The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,190
- 30,196
IMO he's not a top 20 player without it.
Same with Beliveau honestly (not to the same extent though).
ATD 2022 DRAFT THREAD I
- Thread starter ImporterExporter
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Same with Beliveau honestly (not to the same extent though).
I think this is an important point- and I'd even extend it to non-NHLers/pre-consolidation players.
The ATD and HoH community has done a great job (in my opinion) with research into hockey history, but I think it is these early years that still require significant work. Unfortunately, it will likely prove to be quite challenging due to a lack of sources.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,093
- 14,067
The 1930's are a bitch to research too. Or at least, that was always my impression.
Not so with the 1910's and 1920's. Mostly because the major players were more often in accessible markets with great newspapers covering hockey.
Europeans are another ballgame entirely. I think our rankings of the major Europeans is more or less right, but I'm not sure.
No one is talking about dropping him to the 3rd round. This is part of the draft- you know this better than anyone, being one of the more senior and active participants here in the ATD section. Just because a player's shortcomings are being discussed, it doesn't mean that the player is bad/useless/not valuable. It is just a discussion surrounding the player. I wish more picks inspired this level of dialogue.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,093
- 14,067
If someone at the dinner table spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing my flaws, every single year at Christmas, there would come a point where I will address this phenomenon out loud. It's not about forgetting about it; flaws exist. It's about the constant hammering. It has a polarization effect, where the player become his flaws and only his flaws. It's all you have to spend your energy on, defend him on this or that.
I'm not against dialogue; I am dialoguing right now defending him.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
First of all, let's please, please remain civil. Secondly, the clock hasn't officially started. Nabby is under no obligation to do anything today. I think we all hope he does, but if we have to wait another 24 hours, oh well. There are worse problems in life lol.
As for Shore, he's largely a regular season player. This has been hashed out many times over the years. His value, mostly comes from his dominance in voting during the regular season and written reputation.
One could argue any of Lidstrom, Potvin, Shore as the "best" D since Bourque. They're always ranked within a few spots of one another by most knowledgeable hockey historians. Arguing that one is clearly better than the other is simply a waste of energy IMO if we're taking the entire scope of a career into account.
Also, something I've seen thrown out today are the scoring finishes of Shore.
There are a few problems with this.
One, you can count on 1/2 hands the # of defensemen in any given playoff who could potentially lead the playoffs in scoring.
Two, games played are significantly lower than any era that followed Shore's so sample size is skewed.
Three, Boston underachieved to some degree during Shore's era, given their talent, and record in the regular season, with numerous losses to weaker teams on paper/standings.
Shore led the playoffs in PIMS 3 times (27, 29, 30), finished 2nd in 1931, T3rd in 1933, T2nd in 1936, T4th in 1939.
Consider how OFTEN Shore was in the box during the playoffs:
55 games played
185 PIMS
3.4 per/g
That means he's going to the box every game, and most often at least twice. That's a lot for your top guy in games that are all significant.
Here are some comparables from other top Dmen in that same time period:
xxxxx had 61 in 61 = 1
xxxxxxxhad 56 in 53 = 1.1
xxxxxx had 78 in 66 = 1.2
xxxxxx had 72 in 49 = 1.5
xxxxxxxx had 90 in 55 = 1.6
xxxxxxxx had 170 in 70 = 2.4
xxxxxxxx 152 in 60 = 2.5
As you can see, Shore was going to the box significantly more than everyone else at the time. Losing your top player to the box in crucial games is a big negative, no matter how you slice it.
I don't think Shore was a bum in the playoffs by any means. He was, in the grand scheme probably average/above average, especially relative to the regular season accolades and rep he had. But relying on scoring finishes alone to sort of inflate his well documented status in this realm, especially vs someone like Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux, is a bit much for me.
Again, Shore was a great pick at 12. Nobody can defend otherwise. I simply think the bulk of his value comes from the Harts, retro Norris', and longevity as a top shelf player.
Edit: Took out undrafteds.
As for Shore, he's largely a regular season player. This has been hashed out many times over the years. His value, mostly comes from his dominance in voting during the regular season and written reputation.
One could argue any of Lidstrom, Potvin, Shore as the "best" D since Bourque. They're always ranked within a few spots of one another by most knowledgeable hockey historians. Arguing that one is clearly better than the other is simply a waste of energy IMO if we're taking the entire scope of a career into account.
Also, something I've seen thrown out today are the scoring finishes of Shore.
There are a few problems with this.
One, you can count on 1/2 hands the # of defensemen in any given playoff who could potentially lead the playoffs in scoring.
