TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I liken Shore to a tougher (grimy?) version of Brent Burns stylistically...
Maybe early Shore. Later Shore was elite in his own end as his offense slowed down a bit
I liken Shore to a tougher (grimy?) version of Brent Burns stylistically...
I never knew Morenz owned a restaurant - what was it called? What's the address?
I have my doubts...I think well into his prime he was covered for by a partner, namely Hitchman...after he calls it quits, Shore wins the majority of his Harts, so there may be something there...I'm just having trouble shaking my sneaking suspicions behind Eddie Shore, needs more film...desperately...
Frustrated incredulity: There isn't two whole consecutive periods of hockey available from the 1930's anywhere on earth? Is that what you're telling me? Give me one Montreal/Boston game from 1933, I'll get be all set with both players named in this thread forever...one game.
Thanks for that. As a (former) Montrealer, I feel like that's something I should have known.
Shore compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPV3wv8MXhA
Here is Shore grabbing the puck and rounding the net:
Here is Morenz coming in on Shore, but Hitchman skates hard at him and he lets off a weak backhander before we can see Morenz and Shore meet:
Here is Shore making a poor defensive read (actually looks like he thinks Hitchman has the middle and it's Hitchman that leaves the guy wide open):
Here is Morenz stopping a guy with a sweep check at the line:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=112
Joliat nutmegs Shore!, Morenz spins around and throws a weak backhander at the net, Joliat scores on rebound, Shore arrives late to watch the puck go in:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=119
Here Shore kind of turns the wrong way on a guy:
https://youtu.be/L1YUD-9dIWw?t=1131
One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.
Those skates left little margin for error when it came to keeping your balance in a stop or turn. The puck carrier’s best bet was to attack in a north-south fashion without trying to dance around too much. The defender’s best bet, rather than skating with him, was to sit back like a cobra and lunge at the opportune moment.
These guys were trained in an era where the best teams sent 2-3 players on rushes, making a drop pass at the right instant to change the direction of the attack and get around those defenders. Resting your hopes on solo rushes by a superstar was generally a losing proposition. But Morenz was a good enough skater to defy that principle.
This also gives some sense of why it was so dangerous to have an Eddie Shore in the lineup. A defenseman who could carry the puck from his own end into a dangerous scoring position at the other end, which in this dynamic meant occupying the defenders with three forwards trailing, would open up a lot of space for his teammates.
On a less tactical and more experiential level, the number of bodies flying around gives us a sense of why pro hockey got so popular so quickly.
Morenz and Shore both played many seasons before the forward pass was legal. Being able to carry the puck into the offensive zone was even more critical.
Not to simplify this by any means, but man, those skates were absolutely horrific--not really made for pivoting and cutting, etc. One disruption and it was extremely easy to lose balance and traction. You've probably seen this before--but this is Ekman-Larsson trying out vintage equipment--and this is stuff from the 80's.One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.
Not to simplify this by any means, but man, those skates were absolutely horrific--not really made for pivoting and cutting, etc. One disruption and it was extremely easy to lose balance and traction. You've probably seen this before--but this is Ekman-Larsson trying out vintage equipment--and this is stuff from the 80's.
No doubt, I completely agree. Just saying it was easy to go down, even for elite skaters like Morenz. Makes it more impressive how those guys could skate so well on those flimsy skates.But if you look at Morenz's crossovers above he is great at gaining speed. I've seen other skaters from back then on the little video that exists and none of them have that. The next guy I remember seeing that from is Max Bentley, who was an incredible skater in all respects and would rank with the best today. Wish we had video of Cyclone Taylor.
Not to simplify this by any means, but man, those skates were absolutely horrific--not really made for pivoting and cutting, etc. One disruption and it was extremely easy to lose balance and traction. You've probably seen this before--but this is Ekman-Larsson trying out vintage equipment--and this is stuff from the 80's.
I don't think you are simplifying at all by talking about the technology. I have no doubt that absolutely was the issue. I also wonder about the quality of the ice back then. I'm sure it was a lot rougher than what they play on today.
When Montreal won in 1924 (Morenz scored the Cup winning goal as a rookie), they had to move game 2 to Ottawa because Mont-Royal Arena had natural ice and it was melting. Habs moved to the Forum as we know that Fall (actually I think it was in December maybe?).
I made a noob mistake and confused regular season championships with division wins; ugh!
Still, I find 1930s Boston to be a historical underachiever similar to 1960s Chicago.
Here's overpass's summary of Shore's playoffs based off the Montreal Gazette: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3
My ultra quick summary of overpass's summaries:
1927: Shore took some bad penalties that hurt his team
1928: Short series, Shore barely mentioned
1929: Boston won Cup, Shore highly praised for his dominant play (but was in the box when the Rangers scored a few)
1930: Boston lost in a major upset, Shore's D pairing was criticized
1931: Shore highly praised for his on-ice play, though he took key penalties that caused his team to be scored on
1932: no playoffs
1933: Shore played great on a team that no longer had the depth to win
1934: no playoffs
1935: Shore played well early, then was overplayed due to Boston's lack of depth
1936: This is the big Shore penalty fest that we talk about where he killed his team's chances.
1937: Shore injured
1938: Shore played fine; Boston lost when Broda stole the series
1939: Boston had a lot of depth; Shore played great in a slightly lesser role as he won his 2nd Cup
One thing that becomes very obvious in those clips is the frequency of players tumbling to the ice.
Those skates left little margin for error when it came to keeping your balance in a stop or turn. The puck carrier’s best bet was to attack in a north-south fashion without trying to dance around too much. The defender’s best bet, rather than skating with him, was to sit back like a cobra and lunge at the opportune moment.
These guys were trained in an era where the best teams sent 2-3 players on rushes, making a drop pass at the right instant to change the direction of the attack and get around those defenders. Resting your hopes on solo rushes by a superstar was generally a losing proposition. But Morenz was a good enough skater to defy that principle.
This also gives some sense of why it was so dangerous to have an Eddie Shore in the lineup. A defenseman who could carry the puck from his own end into a dangerous scoring position at the other end, which in this dynamic meant occupying the defenders with three forwards trailing, would open up a lot of space for his teammates.
On a less tactical and more experiential level, the number of bodies flying around gives us a sense of why pro hockey got so popular so quickly.
Looking over that list of posts, and with an eye toward focusing in on the potential for new research, here are the points of agreement and disagreement:
1927
Agreement: Shore took a lot of penalties. He was not yet a superstar, but had emerged as a peer of the league's top defensemen.
Disagreement: Overpass specifically identified Shore's penalties in the Finals as an issue in what he considered a weak series performance, wheres I seemed more comfortable with the penalties for reasons of game context.
1928
Agreement: Shore didn't stand out. The short series doesn't give us much to work with for '28.
Disagreement:
1929
Agreement: Shore had a signature game against the Habs in which his penalties put his team behind, then his offensive play rallied them for a win. He led the Bruins to a notably strong defensive performance in the Rangers series.
Disagreement:
1930
Agreement:
Disagreement: We have completely different reads on Shore's performance. This one needs followup for sure.
1931
Agreement: Generally a strong showing. We both noted that Shore got into a habit of taking penalties which the Habs converted into early goals, which happened in games 1, 3, and most notably the decisive Game 5.
Disagreement:
1933
Agreement: Boston was a mediocre team that expected Shore to do everything.
Disagreement: Overpass was more forgiving whereas I highlighted his inconsistency across 5 games.
1934
Agreement: The Bruins missed the playoffs in the wake of the Ace Bailey incident.
Disagreement: Overpass ties Shore's suspension directly to missing the playoffs. In my opinion, it's debatable whether Boston would have made the playoffs even if Shore had been in the lineup.
1935
Agreement: Bruins were in a hopeless situation, and Shore did everything that was realistically in his power to give them a chance against a much better team.
Disagreement:
1936
Agreement: Shore notoriously lost his temper and the result of that penalty cost the Bruins a playoff series. In his defense, Shore's absence for a few minutes was no excuse for the Bruins to completely implode, and the playoff format put a harsh emphasis on those few minutes. At the end of the day, this is the biggest stain on his playoff record.
Disagreement:
1938
Agreement: Shore had a good series and carried the Bruins, but they ran into a red-hot Turk Broda who cut their playoffs short.
Disagreement:
1939
Agreement: Shore played well in a #1 role, but he was noticeably dialed back compared to his usual dynamic style. In the context of a deeper team, he was able to sit back and play a more steady and conservative style which was quite successful.
Disagreement:
Points needing further investigation:
1927 - How big of a deal were Shore's penalties, especially in the Finals? Does this season count as a positive or a negative?
1930 - This is our biggest discrepancy. How did Shore perform in the upset against Montreal?
1933 - Was his inconsistency a serious issue? Or was he carrying the team to an extent that it's splitting hairs to hold that against him?
1934 - Did the Bailey suspension directly cost the Bruins a playoff spot?