Stepping back for a moment to my original point, which is that Harvey's competition in the playoffs was not weak.
The late 1950s Montreal dynasty was probably the best team of all time. In addition to Harvey himself, they had 5 legit superstar forwards in their top 6, first line talent playing as depth forwards, another all-star D in Tom Johnson, an all-time goalie, and an all-time coach. Nobody could touch them in the playoffs. In my opinion Montreal's regular season record from that era does not reflect their full greatness, as train travel and back to back games were a levelling factor.
So when the other 5 teams in the league finish around 0.500 or a bit worse, that doesn't mean they're average teams. They're very good teams locked in a 6 team cage match with the greatest team of all time. I think the 10 playoff opponents Montreal played from 56-60 could have been Cup contenders in any era, with 0.600+ winning percentages in most eras. I certainly wouldn't rate them as favourites over the dynasty teams of the 50s-80s, or the great multi-Cup winners of the 90s-00s, but they would be legit Cup finalists on talent in any era. Not weak opponents at all, in fact
stronger than most playoff opponents faced by the other great defencemen.
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.
The Canadiens fell off. You mention their 62 team below which finished with 98 points and if that team isn't evidence of the league getting weaker in the 60s, don't know what is. Jean-Guy Talbot was a first team all-star! He was #3 or #4 for most of his career. Bill Hicke scored 51 points! Hicke was a big prospect but, as Jean Beliveau said in his book, Hicke washed out of the strong O6 league because he was predictable and the league figured him out.
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.)
I don't agree at all. The 1956-58 Rangers were better and deeper at forward than the 63 team, easily. In fact, Camille Henry played in the minors for most of 55-56 and 56-57 after winning the Calder trophy in 53-54. He led the Rangers in goals in 62-63 but struggled to crack the lineup against the teams that Montreal beat in the playoffs.
The 63 Rangers were probably as good on defence thanks to Harvey. Bill Gadsby was the Rangers star on the 50s, Harry Howell was on both teams and the 50s had the rock solid Jack Evans. I don't really care for Lou Fontinato (50s) or Larry Cahan (63) but the others were good, although I wonder if Jim Neilson (63) was Jim Neilson yet at only 22. Worsley was the goalie for both teams.
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 Leafs were better in the 60s. I agree. An all-time great team. But the 59 and 60 editions that played Montreal were very good teams, just lacking at centre compared to the Habs.
On this topic, I would say the difference between the 50s and 60s was that the 50s was a wingers league and the 60s was a centres league. For the 50s, maybe cause of the influence of Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe, maybe because there had always been great wingers going back to Bill Cook and others. But the 1960s became a centres league thanks to the shadow of Jean Beliveau hung over every team that wanted to compete. And also the smaller shadow of Henri Richard.
In the 60s, Toronto got Keon and Kelly. We know Punch Imlach moved Kelly to centre to counter Jean Beliveau. How crazy is that, that the second best D in the league gets moved to centre? But it worked.
The Leafs were a very good team with Larry Regan at centre. I've watched a couple of games and was impressed with him. He was very smart and skilled, played hard and effectively. The coaches voted him the best stickhandler in 1958. Punch Imlach gave a lot of credit to Regan for the Leafs late charge to make the playoffs that saved his job. I think Regan could have been at #2C on a Cup contender in any era. But he couldn't match up against Beliveau or Henri, so he had to go.
Chicago got Bobby Hull at centre, then decided to move him to winger and move Stan Mikita from wing to centre to play against Beliveau. Which worked in the regular season but not in the playoffs.
Detroit had Norm Ullman and Alex Delvecchio, both of whom played LW as well as centre. They both became regular C's in the 60s to counter Montreal.
But although the C position was stronger in the 60s, I would say winger, defence, and goalie were all weaker in the 60s than the late 50s.
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?
I don't know, I like 62 Chicago a lot. Better than their later editions under Billy Reay. They were an excellent team with star power and depth. They were very similar to 1960 Chicago, who the Habs played and swept. But they may well have been better than any of the 10 teams Montreal played from 56-60.
Re:1964 - I agree 63-64 Toronto would be #2 in 1958. Toronto's dynasty in the 60s was legit and better than their regular season records. 63-64 Chicago could probably be #2 in the regular season in 1958 but they would still have their issues with over playing stars on the regular season. I think they lose in the playoffs and not just to Montreal. 64 Detroit was worse than 58 Detroit.
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?
I agree that the Leafs with Keon and Kelly were better than any opponent the Habs dynasty faced. But the 60s Leafs were one of the all time greatest teams in history! Few eras have an team of that quality and theres no reason to knock Doug Harvey for not playing them in the playoffs during his peak. Bobby Orr, for example, never played an opponent of that quality in the playoffs.
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?
Of course Harvey isn't exempt from reconsideration. But it's necessary to actually engage with the case that put him as the greatest defenceman of all time before Bobby Orr. Which requires watching the games or reading opinions from those who did. Even the statistical analysis with which I started this thread doesn't mean much on its own. It only shows that the statistical record is consistent with Harvey's high reputation.
