Round 2, Vote 1 (2009 update)

lextune

I'm too old for this.
Jun 9, 2008
12,444
4,213
New Hampshire
8. Eddie Shore. If it were just based on talent, I would probably switch him and Beliveau on this list. But he had even more negatives than Richard and these definitely hurt his team. Still, it wouldn't be wrong to call him a generational talent. History records him as the best of all time pre-Richard.

Exactly.
Let me quote our friend Joe Pelletier over at GreatestHockeyLegends.com:

Shore joined the Boston Bruins in 1926 and went on to personify the most vigorous aspects of the rough and fast game of hockey. His explosive temper was only matched by his incredible talent. While setting up offensive plays he would literally knock down any opponent that got in his way. This of course led to many hard fought and legendary battles. American Hockey League president Maurice Podoloff once observed, ''Eddie Shore did not walk; he stalked'

Hockey of course always has been and always will be a religion in Canada. When the all-Canadian National Hockey League decided to expand to the American cities of New York, Boston, Detroit and Chicago, there was doubt as to its ultimate fate.

"In order to succeed," said Frank Boucher, a star in his own right with the New York Rangers, "the league needed a superstar of extraordinary dimensions."

Eddie Shore was the right man, and at the right time. The "Edmonton Express" put professional hockey on the American map almost single handedly.

Absolutely fearless and unbelievably talented, Shore was indestructible. Perhaps the best way to describe him would be to say he was an early day Gordie Howe who played on the blueline. It certainly wouldn't be a stretch to say that. No one who hit as hard as he did was ever hit harder - or more often - in return. In his heyday, opponents seemed to save all their energy
in order to deal with Eddie Shore. ''He was bruised, head to toe, after every game,'' recalled Hall of Famer Milt Schmidt, a four-year teammate.' Everybody was after him. They figured if they could stop Eddie Shore, they could stop the Bruins.''

Shore's style was all his own. Pugnacious and downright mean, he was also very skilled. '' Most people of the day would skate down the side,'' said Schmidt. ''But Eddie always went down the middle of the ice. People bounced off him like tenpins"

Almost as amazing was his ability to play the entire game! He would average 50-55 minutes a contest. Well, at least in games when he wasn't spending that much time in the penalty box!

There is some great old newsreel footage of Shore with the B's on the History of the Bruins DVD; there are only four or five short clips but they are great to see. One of him throwing a check, one of him making a rush (a great view of his speed), and another of him absolutely lining up a player. There are also some great stories about his dominance.

I argue that Shore is the greatest Pre-WWII player, and not having him in the top ten seems to invalidate our list a little in my mind, after all it is not the Top 100 Post-WWII players....

We all know the stories of Shore's end-to-end rushes (and goals), and of course the tales of his physical dominance, intimidation and control of the game. But we should also remember the stories of his playmaking. After the advent of the forward pass in all zones, Eddie was in the top ten for assists three times. Including finishing second to Frank Boucher, (widely considered to be one of the premier playmakers in NHL history) by only one assist in 1933.

His Hall Of fame biography entry goes out of it's way to mention this little thought of attribute of Shore's game when referring to his play in the '29 playoffs: "he (Shore) was at his hard-hitting and playmaking best as Boston eliminated the Montreal Canadiens in the semifinals prior to a two-game sweep of the New York Rangers."

....just some more food for thought about Shore, (and here I thought I was done, lol).
 
Last edited:

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,798
317
In "The System"
Visit site
This has been answered previously. First there were two western leagues - PCHA and WCHL not one. The three leagues competed with the NHL for the Stanley Cup. Each league champion participating.

When the western leagues stopped operating and the players entered the NHL they tended to dominate. The first season, 1926-27, saw the former western players claim the top two and six of the top 10 scoring positions as well as the Hart and Vezina trophies.

The WCHL was just forming as Taylor's career was winding down, so there were only the PCHA and NHA when he was having his peak PCHA years.

Of course Taylor and Lalonde were playing for years before any of the NHA, PCHA or WCHL/WHL were formed.

Also the PCHA was also a 6 on 6 league for their last few seasons, as well as allowing forward passing in the neutral zone.

One other note. It was mentioned about defensive role-players coming about after rosters expanded. It should be noted that before the forward pass was allowed in all zones, you had to carry the puck across the bluelines. All skaters could key on a player with the puck, because they knew he had to carry it in. This leads to players being very good stick-handlers.
 

nik jr

Registered User
Sep 25, 2005
10,798
7
I am well aware that Delvecchio played centre & LW during his career & was an AS at both positions. However, Hockeyreference.com is in error. Delvecchio was the C on that line & MacDonald was the LW. Hockeyreference has Macdonald listed as a centre every season which is an obvious error. I have a Detroit game from 65 & will check it sometime.

Anyway, we are drifting off topic here & I am sure the other posters aren't too interested in this topic.

i saw a DRW game from '64 a couple of years ago, and the 1st line was mcdonald--delvecchio--howe.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,742
1,386
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
Let's look at a contemporary of Maurice Richard - Ted Lindsay and his views on winning, scoring championships - effectively saying they are a by product of playing winning hockey, comments about Henri Richard and his contemporaries who never played on a team that won the Stanley Cup.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononep196607.htm

A comment about Ted Lindsay - he boycotted his initial HHOF induction dinner because it was male only prompting a change for the next year.

Ted Lindsay isn't even up for voting this round, so how is this relevant? Also, I'd be very hesitant to put too much weight into what Lindsay says about other players. He has a history of being a little......overzealous in his praise let's call it. After all, this is the guy who testified in U.S. District Court in 2008 that Vladimir Konstantinov was the best hockey player in the world at the time of the limo accident.

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2008/05/lindsays_outspoken_opinions_sp.html

Parker MacDonald played mainly center with the Wings while Delvecchio played a lot as a left winger shifting positions from line to line during a game depending on how Abel was double-shifting him and Gordie Howe and who they were playing.

As far as I know McDonald was never Howe's center. He played LW in Detroit.

See other post with links to articles about Maurice Richard that show he cared about winning as opposed to scoring.

Cleghorn - on ice he was the same as of ice. Maurice Richard who gets grouped with Cleghorn for on ice actions was not the same of ice. Cleghorn cared only about himself. Maurice Richard cared about his team winning, his family and the district kids as well as other kids playing hockey. Characteristics that are not selfish.

Bobby Hull bolded. Lack of depth did not prevent the Hawks from finishing first or second only to be upset the Leafs in 1967 and the Red Wings a few times. True they upset the Canadiens in 1961 and I praised Hull for assuming a playmaking role.

I have posted that Maurice Richard's actions probably cost the Canadiens the 1955 Stanley Cup. You claim at least one. Provide empirical data and analysis about the others. Like wise for your Hasek claims. Present empirical data that he was hurt by bad coaching decisions.

I never claimed there were more than 1 on Richard. I said at least 1. I haven't done a detailed analysis of his career or the game sheets from that time yet to make any credible statement about whether or not he might have cost them more.

On Hasek, your request for empirical data is laughable. Read through all the previous posts. We've given you it in spades and you routinely ignored it. Hasek was the best goalie in Europe playing against very good players both in Czechoslovakia and international events. He won Czech and International awards before coming to the NHL. He comes into the league and gets buried in Chicago by Keenan and then traded to Buffalo where Muckler can't figure out that he's been outplaying Fuhr, instead opting for "experience" over results. The next season Hasek is finally given a chance to be the #1 and he dominates the NHL, picking up right where he left off in Europe. Seems like he went from so dominance to marginal starter to dominance? Isn't really a stretch to say that the only reason he didn't star in the NHL sooner was because Keenan and Muckler were too stupid to recognize his talent. You also point to Roy's steep climb in juniors. Did you realize that Hasek was starting in the top Czech league at 16? He was playing for the national team in World Cups as Canada Cups as young as 18. The year he came over in 1990-91 and was buried in the IHL he was an All-Star. Quite simply he was great wherever he played and he was great from a very early age. He can't control a coachs bad decision not to see that.

Clutch 6OT goals is definitely a measure including two in Detroit in 1951against a team that was 36 points better than the Montreal Canadiens

Yes it is, but you claimed he was the "most clutch" player. I'm just saying you can't make that statement without something more substantive. For example, I did a comparison of Joe Sakic vs. Johan Franzen before last season in terms of who was the more clutch OT playoff scorer. In terms of OT goals per OT playoff games played, Franzen was actually a slightly MORE clutch OT playoff guy than Sakic. If you could provide something like that for say, the top 10 most clutch OT goal scorers per OT playoff games played then I'd say yes, you are correct. As it stands, your statement, like most of them, needs to be qualified with "in your opinion" and not as concrete facts that can't be disputed.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,783
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
For the Record

Ted Lindsay isn't even up for voting this round, so how is this relevant? Also, I'd be very hesitant to put too much weight into what Lindsay says about other players. He has a history of being a little......overzealous in his praise let's call it. After all, this is the guy who testified in U.S. District Court in 2008 that Vladimir Konstantinov was the best hockey player in the world at the time of the limo accident.

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2008/05/lindsays_outspoken_opinions_sp.html



As far as I know McDonald was never Howe's center. He played LW in Detroit.



I never claimed there were more than 1 on Richard. I said at least 1. I haven't done a detailed analysis of his career or the game sheets from that time yet to make any credible statement about whether or not he might have cost them more.

On Hasek, your request for empirical data is laughable. Read through all the previous posts. We've given you it in spades and you routinely ignored it. Hasek was the best goalie in Europe playing against very good players both in Czechoslovakia and international events. He won Czech and International awards before coming to the NHL. He comes into the league and gets buried in Chicago by Keenan and then traded to Buffalo where Muckler can't figure out that he's been outplaying Fuhr, instead opting for "experience" over results. The next season Hasek is finally given a chance to be the #1 and he dominates the NHL, picking up right where he left off in Europe. Seems like he went from so dominance to marginal starter to dominance? Isn't really a stretch to say that the only reason he didn't star in the NHL sooner was because Keenan and Muckler were too stupid to recognize his talent. You also point to Roy's steep climb in juniors. Did you realize that Hasek was starting in the top Czech league at 16? He was playing for the national team in World Cups as Canada Cups as young as 18. The year he came over in 1990-91 and was buried in the IHL he was an All-Star. Quite simply he was great wherever he played and he was great from a very early age. He can't control a coachs bad decision not to see that.



Yes it is, but you claimed he was the "most clutch" player. I'm just saying you can't make that statement without something more substantive. For example, I did a comparison of Joe Sakic vs. Johan Franzen before last season in terms of who was the more clutch OT playoff scorer. In terms of OT goals per OT playoff games played, Franzen was actually a slightly MORE clutch OT playoff guy than Sakic. If you could provide something like that for say, the top 10 most clutch OT goal scorers per OT playoff games played then I'd say yes, you are correct. As it stands, your statement, like most of them, needs to be qualified with "in your opinion" and not as concrete facts that can't be disputed.

For the record.

The Lindsay reference was done in the context of how "winning" was perceived by a Maurice Richard contemporary. So it is relevant.

Parker MacDonald. Depending on the opponent and whether Alex Delvecchio and Gordie Howe were being double shifted. Against the Canadiens MacDonald would play center with Howe when Abel did not want the Henri Richard line on against his two best players.
Point is that you never heard Gordie Howe complain about the situation. He just concerned himself with optimizing his lines contribution regardless of the center.

Maurice Richard's Overtime performance:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/feature/?id=5558

Broken down. Between 1944-1960, Maurice Richard's first and last playoff series there were 51 overtime games. One was declared a time because of travel curfew. So, a winning goal was scored in 50 of the games. During this era The Montreal Canadiens played 24 overtime games. Maurice Richard scored 6 OT goals during this period which represents scoring the winning goal in 25% of the overtime games that his team played or 12 % of the overtime games played in the league over a 17 season period.No other player scored three overtime goals during the same period. Head to head against Gordie Howe and the Detroit Red Wings the Candadiens were 5 - 2 in overtime games with Maurice Richard scoring two of the goals while Gordie Howe never scored an overtime goal at all. Rather impressive clutch performances by Maurice Richard.

Dominik Hasek.
16 year old playing in an adult league is simply proof that the adult league is very weak. Having scouted Midget AAA(15-17) in Quebec I realize what sixteen year old goalies are capable of doing - having watched amongst others Brodeur, Roy, Luongo and Fleury. Simply regardless of talent and size they do not have the physical maturity to play with physically mature men especially over the length of an NHL season.

Rules of the game. From your seminal post in this thread.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.


View the bolded above. 2.) and 5.) specifically refer to opinions and views with the classic "no right or wrong". This goes out the window when views and opinions that do not agree with yours are introduced. You then want empirical data and analysis. Yet when empirical data is presented re Hasek that coaches making the choices they did could not have done any better. Keenan taking his team to the final against Mario Lemieux or Muckler pulling an upset sweep of the Bruins by playing Fuhr you do not reply with anything empirical at all just your tired mantra, calling respected NHL coaches like Mike Keenan and John Muckler "stupid", a term which you caution other posters against using.

Again you have not convinced me with the force of argument, evidence and reason providing only snippets that further weaken your position from my experience and perspective.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,442
4,609
Also there is the question wether he he had as tough competition as Morenz. The nature of professional hockey was different as there were several leagues competing in popularity. How good was the PCHA? Lalonde and Taylor both scored at around the same rates but how big was the difference between the leagues? By the time Morenz broke into the NHL it was the undisputed best league which makes it easier to appreciate his accomplishments as best-on-best situations. Personally I have a very hard time separating a) Lalonde and Taylor from each other, and b) Lalonde and Taylor from Morenz.

Is the relationship between the PCHA and the NHA/NHL comparable to that of the NHL and the WHA? I get the feeling that the PCHA was a bit more on par with the NHA/NHL than the WHA ever was, I'd like someone to confirm this though.

Still, Morenz is the only one eligible right now, so I guess that it's a discussion to save for later threads.

The PCHA was pretty much on par with the NHA/NHL for most of its existence. The champions of each league faced off for the Stanley Cup each year, and while the NHA/NHL had a winning record against their PCHA counterparts, the series' were always competitive. Essentially the it was the same was baseball's American League and National League. Numerous players jumped from one league to the other and generally dominated to the same degree regardless of where they were playing.

The WCHL sprung up in the early 20's, but more or less merged with the PCHA shortly afterwards as the two leagues played an interlocking schedule with each other (and they did merge completely eventually). The Victoria Cougars were the last western Stanley Cup winner, in 1924-25. They were in the NHL two seasons later (as the Detroit Cougars, and later Red Wings of course), and as pointed of by Canadiens58, the NHL scoring chart was full of players who had come from the western league in 1926-27. So clearly, the western leagues were not inferior to the NHL, even though they sometimes carry that false reputation.
 

FissionFire

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
12,742
1,386
Las Vegas, NV
www.redwingscentral.com
Dominik Hasek.
16 year old playing in an adult league is simply proof that the adult league is very weak. Having scouted Midget AAA(15-17) in Quebec I realize what sixteen year old goalies are capable of doing - having watched amongst others Brodeur, Roy, Luongo and Fleury. Simply regardless of talent and size they do not have the physical maturity to play with physically mature men especially over the length of an NHL season.

Refer to the list of players who were in the Czech league at the time Hasek left to get a sample of the talent there. It wasn't the NHL, but it damn well wasn't a bunch of CHL kids either. I really don't care what your personal scouting tells you, but Hasek WAS playing against men at the age of 16. That, my friend, is an undeniable fact. If you want to try and claim that CHL players at that time were better than Czech league players.....well I'd love to see you make that argument.

Source: NHL Player Search: Dominik Hasek
Hasek's career began in 1981 in Pardubice, Czechoslovakia, where he was born in 1965. It was a place where the idea of playing in the NHL seemed an unattainable fantasy. At the age of 16, Dominik made the move to the top level of Czech hockey, playing for his home team in the Czech league's First Division.

Rules of the game. From your seminal post in this thread.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.[/B]

View the bolded above. 2.) and 5.) specifically refer to opinions and views with the classic "no right or wrong". This goes out the window when views and opinions that do not agree with yours are introduced. You then want empirical data and analysis. Yet when empirical data is presented re Hasek that coaches making the choices they did could not have done any better. Keenan taking his team to the final against Mario Lemieux or Muckler pulling an upset sweep of the Bruins by playing Fuhr you do not reply with anything empirical at all just your tired mantra, calling respected NHL coaches like Mike Keenan and John Muckler "stupid", a term which you caution other posters against using.

Again you have not convinced me with the force of argument, evidence and reason providing only snippets that further weaken your position from my experience and perspective.

You know what, you're right. I really should listen to what I originally thought before I posted this thread. I've got a physics class kicking my ass and I think I'm going to devote the time I spend here on that instead. Seeya all next season. Congrats, you really did win.
 

MXD

Partying Hard
Oct 27, 2005
51,720
17,613
You know what, you're right. I really should listen to what I originally thought before I posted this thread. I've got a physics class kicking my ass and I think I'm going to devote the time I spend here on that instead. Seeya all next season. Congrats, you really did win.

C'mon FF, you're reminding me of myself during ATD9 while I was trying to stop smoking.
You bring points that deserves to be taken into account, and it would be a loss if you would leave for what happens to be a personnality clash.
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
16
Canada
www.robotnik.com
This is what playoff performances look like:

Jean Beliveau won 10 Cups. He finished in the Top 4 in playoff points on his team every year they won, except when he was injured in 1959. These are his finishes: 1, 2, 2, 4 (50s dynasty); 1, 2, 3, 1, 3 (65-71). He also finished in the Top 5 in playoff goals on his team every year they won, except when he was injured in 1959. Take away his retirement year, and he was Top 3 in team goals for the 8 Cups that he was healthy for! 1, 3, 3, 2 (50s dynasty); 1, 1, 1, 2, 5 (65-71).

Maurice Richard won 8 Cups. He was Top 3 in playoff points in all 3 Cup wins before the 50s dynasty (2, 3, 2). He was 1st in goals twice and tied for first once (1, 1, 1). He was Top 4 in playoff points (tied 2, 4, 1) and Top 3 in goals (3, 2, 1) from 56-58 before falling off for his last two Cups.

See posts 175 and 212 for the breakdowns.
_______________

Look at Beliveau's numbers. He might not have been the undisputed #1 center in the regular season, but in the playoffs, he was Montreal's #1 forward for a time spanning 15 years, 10 championships, and two dynasties. And it's not like he didn't bring it in the regular season - at least the Hart voters thought he did - giving him a better Hart voting record than anyone but the Big 4 and Hull - and he's behind Hull by only a tiny bit (see post 299).

Maurice Richard might have more historical significance, but that's the only argument I can see for him over Beliveau. His playoff record is fantastic (especially the 3 pre-dynasty Cups), but not as good as Beliveau's.

Beliveau's playoff record is so impressive that I will probably vote for him #5, ahead of Hull.

Beliveau was also much lower maintanence than Hull or Richard. Hull had problems meshing with most centers, and Richard was out of control until his former linemate Toe Blake came in to coach. Beliveau performed no matter who he was put with - most of the 60s team was different from the 50s team, but Beliveau was still racking up the Hart votes and playoff goals and points.

I am fine with putting Beliveau over Richard based on a combination of his all around regular season + Playoffs and complete game, as well as his less problematic personality. However, my disagreement is regarding who was better in the playoffs.

Beliveau over the long haul might have a slightly more impressive longevity playoff record, but as far as peak playoff record and coming up big when it counted, the slight nod goes to Richard.

Using only years in which they won the cup, Richard's production from the regular season to playoffs increased by 16%, while Beliveau's increased by 3%. In fairness, the guy with the biggest increase in their cup years was Doug Harvey, whose production jumped an astonishing 46.4% in the playoffs.

This is very damning of Bobby Hull. I had him as a virtual lock to make my #5 spot, now I'm not so sure. He is arguably the greatest goal scorer of all time, but I want a player who is top 5 of all time to make those playing with him better. And the fact that Hull had so much trouble meshing with centers tends to indicate that he did not.
This is a very unfair painting of the picture for Bobby Hull, as he DID make players playing with him better. A big part of the problem with Hull was that few people could keep up with him at all when he led a rush up the ice and Chicago did not exactly have the best choice in players to begin with. Chemistry has a lot to do with linemate success, and to have real chemistry with someone like Hull, you need to be able to think like a player of his caliber. The hawks had few who could and little depth outside of Hull, Mikita and Pilote.

Him and Hay played well together, although Hay is not a hall of famer. In fact, Hay was cut from the Montreal team because they were so overloaded with talent better than he was that they did not need him.

There is only so much you can do when you spend a goodly amount of your career with a donut line made up of spare parts. In that very article it points out how the opposing teams virtually ignored Hull's linemates so they could double team him, and clip, trip and mug him. He still put up huge numbers no matter who he played with, or regardless of how much he was double teamed.

The real tale is how hurt Chicago was by Hull's departure, and it speaks volumes. They were quite fortunate that they had much better depth around the time Hull left than they had for most of his tenure there.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1086950/index.htm
 
Last edited:

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
16
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Fission Fire, what Email are you using to collect final votes?

I know how full your inbox here gets, so ill be sending it by Email again. I must be blind if it is in the original post because I just looked right over it.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,988
Brooklyn
I am fine with putting Beliveau over Richard based on a combination of his all around regular season + Playoffs and complete game, as well as his less problematic personality. However, my disagreement is regarding who was better in the playoffs.

Beliveau over the long haul might have a slightly more impressive longevity playoff record, but as far as peak playoff record and coming up big when it counted, the slight nod goes to Richard.

Agreed that Richard's peak playoff performace (before the 50s dynasty, when he was playing with Blake and Lach) was probably higher than Beliveau's. But Beliveau's prime spanned almost his whole career.

Using only years in which they won the cup, Richard's production from the regular season to playoffs increased by 16%, while Beliveau's increased by 3%. In fairness, the guy with the biggest increase in their cup years was Doug Harvey, whose production jumped an astonishing 46.4% in the playoffs.

I'm not sure if this says Richard scored more in the playoffs, so much as it says he scored less than Beliveau in the regular season.
 

MXD

Partying Hard
Oct 27, 2005
51,720
17,613
Hum.... where do we send our list? I'm leaving for the weekend and it would be nice to not miss the 1st vote....
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
16
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Agreed that Richard's peak playoff performace (before the 50s dynasty, when he was playing with Blake and Lach) was probably higher than Beliveau's. But Beliveau's prime spanned almost his whole career.
So did Richard's, up till his last few injury seasons.


I'm not sure if this says Richard scored more in the playoffs, so much as it says he scored less than Beliveau in the regular season.
More a matter of who elevated their game past their normal level more, and we have to remember that Richard played on the second line during the 50's dynasty and that Beliveau had the fortune to play on 2 Dynasties.

I think the surprising thing is, Beliveau's linemate Boom Boom outscored both M. Richard and Beliveau in the 50's.

Most playoff points in the 1950s:

1| Bernie Geoffrion| 96
2| Dickie Moore| 73
3| Ted Lindsay| 72
3| Maurice Richard| 72
5| Jean Beliveau| 71
6| Doug Harvey| 62
7| Gordie Howe| 61
8| Fleming Mackell| 57
9| Alex Delvecchio| 49
10| Bert Olmstead| 48
The surprising part is the gap that Geoffrion has over the rest of the greats on that list.

Geoffrion never had the adoration of the Montreal fans nearly as much as Richard or Beliveau. Put Geoffrion on Boston, New York back then and he'd be the best player on the team. In Montreal he was considered the 5th best on the team. You have to wonder how much highly regarded his career would be on another team where he wouldn't be in anyone's shadow.

In general, I understand how Beliveau gets ranked ahead. He put up more points because of his more well rounded game, and Richard just never got the assists in there, much in the same way he never won the scoring title. But he put the big goals in when they were needed. There are so many accounts and newspaper articles detailing just how clutch the majority of Richard's goals were, even in years he did not win the cup.

Case in points 50-51. Did not win the cup, but lead the playoffs in goals and points. His 9 goals were 6 more than any other Habs player and his 13 points 7 more than the next best Habs player. 3 OT game winning goals, and he scored a goal in every game of the finals, and was involved in 7 of the 10 goals Montreal scored in the finals against Toronto.

Its feasible that Rocket would have 3 Conn Smythe trophies had the trophy existed in his time, while Beliveau would most certainly have a second one.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,988
Brooklyn
So did Richard's, up till his last few injury seasons.



More a matter of who elevated their game past their normal level more, and we have to remember that Richard played on the second line during the 50's dynasty and that Beliveau had the fortune to play on 2 Dynasties.

I think the surprising thing is, Beliveau's linemate Boom Boom outscored both M. Richard and Beliveau in the 50's.



In general, I understand how Beliveau gets ranked ahead. He put up more points because of his more well rounded game, and Richard just never got the assists in there, much in the same way he never won the scoring title. But he put the big goals in when they were needed. There are so many accounts and newspaper articles detailing just how clutch the majority of Richard's goals were, even in years he did not win the cup.

Case in points 50-51. Did not win the cup, but lead the playoffs in goals and points. His 9 goals were 6 more than any other Habs player and his 13 points 7 more than the next best Habs player. 3 OT game winning goals, and he scored a goal in every game of the finals, and was involved in 7 of the 10 goals Montreal scored in the finals against Toronto.

Its feasible that Rocket would have 3 Conn Smythe trophies had the trophy existed in his time, while Beliveau would most certainly have a second one.


While that certainly elevates Geoffrion (he's FAR ahead of Moore in my mind), I don't think it's all that surprising. Beliveau didn't hit his peak until midway through the 50s and Richard was old and injury prone towards the end of the decade (in addition to losing a playoff season due to suspension). Geoffrion had a fantastic playoff year in 1951, before Beliveau even entered the league.

Richard would have 3 CSs and Beliveau 2 or 3, yes (depending on whether you believe that the voters would actually give the award to losing players as often as the retro awards assume). Beliveau was the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team more often than Richard, however.

My overall point is that their playoff records are really close, so you can't use that as justification for Richard being clearly ahead of Beliveau. ANd Beliveau's regular season record is definitely a bit better than Richard's, and he lacks the negatives of Richards. If Beliveau wasn't injured, he was guaranteed to be spectacular in the playoffs. Maybe not quite the level of Richard at Richard's best, but he wasn't going to do something stupid and get himself suspended when he should be on the ice.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,783
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Jean Beliveau & Maurice Richard

While that certainly elevates Geoffrion (he's FAR ahead of Moore in my mind), I don't think it's all that surprising. Beliveau didn't hit his peak until midway through the 50s and Richard was old and injury prone towards the end of the decade (in addition to losing a playoff season due to suspension). Geoffrion had a fantastic playoff year in 1951, before Beliveau even entered the league.

Richard would have 3 CSs and Beliveau 2 or 3, yes (depending on whether you believe that the voters would actually give the award to losing players as often as the retro awards assume). Beliveau was the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team more often than Richard, however.

My overall point is that their playoff records are really close, so you can't use that as justification for Richard being clearly ahead of Beliveau. ANd Beliveau's regular season record is definitely a bit better than Richard's, and he lacks the negatives of Richards. If Beliveau wasn't injured, he was guaranteed to be spectacular in the playoffs. Maybe not quite the level of Richard at Richard's best, but he wasn't going to do something stupid and get himself suspended when he should be on the ice.


The Jean Beliveau / Maurice Richard discussion has been on going in Montreal since the fifties. The Red Fisher article below: provides a perspective:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=405560&cmpid=rss

Two different types of personalities with distinct skill sets and backgrounds. Maurice Richard from the depression era, poorer part of town, who had to fight for each success, who helped turnaround a struggling franchise.Jean Beliveau from the WWII era, small town Quebec who became a cornerstone of an ongoing legacy.

Two different types of leaders - Maurice Richard led by example, Jean Beliveau led by presence. Main difference is that Jean Beliveau took over the role left by Maurice Richard and perpetuated the legacy in his own style. Often those who replace a leader fail to do so.

In terms of on ice talent and contributions, the gap between Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau is a coin toss. More a function of the different positions that each played as opposed to talent.

A few comments about the Red Fisher article. Boom Boom Geoffrion does not come across as leadership material. Jean Beliveau's comments about Gordie Howe go along way towards explaining the longevity that Gordie Howe enjoyed.

Also a final comment about lines. Posters have a habit of identifying
lines as a team's first line, second line, etc. Coaches and players do not identify lines in this fashion. Usually lines are identified according to the center. On the late fifties Canadiens that would be the Backstrom line, the Beliveau line, the Goyette line, the Richard line.The PP unit or the PK unit. Each line or unit would have specific responsibilities with injury or penalty substitutions defined ahead of time.
 

canucks4ever

Registered User
Mar 4, 2008
3,997
67
Exactly.
Let me quote our friend Joe Pelletier over at GreatestHockeyLegends.com:



There is some great old newsreel footage of Shore with the B's on the History of the Bruins DVD; there are only four or five short clips but they are great to see. One of him throwing a check, one of him making a rush (a great view of his speed), and another of him absolutely lining up a player. There are also some great stories about his dominance.

I argue that Shore is the greatest Pre-WWII player, and not having him in the top ten seems to invalidate our list a little in my mind, after all it is not the Top 100 Post-WWII players....

We all know the stories of Shore's end-to-end rushes (and goals), and of course the tales of his physical dominance, intimidation and control of the game. But we should also remember the stories of his playmaking. After the advent of the forward pass in all zones, Eddie was in the top ten for assists three times. Including finishing second to Frank Boucher, (widely considered to be one of the premier playmakers in NHL history) by only one assist in 1933.

His Hall Of fame biography entry goes out of it's way to mention this little thought of attribute of Shore's game when referring to his play in the '29 playoffs: "he (Shore) was at his hard-hitting and playmaking best as Boston eliminated the Montreal Canadiens in the semifinals prior to a two-game sweep of the New York Rangers."

....just some more food for thought about Shore, (and here I thought I was done, lol).

Yeah but don't you kinda feel that Eddie Shore is a bit of a mystery. I think its his 4 hart trophies that are giving him the high rating that he usually gets.

The more I read about him, he kind of reminds me of a Denis Potvin actually. I mean shore's offensive skills were more of Potvin's caliber instead of Bobby Orr's. He played the goon style of hockey like potvin did. The journalists from that era even say that he wasn't the best defensive defensemen during the 1930's.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
31,337
20,827
Connecticut
Yeah but don't you kinda feel that Eddie Shore is a bit of a mystery. I think its his 4 hart trophies that are giving him the high rating that he usually gets.
The more I read about him, he kind of reminds me of a Denis Potvin actually. I mean shore's offensive skills were more of Potvin's caliber instead of Bobby Orr's. He played the goon style of hockey like potvin did. The journalists from that era even say that he wasn't the best defensive defensemen during the 1930's.

Gee, you may be right about those 4 Hart Trophies and his ranking.

Potvin's goon style of hockey? Did you mean Chelios?
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
16
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Yeah but don't you kinda feel that Eddie Shore is a bit of a mystery. I think its his 4 hart trophies that are giving him the high rating that he usually gets.

The more I read about him, he kind of reminds me of a Denis Potvin actually. I mean shore's offensive skills were more of Potvin's caliber instead of Bobby Orr's. He played the goon style of hockey like potvin did. The journalists from that era even say that he wasn't the best defensive defensemen during the 1930's.
Potvin never played a goon style of Hockey. He played a slightly harder hitting Scott Stevens style of Hockey with much better offense, but he was never dirty. People were terrified to cross the Isles blueline because they knew Potvin was lining them up for huge, but clean hits.
 

lextune

I'm too old for this.
Jun 9, 2008
12,444
4,213
New Hampshire
Yeah but don't you kinda feel that Eddie Shore is a bit of a mystery. I think its his 4 hart trophies that are giving him the high rating that he usually gets.

I don't think there is any mystery, but of course it is not like evaluating Mario, or Gretzky, or other players I saw play hundreds of times.

Everything I know about him comes from sources, stories, (lots and lots of stories), stats and a precious few clips....but I could say the same about Maurice Richard or a dozen others.

It is not a mystery, it is a study.

I won't rehash everything again, but I have several posts in this thread, (as well as a few links to other threads/pages) summing up my study of Shore.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
31,337
20,827
Connecticut
Potvin never played a goon style of Hockey. He played a slightly harder hitting Scott Stevens style of Hockey with much better offense, but he was never dirty. People were terrified to cross the Isles blueline because they knew Potvin was lining them up for huge, but clean hits.

I didn't think Potvin was dirty, either, but I did think Stevens was. He's lucky he didn't kill someone with one of those head shots.
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
16
Canada
www.robotnik.com
I didn't think Potvin was dirty, either, but I did think Stevens was. He's lucky he didn't kill someone with one of those head shots.

I do not consider hits that are within legal parameters of the game to be dirty. Potvin laid out his share of headshots if people were stupid enough to cross his blueline with their heads down.
 

Jungosi

Registered User
Jan 14, 2007
881
4
Rendsburg / Germany
Votes sent. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to take part in the discussion but I've been on vacation for the first two weeks of my holiday and had no access to the internet. I hope that I can be a lot more active in the next rounds.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad