It looks like most people are ranking Shore above Harvey, but I think the Canadien was the better defenseman and better player overall.
Offense. Their styles were very different (Shore was an aggressive rusher while Harvey was a somewhat more conservative playmaker & PP quarterback, though he was great on the transition). In terms of results they are quite close but Harvey is slightly ahead for the following reasons:
Compared to other defensemen. Based on Pnep’s research (
source) we see that Harvey spent more seasons ranking among the league’s top five highest-scoring defensemen (12 seasons for Harvey vs 10 for Shore). Eliminating identical finishes (1-1-1-1-2-3-5) we’re left with 1-1-4 for Shore and 2-3-3-3-5 for Harvey. Perhaps a slight peak edge for Shore but overall Harvey does better.
Comparison to top scorers: Shore finished 10th, 10th, 13th and 20th in the NHL in scoring; Harvey finished 11th, 13th and 17th. Shore gets the edge here.
Compared to the rest of the league. During their best five years, Shore (1929-33) ranked 17th in the league in scoring, while Harvey (1954-58) ranked 11th. During their best ten years, Shore (1927-36) ranked 16th, while Harvey (1952-61) ranked 13th. Harvey gets the edge here.
Conclusion: it’s close but Harvey a slightly better offensive player than Shore.
Defense: defensive ability is notoriously hard to analyze, especially given that few people here have seen either player play on a consistent basis.
It’s generally accepted that Harvey is one of the best shutdown defensemen in hockey history (perhaps even the best). He’s described as a player who “defended tenaciously, blocked shots and intimidated the opposition†(
source) He had the “uncanny talent of either speeding up a game or putting the brakes on it†(
source). He was “was so superb in one on one defensive battles that he would routinely steal the puck off the attacker as though he were picking cherries. He would rarely be beaten, and his teammates knew it†(
source). I'm pretty sure "Ultimate Hockey" picked Doug Harvey as the best defensive player of the 1950s but can somebody with a copy of the book please confirm?
Eddie Shore was not even regarded as the best defensive player of his era. Although he was known as a good offensive player, even during his absolute peak (1933), contemporaries thought that there were several other defensemen in the league who were superior defensively (ie King Clancy, Lionel Hitchman, Ching Johnson). Source: Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933.
Conclusion: Harvey is the better defensive player.
Playoffs: I think it’s generally accepted that Harvey was the superior playoff performer but here’s a chart showing just how important Harvey was the to the Habs dynasty (
source). Harvey was, by a large margin, the player who was most likely to raise his level of offense during the playoffs, even more so than Richard, Beliveau, Geoffrion, etc.
During the span of his playoff career (1927-1940) Shore was 23rd in scoring (4th in games played). During the span of his playoff career (1949-62, excluding 1968), Harvey was 7th in playoff scoring (1st in games played).
Conclusion: Harvey was the better playoff performer.
Awards:
Hart trophy. I know what you’re all thinking “Shore won four Hart trophies, Harvey has none, so Shore was obviously betterâ€. Not so fast! Shore played in an era when, for whatever reason, defensemen earned far more Hart trophy votes.
The following defensemen were Hart finalists during Shore’s career: Clancy, Clapper, Colville, Conacher, Coulter, Dutton, Gardiner, Goodfellow, Hitchman, Johnson, Seibert, Shore.
The following defensemen were Hart finalists during Harvey’s career: Harvey, Howell, Kelly, Orr.
It’s obvious that Hart trophy voters had exponentially lower standards for voting for defensemen during Shore’s era, both in terms of quantity & quality of defensemen they'd vote for. In the past sixty years, only one defenseman (Orr, obviously) has more than Harvey’s five seasons as a Hart trophy finalist. Harvey did the best he can do given the bias of voters over the past six decades. The argument that Shore was better because he did better in Hart voting is false, misleading, and wrong!
All-star selections: Shore was selected to seven first all-star teams and one second all-star team. Harvey was selected to ten first all-star teams and one second all-star team. However Shore had a few strong years before 1931 (the year the NHL first created all-star teams) so the two players are probably even in this category.
Overall. In conclusion, Harvey was clearly the better defensive player, he was better in the playoffs, and he was slightly better offensively. The main argument for Shore (Hart trophies) isn’t fair based on the voter bias in his era. Harvey was the better hockey player and should be ranked higher on our list.
(Would like to hear any comments especially if you disagree)
)
