidence of its brilliance, a game that will live long in the memory of local hockey fans. It can be ranked among the best.

Montreal took a 2-0 lead, with Eddie Shore in the penalty box for Albert Leduc’s opening goal and possibly also for Joliat’s goal which came less than a minute after.

Then that master leader of them all, Eddie Shore paved the way for Boston’s initial tally. Eddie, who has played fine hockey right through the series and rose to his greatest height on Saturday, swung down the right. He was forced wide at the defence. He kept right on going, though, and circled the net to lay a pass-out right in front of the Canadien citadel. “Doc” Carson was there and gathered it out of a scramble to smack it home.

(After Boston tied it 2-2). Boston were away. Fifty-one seconds later, Shore ripped down the ice clightly nearer right wing than centre, but alone. Hainsworth was hugging his left post, the one nearer to the side Shore was one. Shore drilled his shot between the two defencemen waist-high. The puck bit into the net just inside the far post, beating Hainsworth’s move across his cage, again by a split-second.

A word for Eddie Shore, who without attempting to thrust himself into the limelight, stood out as the main reason for Boston’s triumph on Saturday. Shore, the game’s greatest defenceman, led the Bruins to a great victory. He was on the penalty bench when both Canadien goals were scored. He paved the way for the Bruins first tally and scored the winning goal himself, and played a masterful, steady and effective game on the defence. Thompson, Hitchman, Weiland, Gainor, and Owen were other potent factors in the Boston win. Howie Morenz worked like a Trojan;Lepine, Gagne, Joliat, Leduc, Mondou and Burke all tried their hardest. It was no individual’s fault that Canadiens lost; they were fairly beaten by a stronger team.

Final, Game 1 -- Boston beats Rangers 2-0

From first to last the Bruins outplayed the New Yorkers

Perhaps Clapper was the outstanding Bruin…Captain Hitchman played his usual “big game” defence,, body-checking like a freight train and tearing up the ice with a speed which he shows only when stakes are high.

Harry Oliver, Galbraith, Shore, Weiland, Owen, and some more all performed at their specialties in true “money” fashion.


Shore – 0 goals, 2 penalties

Final, Game 2 -- Boston beats Rangers 2-1

The Bruins won tonight almost as decisively as they won in the Hub…Boston had a clear margin in territorial play and their defence also appeared stronger than that of their opponents…the best team undoubtedly won the league championship and the Stanley Cup.

Shore – 0 goals, 2 penalties (0 GA during penalties)

Summary for 1929: 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.

1930
Round 1, Game 1 -- Boston beats Maroons 2-1 (after 45 minutes of OT)

It was one of the most long-drawn-out and grueling struggles in hockey history. Fast clean cut-hockey was absent, but it was a mighty defensive struggle—a war of attrition. Close and rugged checking dominated the play, and gave adequate protection to the rival goalies. And the heavy pace told on the players in close to two hours of hard-fought play.

Ruggedness had entered the game early, and the body was in plentiful evidence, until both factions were too weary to use, or stand them. Eddie Shore came in for his usual share of booing and Lionel Hitchman got some of it. However, Maroons more than held up their side of the argument in this respect, and honors were all even at the end.

Shore—was in the penalty box for Boston’s first goal, scored on a 4-on-3 advantage for Boston. 3 penalties, 0 GA.

Round 1, Game 2 -- Boston beats Maroons 4-2
In a spectacular, wide-open game—the direct opposite to Thursday night’s heavy, cautious, defensive display—the Bruins got three goals through about four minutes of sustained supremacy in the second period. That trio of tallies, plus Thompson’s ability to do the impossible when his teammates faltered and fell before the gathering momentum of a mighty Maroon onslaught, brought hard-earned victory to Art Ross’s retainers.
(Ed.: The Maroons were down 3-0 going into the third period, and played five forwards for the last eight minutes of the game. Almost all of the action was in Boston’s end, as Boston just cleared the zone whenever they regained the puck, and Tiny Thompson made many great saves. Maroons ended up scoring two goals, but Boston scored one going the other way and it ended 4-2.)

There was action from the start, action that wound up in one of the most hectic and thrilling third periods ever seen in the Forum. It was fast and rugged, with plenty of dirt handed out by both sides. Eddie Shore and Lionel HItchman were particularly the butts of Maroon abuse, and came out of the game much sorer men than they entered it. They themselves handed out plenty and got plenty in return.

Shore – 0 goals, 4 penalties

All players dislike getting penalties and sometimes are reticent in leaving the ice at the first signal from the referee, but Eddie Shore seems never able to take a banishment without much ado. Referees always seem to have to communicate with the Boston defenceman personally before he skates off the ice, and when he does he always wears a sneering contempt for the arbiters, whoever they may be.

Round 1, Game 3 -- Maroons beat Boston 1-0 after 26 minutes of OT

An idea of the game (Flat Walsh) played, and the offensive superiority of the Bruins which he rendered worthless can be gathered from the fact that he blocked 51 shots to Thompson’s 39.

0 goals, 0 penalties for Shore.

Round 1, Game 4 -- Boston beat Maroons 5-1

Gone were the rugged and rough tactics of the previous games. Both teams settled into a fast, clean brand of hockey—and here the Bruins excelled.

Penalties entered into the tilt in numbers in the first two periods, seventeen being imposed in this time, with none in the final frame. These were not due to rough hockey, but for minor infractions and due to an amazing strictness on the part of the referees concerning the anti-defence rule. Apparently they had just been apprised of its existence for it was hardly called during the scheduled season by any referee.

Shore – No goals, two penalties (0 GA). Lionel Hitchman missed the last half of the game due to injury and was replaced by George Owen.

Round 2, Game 1 -- Canadiens beat Boston 3-0 at Madison Square Garden
From the start of the game the visitors dominated the play, and except for intervals far and few between, they held complete command of the game.

Light and fast, the Montrealers swept around the champions like a Texas cyclone. They passed up the heavy-bodying Boston defence and swung in on Thompson with uncanny stickhandling ability to count their goals. On the defence, the same sticks that counted goals proved that they could back-check with equal agility, and as a result the noted Boston attacks, the “thunderbolt trio” and the “dynamite” players, found themselves looking mediocre.

Besides that (Leduc) turned in yeoman service in stopping the noted Eddie Shore, which the Canadiens did with great success.

The great defensive player, Lionel Hitchman, seemed wide open against the cyclonic Canadien attacks, and even the rugged Eddie Shore got off second best in his body jousts with the visitors’ stalwarts.
The Hitchman-Shore defence opened like a gate at times…

Eddie Shore contributed the only belligerent high lights of the game. On one occasion Pite Lepine fell over Thompson in the nets, and Shore crashed down on the centre player with much gusto. He was ordered to the bench by Referee Mallinson, but stayed to argue loud and long before he finally took his penalty. He had hardly returned before he was nicked in the face by Joliat’s stick. Shore went after the first Canadien player to come down after that and it happened to be Larochelle. The Bruin defenceman came down heavily with a cross check but was chased promptly for what appeared to be a most deliberate foul.


Shore – 0 goals, 2 penalties (0 GA)

Round 2, Game 2 -- Canadiens beat Boston 4-3, winning the Cup

Flashing all the speed and skill that sent every opposing team to defeat, Canadiens dashed into a n early lead over the Bruins. Outskating and outsmarting the Bostonese at every move, the French took a two-goal lead in the first period. Still maintaining their supreme confidence and speed, the locals delighted the huge audience by counting twice more in the second period. Between the two Canadien goals in this period, Eddie Shore, rugged Boston defenceman counted a goal for the visitors.

It was that goal by Shore in the second period that served to rally the Boston forces.

The right to a place as one of the greatest wing players in hockey was claimed time and again by Dit Clapper as the latter proved one of the mainstays of the Bruin attack. Joined in his spectacular attempts by the imperturbable Martin Barry, Clapper proved his worth as he shared much of the offensive burden of the Bruins. Galbraith and Hitchman also stood out on the Boston squad, but most of the glory was garnered by Tiny Thompson in the nets. Left helpless by a defence that swung wide open to the Canadien attacks, Thompson prevented the count against the Bruins from mounting to prodigious figures by making a number of remarkable stops.

Summary for 1930: 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.

1931
Round 1, Game 1--Boston beats Canadiens 5-4 in OT

No Gazette for this game, but the next day’s paper notes that Boston scored 4 of their 5 goals with the man advantage.

Round 1, Game 2 --Canadiens beat Boston 1-0

Art Ross pulled the goalie for the final 40 seconds of the game.

A moment later, Morenz got a break. He tore away from the milling Bruin attack with only Shore to beat. The centre star tried to swerve to the right around the defencemen but as he was about to get his shot away, Shore tripped him heavily. Referee Ion apparently thought Owen had done the tripping and he waved the former collegian off for five minutes, the right penalty for tripping a player in a scoring position. (There were four minutes to go in the game and this call caused the fans to delay the game by 10 minutes by throwing debris on the ice.)

Eddie Shore was the mainstay of the Bruins. He was the driving power on the attack and the stronghold on the defence.

No goals, one penalty to Shore.

Round 1, Game 3--Canadiens beat Boston 4-3

On Saturday night, it was again Eddie Shore who proved the leading spirit of the Boston team. It was his crushing body checks, dealt out to the best scoring threats Canadiens offer, that paved the way for the Bruin rally, and when the Frenchmen fell back to their blue line in a last minute defence of their lead, it was Shore who led the ripping attacks up the ice. He even took it on himself to rag the puck at centre when Chapman was sent off, but George Mantha showed him up. He will probably never attempt it again.

Montreal scored their first goal with Shore in the box. Mantha scored Montreal’s third goal when he stole the puck from Shore while Shore was ragging the puck at centre, skated around Hitchman, and beat Thompson.

No goals, two penalties to Shore

Round 1, Game 4--Boston beat Canadiens 3-1

It was the fast skating, hard-hitting, apparently invulnerable Boston defence of Shore and Owen that turned the tide in favor of the Bruins. Playing with tremendous effectiveness Owen started the play that resulted in a Bruin lead of one goal in the first period, and in the second session, it was Owen and Shore, the stalwarts who appeared fresh and unscathed, who moved down ponderously to meet a defence that could not stop them, and each scored a goal which put the game above danger for their team.

For the winners the rugged figure of Eddie Shore stood out like a beacon. Already considered one of the greatest defencemen in the game’s history, Shore last night proved once more his rugged defensive ability and his tank-like attack to lead his team to victory. Dealing out stunning checks in the first period, especially to Lepine, Shore was the keystone of the Bruins in turning back the first Canadien threats. He was closely followed for honors by George Owen, the Harvard nine-letter man, whose crushing attacks swept through for two goals.

It was too much Shore as far as Canadiens went last night. The great Boston player was brilliant on the defence and his stiff and fearless bodychecking played havoc with the Canadien forwards. On the offensive too he wielded his usual power, his goal capping the most effective performance of any player on the Boston team.

Shore – 1 goal, 1 penalty (0 GA)

Round 1, Game 5 -- Canadiens beat Boston 3-2 in OT

Eddie Shore was the strength and driving power of the Bruins but what he did on the ice was lost when he made four trips to the penalty box. Shore and Owen proceeded to step into the Frenchmen from the start but the referees were on their toes and the two defencemen were closely watched. Their charges invariably brought penalties in their wake.

Shore – 4 penalties, 0 goals. Was in the box for Montreal’s first goal.

Summary of 1931: 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.


1932
Boston Bruins missed the playoffs

1933

Round 1 Game 1 -- Boston beat Toronto 2-1 in OT

0 goals, 1 penalty for Shore

Round 1 Game 2 -- Toronto beat Boston 1-0 in OT.

Goal scored on PP with George Owen in the box.

Shore – 0 goals, 0 penalties.

Round 1 Game 3--Boston beat Toronto 2-1 in OT

The next day’s paper said “Shore struck his true stride in last night’s game, being credited with an assist on the first goal and scoring the winning tally himself.”

Round 1 Game 4--Toronto beat Boston 5-3

Eddie Shore, courageous and compelling, led waves of Bruin counter-attacks that saw lighter men tossed a dozen feet by body checks, sticks carried high, and the boards used with bone-crushing intent.

Eddie Shore, still trying when the gong sounded the end of probably the roughest ride a player ever sustained in a single game, was outstanding for the Bruins. He was the driving power of the team.


Shore – 0 goals, 1 penalty

Round 1 Game 5--Toronto beat Boston 1-0 after 105 minutes of OT

But when Blair reached out at mid-ice and picked up the puck that Eddie Shore had directed at a teammate, then cut into Boston territory, Doraty moved fast. He streaked for the goal, snatched the perfect pass that Blair had directed at him, and blazed a low shot into the bottom corner of the net.

Bruins attacked spasmodically but when Shore got a power play into Leaf territory the United States division winners hammered at Chabot for minutes on end.

Shore – 0 goals, 4 penalties

1933 Summary: 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.

1934
Missed playoffs, due to their struggles while Shore was suspended.

1935
Round 1, Game 1 --Boston beats Toronto 1-0 in OT

Aubrey “Dit” Clapper, keen shooting right wing of the Bostonese, broke up the struggle when he snared Eddie Shore’s long lateral pass to shoot in and fire a jolting shot that entered the cage over George Hainsworth’s left shoulder.

Frank Patrick, manager of the Bruins elected to let Shore and Babe Siebert carry the brunt of the Boston defensive work and they were given only one rest throughout the more than 93 minutes of furious checking. Shore, therefore, confined himself more to backline duty and less rushing than he ordinarily does. His spectacular rush for the winning play caught the Leafs a bit slow in getting back to their position.

Shore played his usual brilliant game, particularly defensively, but the dynamic Frank “King” Clancy, who time and again rallied his tiring forces for rousing onslaughts against the Boston cage, was also a standout.


Shore – 1 assist, 0 penalties

Round 1, Game 2 -- Toronto beat Boston 2-0

The Leafs appeared the ultimate winners of tonight’s game from the very outset when the fast-skating, hard-hitting blue-clad youngsters broke through the tired Boston defence with ease.

Shore – 0 points, 1 penalty

Round 1, Game 3--Toronto beat Boston 3-0

Strained to the breaking point from overwork, the mighty Eddie Shore-Babe Siebert defence was the first barrier to fall as the Leafs drove in to take a lead in the first minute of play and never cease pelting Tiny Thompson with rubber.

Aside from those vital blows, 148-pound King Clancy and the burly Horner carried the potent Toronto artillery. Clancy charged, high-sticked and belted virtually every Bruin attacker who came his way, paying attention to an already tired Shore.

Horner shook Shore so severely with one mighty body-check that Eddie had to hobble to the bench for a stretch to recover.

Dit Clapper left with a knee injury.


Round 1, Game 4-- Toronto beat Boston 2-1 in OT
For more than two periods the Bruins had outplayed the Leafs decisively. They had again shackled the big guns, Conacher and Jackson, as they did in the first series game at Boston which the Bruins won 1-0 in 33 minutes overtime. Shore and Siebert had played virtually perfect defensive hockey.

(Toronto scored their goals with 2 minutes to go on a 4-on-3 power play with Siebert and O’Neill in the box for Boston, and then less than 2 minutes into OT just after Babe Siebert had left the penalty box for Boston.)

1935 Summary: 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.

1936

Round 1, Game 1 -- Boston beat Toronto 3-0

Eddie Shore stopped a dangerous attack in his zone and carried back, with Peggy O’Neill trailing him down the right lane. After carrying over, Shore passed to O’Neill and he cut in and drove a blistering ankle high shot into Goalie George Hainsworth’s cage.

The Leafs were one shy when the first Boston tally was registered and about six minutes later, when Shore caged the second, Pep Kelly and Buzz Boll were imprisoned in the penalty box.


During the last 10 minutes, the desperate Leafs twice caught the Bruins short-handed but so tight was the Boston defence, due to the amazing efforts of its all-star defencemen, Shore and Babe Siebert, that every advance was turned back before it reached the threatening stage…the few times the Leafs became threatening, Shore and Siebert soared to supreme heights.

Shore – no penalties, 1 goal, 1 assist

Round 1, Game 2 -- Toronto beat Boston 8-3

Toronto Maple Leafs, smashing hockey’s greatest defence to bit with an astonishing display of power, overcame Boston Bruins 8-3…the Leafs opened a vicious, spectacular assault in the second period and mastered the rest of the Bruins while the great man of the game, Eddie Shore, was off serving penalties…the mighty Bruins might have turned back Toronto’s thrusts in the dramatic second period had Shore, the peerless leader, been in the game. But Eddie was sitting on the penalty bench, head bowed, while the furious rally took place.

Shore was serving a two-minute sentence early in the first frame when the first Toronto bomb exploded. King Clancy and Charlie Conacher ripped through the severed defences and blasted shots past Tiny Thompson.

In utter disgust (Shore) lifted the puck so that it struck Referee Odie Cleghorn on the back and the official sent Shore away for a ten minute misconduct penalty. Bruins were permitted to use a substitute after Shore had served two minutes, but the great man himself was out of things. His absence was fatal.

The Leafs scored three times in quick succession, twice while Peggy O’Neill and Bill Cowley were seated on the same mourners’ bench as Shore, serving a minor. Shore’s substitute, Roger Jenkins, and occasionally Teddy Graham, had no chance.

Shore played virtually every minute of the third period in a thoroughly lost cause.


Shore—one minor and one misconduct. 2 GA in the minor and 3 GA in the misconduct. No points awarded but Weiland scored on a rebound from Shore’s shot.

1936 Summary: 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.


1937
Shore misses most of the season and all of the playoffs with injury. Boston loses to Maroons 2-1

1938
Round 1, Game 1 -- Toronto beats Boston 1-0 in OT

For four periods the teams had checked each other to a standstill, Leafs carrying the play as Bruins elected to sit back for the breaks. It was a direct change to Boston’s tactics at the start of the second overtime period that led to the goal, first in the best-of-five series to be resumed here Saturday night.

Bruins went up four strong for the first time just prior to the goal. Metz broke away with Parsons by his side, Eddie Shore trailing and Dit Clapper the only Bruin protecting Thompson. Metz gave Parsons the puck as the wingman skated ahead at the blue-line, went past Clapper, and drilled the low shot past Thompson’s left side from 10 feet.

Round 1, Game 2 -- Toronto beats Boston 2-1

Broda is star of game as Boston has 31 shots to Leafs 13

Out of the titanic struggle emerged more playoff heroes—Leafs’ Drillon and Pep Kelly for their goals, Walter Broda for the grandest goal tending job of his short major league career, and Boston’s veteran Eddie Shore, a magnificent figure in defeat. Once more Shore was the bashing, rushing Bruin leader of old.

Amid the fierce Bruin charge was Shore, 34 years old and still the greatest Boston threat. Moving up as a fourth “forward,” he took the face-offs, charging into every offensive, checking Leafs right behind their goal and racing back when Leafs broke away, with speed that belied his years.


Round 1, Game 3 -- Toronto beats Boston 3-2 in OT

It was an old story for three periods. Led by Eddie Shore, Boston hammered at Broda from all sides. The Leafs sophomore goalie stopped 42 shots in the first three periods to Thompson’s 17.

Shore – 2 penalties in the first period, no GA. 1 assist on Cowley’s goal to tie the game in the third.

1938 Summary -- 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.

1939

No Montreal Gazette's available for the first round, where Boston beat the Rangers 4-3. The Rangers were also a very strong team.

After the Bruins beat the Rangers in 7, Art Ross said the Bruins were the best team he saw in his 37 years of hockey. Lester Patrick said no one in the Ranger camp would dispute his judgement.

Marc McNeil, looking forward to the finals. – For, in the back of the mind, there seems to stick a picture of Eddie Shore flinging a puck at the referee, drawing a misconduct penalty, and then watching his club’s chances being blown sky-high by Conny Smyth’s men. That was in 1936...


Final, Game 1--Boston beat Toronto 2-1

No points or penalties for Shore

Final, Game 2--Toronto beats Boston 3-2 in OT

No penalties, one assist for Shore

Final, Game 3--Boston beats Toronto 3-1

Another reason for the Toronto break-up seemed to lie in an injury that probably cost the club the services of Harvey Jackson for the rest of the seven-game round. He went off late in the second period with a dislocated shoulder after a terrific body-check from the veteran bumper of the Boston blueline Eddie Shore.

One penalty, no points for Shore.

Final, Game 4--Boston beat Toronto 2-0

Apps and Drillon flicked the puck around in Boston territory while Getliffe was off, but venerable Eddie Shore broke up the best of their plays.

No points or penalties for Shore

Final, Game 5--Boston beats Toronto 3-1, wins the Stanley Cup

It was the younger element, like Conacher and Mel Hill, that shot the playoff goals as the Bruins marched through New York Rangers and the Leafs. But it was old Eddie Shore, the veteran blue-line bumper, who bolstered up the youngsters when the going was hard and led charge after charge any time the Bruins were down. The multitude recognized that. “We want Shore,” the people chanted when the defenceman went to the dressing room before the cup was presented. The shout that came when he returned to pose behind the ancient trophy was louder than the one that greeted the presentation.

(in the third period) Shore seemed to be everywhere during that onslaught, falling to help Brimsek and whacking the Leafs about with his old frame that has come through one of hockey’s most eventful careers.

Shore had 2 penalties and an assist.

1939 Summary: 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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad