blogofmike
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2010
- 2,290
- 1,082
If you want to compare the late 50s Wings, Hawks, and Leafs to their 60s counterparts, you have to consider that the Canadiens, Bruins, and Rangers all got worse in the 60s. So wins were easier to come by in games against those opponents. You have to look at the rosters.
All things are relative and your view depends upon which era you think is stronger. Did the Canadiens fall off? Or did the rest of the league catch up?
It's a 6 team league, and at the latter half of the Habs dynasty, they weren't exactly slaying Goliaths.
Looking at rosters I'd say the 56-point 1963 Rangers who finished 5th in the standings might be on the same level as the 77-point 1958 Rangers who finished 2nd in the standings. (The Rangers were still the guys who played when the circus wasn't on. The Rags finishing 2nd should be a sign that some unfortunate calamities may have befallen the usual contenders.)
Boston drops off, and they're basically a one line team. Bucyk-Oliver-Williams, and not much else. They got worse.
The 1959 Leafs are improving, but they win 1 game in overtime against a Habs team missing the revered Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard. I'd guess the 60s Leafs might do better against a team that was missing players.
The declining 1962 Habs team had 98 points, 2 fewer than their team record set in 1956, and better than any team in between. But in a stronger league, 75 point Chicago has a Bobby Hull line and Stan Mikita line backed up by Pilote and Hall.
Look at the rosters. Would you take any of the Habs' later 50s playoff opponents over '62 Chicago, who lost to Toronto in 6? Or did the competitors get better? Couldn't any of the 4 playoff teams in 1964 walk in to 1958 and immediately be the #2 team at worst?
If you actually look at the rosters of the Wings, were they actually better in the 60s, or did they just win more games in an easier league? The late 50s Wings still had Red Kelly and Terry Sawchuk. Howe, Delvecchio, and Pronovost weren't old yet. Maybe only Norm Ullman was an advantage for the 60s teams. Mid-30s Bill Gadsby was a good add but hardly Red Kelly. Those 60s Wings lacked depth and were all about the stars, and the stars were there in the late 50s too!
The Leafs did have better rosters in the 60s, thanks to the major additions of Dave Keon and Red Kelly at centre. And yet the Punch Imlach teams that Montreal faced in the playoffs in 59 and 60 were pretty close to being the dynasty roster, they just needed the upgrade at C to put them over the top after the Habs declined.
Similarly, the 60s Hawks were definitely better than the mid 50s teams, but the 59 and 60 teams that Montreal played in the playoffs were pretty much the 60s team. The main difference is that Stan Mikita was still a kid and not yet an all-star. But Hull, Pilote, and Hall were all there, and they had better depth at forward and on defence than later editions, including Ted Lindsay and Ed Litzenberger up front.
The late 50s Habs wers still stars too (a few of them were in the late 60s and early 70s as well). The late 50s Wings stars weren't quite as good as they were at their peaks. Late 50s Red Kelly wasn't early 50s Red Kelly, particularly after management suggested he play with a broken ankle somewhere around 1958-59.
Mikita and Keon were big adds. How many 2-line teams tested the Habs before that?
This column by Tim Burke in the Montreal Gazette is the most thorough comparison I've seen of Orr and Harvey. Burke's Montreal home may colour his conclusion (edge to Harvey), but he touches on many different aspects of each of their games, and also gets Dickie Moore's opinion.
Tim Burke, Montreal Gazette, January 15, 1975, p. 11 and 13
I would suggest reading the whole thing but I'll pull a couple of quotes that are relevant to the discussion.
Does this debate sound familiar? Plus ca change...
A few comparison points Burke made between Orr and Harvey:
Regarding Harvey's varying activity level:
Burke's final conclusion? In the end, he also chickens out and compares their eras, giving Harvey the edge because he starred for the greatest team in the greatest era.
And a lot of people thought Terry Sawchuk was pretty great too. He was the highest rated netminder in the THN Top 100 in 1998 at #9, beating out Plante at #13.
Selected from his ATD bio:
- "Sawchuk was the greatest goalie I've ever seen, no doubt about it. He was the quickest I've ever seen." - Bob Pulford
- "The Uke (Sawchuk) was the best goalie I ever saw. Everything that a goalie should be!" - Gordie Howe
- ''(Sawchuk) is the best that ever played'' - Dave Keon
- ''All I could remember, and I'll never forget, is looking at Terry Sawchuk and say to myself: ''this is the greatest goaltender I have ever seen''. - Emile Francis, looking at Sawchuk's body at the morgue
- "A lot of people think he was the greatest goalkeeper who ever played the game. I include myself in that group." - Glenn Hall
-----
Yet we've had no problem reassessing Terry Sawchuk's place in history. In our last Top 100 it was somehow clear that collectively, we put Hall above him now, and Sawchuk (who saved 98% of shots in 1952, and an underrated reason why 60s Chicago had trouble in the postseason) is now #35 behind playoff dynamo Bill Cook.
We've started looking at the quality of competition for Gordie Howe in the early 1950s.
All of that is fair. But If we're doing it for these guys, why is Harvey exempt?