Two, games played are significantly lower than any era that followed Shore's so sample size is skewed.
Three, Boston underachieved to some degree during Shore's era, given their talent, and record in the regular season, with numerous losses to weaker teams on paper/standings.
Shore led the playoffs in PIMS 3 times (27, 29, 30), finished 2nd in 1931, T3rd in 1933, T2nd in 1936, T4th in 1939.
Consider how OFTEN Shore was in the box during the playoffs:
55 games played
185 PIMS
3.4 per/g
That means he's going to the box every game, and most often at least twice. That's a lot for your top guy in games that are all significant.
Here are some comparables from other top Dmen in that same time period:
xxxxx had 61 in 61 = 1
xxxxxxxhad 56 in 53 = 1.1
xxxxxx had 78 in 66 = 1.2
xxxxxx had 72 in 49 = 1.5
xxxxxxxx had 90 in 55 = 1.6
xxxxxxxx had 170 in 70 = 2.4
xxxxxxxx 152 in 60 = 2.5
As you can see, Shore was going to the box significantly more than everyone else at the time. Losing your top player to the box in crucial games is a big negative, no matter how you slice it.
I don't think Shore was a bum in the playoffs by any means. He was, in the grand scheme probably average/above average, especially relative to the regular season accolades and rep he had. But relying on scoring finishes alone to sort of inflate his well documented status in this realm, especially vs someone like Bobby Orr and Mario Lemieux, is a bit much for me.
Again, Shore was a great pick at 12. Nobody can defend otherwise. I simply think the bulk of his value comes from the Harts, retro Norris', and longevity as a top shelf player.
Edit: Took out undrafteds.
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,093
- 14,067
You don't think a player with a Hart record of:
1,1,2,2,2,2,3,4,4
Points finishes of:
1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,6 etc.
VsX 7 scores of:
105.7
Plus the reputation for being an all-around player...
Is not a Top 20 player if you assign him an average playoff resume?
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,190
- 30,196
Meant that he is significantly bolstered by his playoff resume - not the top 20 part of that.
My bad for lack of clarity.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,093
- 14,067
overpass had a nice post about that:
So Shore wasn't that undisciplined at his peak when he was winning Hart trophies.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Thats all fair. I think Shore’s regular seasons were better than his playoffs. I don’t think he was bad in the playoffs, just not quite as good as his regular season.
Maybe I can explain how I evaluate this another way… I think Eddie Shore is at about 95% value in the playoffs. So he’s not quite as good, but that’s still better than any available defensemen. I think Shore and Lidstrom are about equal in the regular season, but Lidstrom is at full value in the playoffs.
Dreakmur
Registered User
I would still like to see some sources for his all-around game. Beliveau is in need a good bio!
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,190
- 30,196
*bookmarking this post*
There's one undrafted that I think is also in this rough range of players (for D), but is probably a half-tier below. But Shore is BDA.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,093
- 14,067
I'm skeptical Lidstrom was as good as Shore in the RS, if only based on reputation. I'm not sure I ever considered Lidstrom a Top 3 player in the league, except maybe in that small window in the early-2000s when there was nobody around to compete with.
There are centers that won't go until the 2nd round which I considered better players than him or at least equal, when they were all playing at the same time. Would Shore have done better? I'd like to think so based on his reputation. If not, then the 1930's can be thrown in the garbage bin.
There are centers that won't go until the 2nd round which I considered better players than him or at least equal, when they were all playing at the same time. Would Shore have done better? I'd like to think so based on his reputation. If not, then the 1930's can be thrown in the garbage bin.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I agree, his PIMs dropped in the middle portion of his career. I was just highlighting the significant time he spent in the box during the playoffs, even during deep runs. Especially relative to basically every other Dman in that era. It's not a killer by any means but you want your best players on the ice in the most important games and Shore simply will be, more often than not, cooling off, vs most other players.
overpass
Registered User
Shore was largely a regular season player, but so was every player from his era. There just weren't enough playoff games for players to have a distinct playoff career. Shore played 14 playoff games in the 6 season period from 1932-33 to 1937-38 when he was winning Hart trophies. How much meaning can you get out of 14 games across 6 seasons?
IMO it was a mistake for the HOH playoff project to include 1930s players. I think the project should have had an era cutoff and begun at some point in the 1940s, when they started to play more playoff games. Maybe starting in 1938-39 when the final became a 7 game series. Or 1942-43 when the semi-finals were both 7 game series. Or 1945-46 and the post-war era. But players in the 1930s were never going to have a chance when compared to players who got to play full 7 game series. And I think you're also making a mistake when you compare Shore's handful of playoff games to, say, Lidstrom's 263 career playoff games.
When you start saying Nicklas Lidstrom was full value in the playoffs and Shore was less than that, I think you're just looking at who had the stronger team. Lidstrom played over 250 playoff games in his career and never had an all-time great playoff run. He had half a dozen very good runs, but he was never great. During Shore's peak, he was in the same position as Ray Bourque in Boston, having to lead the rush to generate offence while still playing huge minutes to paper over a lack of depth on defence. It was an impossible situation that required Shore, like Bourque, to be superhuman for his team to have a chance to win. Lidstrom just had to play well as a #1 defenceman and his team could win.
Shore gets criticized for not winning during the heart of his career, with no Cup wins between the age of 26 and 36. Nicklas Lidstrom would have the exact same issue under the playoff system of Eddie Shore's era. The Wings would have lost 2-0 to the Vancouver Canucks in the first round in 2001-02, leaving Lidstrom with no Cups between age 27 and 37.
tinyzombies
Registered User
I read the Montreal papers after his last Cup win when he was old. The the overall feel was that his career had been on a downward trend for awhile but he had a revival and it helped them win the Cup. But the players all downplayed his impact in the offseason. I don't think he was very well liked lol.
===
La patrie, 2 avril 1939
"Hockey has changed but EddieShore is still a brave, skilful, tenacious player with great endurance
"Today, hockey is changed. The game is much faster but the roughness still exists, and Eddie Shore is still the king of blockers. a crowd would always claim him on the ice. When he's not there, the Bruins are lackluster. Shore is no longer the rough player of ten years ago, but he is still a defensive player who is adept at doing everything on the ice. He does not run away from anyone. Because of his robustness- he is still rough. He is still good at executing climbs from one end of the rink to the other. He remains a valuable aid for his goalkeeper. Eddie never makes a move for nothing. He is the oldest player in the NHI. And best of all, Shore is no doubt an inspiration to the Bruins and when Eddie leaves the game, a void will be left in the Bruins camp that won't be filled anytime soon. Shore is for the Bruins what xxx was for the Canadiens. The latter has not been successful since xxx passed away. Boston will likely have the same experience when Shore retires."
===
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I agree, that is far more difficult to paint an in depth look at postseason performance when you compare Shore to Lidstrom or Potvin given the sheer volume of games the latter played vs the handful Shore did.
But the point I made, revolved more around the volatility of Shore in the postseason in terms of taking himself out of games. That cannot really be debated. He spent more time in the box, by huge margins, in some cases, relative to the other top Dmen in the league from the late 20's to the late 30's. Hell, relative to any player, regardless of position.
If you want to talk about Hart wins, you can point to the fact that the Hart wins started coming after xxxxx had declined significantly and the mid 1930's, by and large, was less than in terms of peak player value relative to basically any other era in history by my estimation. The reality was, the top 2 F's in the mid 30's were xxxxx, who by this time was in his mid 30's, ie, past his prime, and xxxx, in his early 30's, again, past his prime. Neither player are consensus top 25 players all time. Most have both outside the top 30, certainly the latter. By the time he won his last 2 Hart's those guys were gone. One just has to look at the Hart voting in 36 and 38 to see the really bleak alternatives, relative to other periods in history.
Lastly, I disagree completely regarding Shore pulling a less than stellar Boston team through the league, especially during those Hart years. Those Boston teams were loaded and part of the reason why I think you can claim they certainly didn't achieve the success that most expected.
In 1929 they had SIX other HOF players (Cup winning year)
Same in 1930
From 1930 through 1933 that team had FIVE other HOF players.
In 1934 it was SIX again
1935 and 36 it was FIVE
1937 it was EIGHT though one of them was a teenager
1938 it as SEVEN
1939 it was EIGHT (Cup winning year)
Again, I fully agree it's very difficult to cross reference players postseason play from Shore's era to most others. With that being said, there are still metrics that don't paint him in a super positive light and the notion he was dragging around subpar teams relative to the rest of the league like Bourque is too far fetched IMO.
overpass
Registered User
Just read about the Boston playoff games in the mid 30s. Boston needed Shore to drive the offence and hold down the defence all at the same time. Look at the lack of depth on defence Boston had. Shore was Ray Bourque carrying the Bruins, 60 years earlier.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Fair enough but again, the talent that existed on those Bruins rosters was not remotely close to the decisive disadvantage that Bourque was working with in the 1980's/90's vs numerous other franchise who were vastly superior in terms of peak and depth talent.
There is nothing written that can change the fact Boston had as much, and generally more talent than just about every other NHL team throughout his (Shore) career. That much is literal fact. It wasn't as if Boston, at any point from 1929 to 1939, was facing a mountain of a challenge because of talent.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Let's compare HOF'ers on Boston vs other top teams in the 1929 to 1939 range.
BOS:
1939 - 8 HOF players (Cup winning year)
1938 - 7
1937 - 8 (one was teenager)
1936 - 5
1935 - 5
1934 - 6
1933 - 5
1932 - 5
1931 - 5
1930 - 5
1929 - 6 (Cup winning year)
NYR:
1939 - 5 HOF players
1938 - 5
1937 - 6
1936 - 10 (though you had numerous guys on their absolute last legs/final years)
1935 - 6
1934 - 5
1933 - 6
1932 - 5
1931 - 4
1930 - 4
1929 - 4
TOR:
1939 - 5 HOF players
1938 - 5
1937 - 7
1936 - 7
1935 - 7
1934 - 7
1933 - 7
1932 - 7
1931 - 7
1930 - 7
1929 - 3
DET:
1939 - 7 HOF players
1938 - 4
1937 - 4
1936 - 4
1935 - 4
1934 - 3
1933 - 4
1932 - 4
1931 - 5
1930 - 4
1929 - 2
MTL
1939 - 2 HOF players
1938 - 2
1937 - 3
1936 - 3
1935 - 2
1934 - 3
1933 - 4
1932 - 4
1931 - 4
1930 - 4
1929 - 4
CHI
1939 - 1 HOF players
1938 - 1
1937 - 1
1936 - 1
1935 - 2
1934 - 3
1933 - 3
1932 - 3
1931 - 1
1930 - 1
1929 - 4
OTT
Didn't exist after 1934
1934 - 2
1933 - 3
No season in 32
1931 - 1
1930 - 3 (one was teenager)
1929 - 4
As you can see, Boston, outside of maybe Toronto had the most consistent and deep teams throughout Shore's career. They never had fewer than 5 HOF'ers on the roster and both years they won the Cup had more than anyone.
BOS:
1939 - 8 HOF players (Cup winning year)
1938 - 7
1937 - 8 (one was teenager)
1936 - 5
1935 - 5
1934 - 6
1933 - 5
1932 - 5
1931 - 5
1930 - 5
1929 - 6 (Cup winning year)
NYR:
1939 - 5 HOF players
1938 - 5
1937 - 6
1936 - 10 (though you had numerous guys on their absolute last legs/final years)
1935 - 6
1934 - 5
1933 - 6
1932 - 5
1931 - 4
1930 - 4
1929 - 4
TOR:
1939 - 5 HOF players
1938 - 5
1937 - 7
1936 - 7
1935 - 7
1934 - 7
1933 - 7
1932 - 7
1931 - 7
1930 - 7
1929 - 3
DET:
1939 - 7 HOF players
1938 - 4
1937 - 4
1936 - 4
1935 - 4
1934 - 3
1933 - 4
1932 - 4
1931 - 5
1930 - 4
1929 - 2
MTL
1939 - 2 HOF players
1938 - 2
1937 - 3
1936 - 3
1935 - 2
1934 - 3
1933 - 4
1932 - 4
1931 - 4
1930 - 4
1929 - 4
CHI
1939 - 1 HOF players
1938 - 1
1937 - 1
1936 - 1
1935 - 2
1934 - 3
1933 - 3
1932 - 3
1931 - 1
1930 - 1
1929 - 4
OTT
Didn't exist after 1934
1934 - 2
1933 - 3
No season in 32
1931 - 1
1930 - 3 (one was teenager)
1929 - 4
As you can see, Boston, outside of maybe Toronto had the most consistent and deep teams throughout Shore's career. They never had fewer than 5 HOF'ers on the roster and both years they won the Cup had more than anyone.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,093
- 14,067
Obvious pick and great value. Didn't understand why you wanted to trade the pick with Crosby there.
Just wanted to see what was out there before I picked him.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Super Bowl LIX Kansas City Chiefs vs Philadelphia Eagles - New OrleansWagers: 5Staked: $47,448.00Event closes - 12 days from now- Updated:
-
PICK ONLY ONE TEAM - 4 Nations Face-Off - ChampionWagers: 8Staked: $8,595.00Event closes - 15 days from now- Updated:
-
Sweden vs Canada - Centre Bell, MontréalWagers: 1Staked: $225.00Event closes - 15 days from now
- Updated: