Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[seventieslord]

It's more subtle than that. During the 1930s, the media would sometimes separately vote on left- and right- side defensemen. Thus, we can't say that Shore led all defensemen in all-star votes. He was a right defenseman and thus didn't directly compete against left defensemen like King Clancy. Thus, I'm not comfortable saying that this is the equivalent of Shore leading all defensemen in all-star voting seven times, because the voting procedures were different (and less useful IMO) back then.

Taking the above into account, his seven seasons as a first-team all-star likely translate into around 4 Norris trophies, and he probably would have added one or two more for his strong years before the all-star teams were first awarded.

That is true, but it’s fairly easy to make the case that if Shore led the right side voting by a greater margin than his left side counterpart did, then he led all defensemen in voting. Particularly if hart votes do nothing to dispel that.

In addition, the most prominent defensemen almost always had a number of votes for the other side as well, which helps add depth to the results and helps us to understand how they were perceived (i.e. if all voters included Shore on a first team ballot, and three excluded Clancy, that is a strong indicator)

It is fair to say based on what’s available to us, that Shore would have been a Norris winner in these seasons:

1928: He was named to the unofficial first all-star team by the GMs along with Ching Johnson, and had over twice as many Hart voting points as Ching. 1929: He was 3 rd in Hart voting but Mantha was right behind him, and Clancy not too far behind Mantha. This one is not 100% conclusive. 1931: He earned the most voting points among defensemen and also led defensemen in Hart voting. 1933: He tied Ching Johnson in all-star voting points but easily won the Hart, with no defenseman within spitting distance. 1935: Shore was the runaway leader in all-star voting points and won the Hart, no defenseman was close. 1936: See 1935. 1938: Shore narrowly beat out Babe Siebert for top all-star votes but was the runaway leader for hart voting among Dmen. 1939: Shore had over twice as many voting points as any other D-man for the all-star team. He was just 5 th in hart voting but this was tops among defensemen.

I think Shore has 7 conclusive Norrises based on available info and most likely an 8 th .

 

[seventieslord]

By the way, scoring dropped by closer to 30% in the playoffs during Shore's career. Not just 20.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fine

By the way, scoring dropped by closer to 30% in the playoffs during Shore's career. Not just 20.

Fine now we have two sets of numbers and definitions. Shore's career vs the 1930's. If a consensus number and time span is reached we'll look at the issue numerical.

Fact remains that as the percentage drop keeps increasing from 20 to 30 to wherever it finally lands, the value of a playoff goal gets greater and each goal scored or allowed becomes more important. Given this fact, Eddie Shore the best defensman offensively and defensively had more value to the Bruins on the ice than in the penalty box.

This basic truism was driven home to Stan Mikita in the 1965 playoffs, espercially the SC finals and he changed his game. 1965 playoff Mikita had 53 PIM in 14 games --> 265 PIM, 70 game regular season after app 150 PIM in 68 regular season games. He changed drastically winning the Lady Byng in 1967 and 1968.

Toe Blake changed Maurice Richard and we all know the results post 1955.

At some point the light bulb in Shore's head or in Boston management/ownership offices should have gone on.

 

[pluppe]

here are consistency in scoring for post expansion. if somebody want to add Harvey and Shore, please do (Thank you Jays)

# | name | Top-1 | Top-3 | Top-5 | Top-10
1 | Raymond Bourque* | 2 | 12 | 16 | 19
2 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 5 | 11 | 12 | 15
3 | Red Kelly | 5 | 9 | 11 | 12
4 | Doug Harvey | 4 | 9 | 12 | 14
5 | Eddie Shore | 4 | 9 | 10 | 12
6 | Bobby Orr* | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9
7 | Denis Potvin* | 3 | 7 | 8 | 10
8 | Larry Robinson* | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6
9 | Chris Chelios | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8

I have sorted them in top 3s since I think it is too unfair when some compete againt Orr/Coffey and some not. I also included Kelly since somebody posted his numbers. the only one who is punished by this is Orr but since his #1 place is not a discussion I don´t think it matters.

Kellys numbers are very impressive (although you could argue it was easier finishing top 5 with just 6 #1 defenders, they are still fantastic). You could probably use them to argue him over at least Potvin since they had similar longevity at D.

If you think Lidström is a better defender than Potvin I think you have to judge a questionally higher peak as extremely important to rank Potvin higher.

Bourques numbers are even more impressive if you consider competition.

Cheli really has nothing on the others if you consider that they are all considered great defensive defenders.

people arguing Robinson over Lidström also has some work laid out for them since there is a distinct gap.

Harvey and Lidström are really close.

Shore is hard to judge since careers were shorter then but I would have thought he would have more wins. since his defence seems a bit lagging behind the others I think you could make a argument for Kelly or Potvin in the top 5 based on two way play and playoffs.

(and thanks to Seventieslord for most of the numbers and updated by JaysCyYoung).

 

[JaysCyYoung]

here are consistency in scoring for post expansion. if somebody want to add Harvey and Shore, please do (I don´t have the time)

Using NHL.com as a source (they have numbers going back to the first NHL season in 1917-18):

# | name | Top-1 | Top-3 | Top-5 | Top-10
1 | Raymond Bourque | 2 | 12 | 16 | 19
2 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 5 | 10 | 11 | 14
3 | Red Kelly | 5 | 9 | 11 | 12
4 | Bobby Orr | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9
5 | Denis Potvin | 3 | 7 | 8 | 10
6 | Larry Robinson | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6
7 | Chris Chelios | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8
8 | Eddie Shore | 4 | 9 | 10 | 12
9 | Doug Harvey | 4 | 9 | 12 | 14

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

Using NHL.com as a source (they have numbers going back to the first NHL season in 1917-18):

# | name | Top-1 | Top-3 | Top-5 | Top-10
1 | Raymond Bourque | 2 | 12 | 16 | 19
2 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 5 | 10 | 11 | 14
3 | Red Kelly | 5 | 9 | 11 | 12
4 | Bobby Orr | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9
5 | Denis Potvin | 3 | 7 | 8 | 10
6 | Larry Robinson | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6
7 | Chris Chelios | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8
8 | Eddie Shore | 4 | 9 | 10 | 12
9 | Doug Harvey | 4 | 9 | 12 | 14

Thank you.

How were Kelly stats handled from the games that he played as a forward with the Red Wings?

Also Doug Harvey is the only one from the group whose playoff point numbers went up on a per game basis. Rest including Orr went down with Kelly getting an unable to assess.

 

[HighwayToHelm]

1)Bobby Orr
2)Raymond Bourque
3)Doug Harvey
4) Dennis Potvin
5) Nicklas Lidstrom
6) Eddie Shore
7) Larry Robinson
8) Viacheslav Fetisov
9) Leonard "Red" Kelly
10) Chris Chelios

why was coffey not in the origninal list? I have him 6th

 

[Hardyvan123]

Voters definitely took the "most valuable" thing to heart when they voted for the Hart Trophy in the first few decades of the award and paid very little attention to the "best player" criteria that is important today.

I don't think "best player" even came up for consideration until Gordie Howe started demolishing records, and even then, it probably wasn't until Wayne Gretzky that "best player" became more important than "most valuable to his team."

Shore won 4 Harts in 6 years. The other two years, he was injured for significant games, and Boston failed to make the playoffs. He was definitely helped in voting by how much is team relied on him.

It's kind of like the Payton Manning affect on the Colts this year.

As for Shore's Hart's, I think they have to be taken with a grain of salt and put into context. Of course those that love him will put them not a different light than those that put him lower down.

Of course not being able to see him play helps him as most of us have seen the modern players look human at times.

 

[Mancini0518]

It's kind of like the Payton Manning affect on the Colts this year.

As for Shore's Hart's, I think they have to be taken with a grain of salt and put into context. Of course those that love him will put them not a different light than those that put him lower down.

Of course not being able to see him play helps him as most of us have seen the modern players look human at times.

This is something that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet. I also think this is one of the reasons why Lidstrom is in the 5-6 range because people tend to lament over the greats that have come and gone. I believe that in 25 or so years Lidstrom's career will be shed in an even greater light than it is today but for the sake of this discussion he is being hurt by still being active.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opposite

This is something that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet. I also think this is one of the reasons why Lidstrom is in the 5-6 range because people tend to lament over the greats that have come and gone. I believe that in 25 or so years Lidstrom's career will be shed in an even greater light than it is today but for the sake of this discussion he is being hurt by still being active.

I would suggest the opposite is more accurate. Lidstrom benefits from the aura of the flavour of the day. Personally I have never been comfortable rating retired players with a clearly defined history of achiement with active players with fluid or formative histories.

Ovechkin and Crosby rated two seasons ago would rate high by position in a historic positional ranking than they would today.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That is true, but it’s fairly easy to make the case that if Shore led the right side voting by a greater margin than his left side counterpart did, then he led all defensemen in voting. Particularly if hart votes do nothing to dispel that.

In addition, the most prominent defensemen almost always had a number of votes for the other side as well, which helps add depth to the results and helps us to understand how they were perceived (i.e. if all voters included Shore on a first team ballot, and three excluded Clancy, that is a strong indicator)

It is fair to say based on what’s available to us, that Shore would have been a Norris winner in these seasons:

1928: He was named to the unofficial first all-star team by the GMs along with Ching Johnson, and had over twice as many Hart voting points as Ching. 1929: He was 3 rd in Hart voting but Mantha was right behind him, and Clancy not too far behind Mantha. This one is not 100% conclusive. 1931: He earned the most voting points among defensemen and also led defensemen in Hart voting. 1933: He tied Ching Johnson in all-star voting points but easily won the Hart, with no defenseman within spitting distance. 1935: Shore was the runaway leader in all-star voting points and won the Hart, no defenseman was close. 1936: See 1935. 1938: Shore narrowly beat out Babe Siebert for top all-star votes but was the runaway leader for hart voting among Dmen. 1939: Shore had over twice as many voting points as any other D-man for the all-star team. He was just 5 th in hart voting but this was tops among defensemen.

I think Shore has 7 conclusive Norrises based on available info and most likely an 8 th .

Thanks for looking at the voting results in detail. Based on your analysis, I'm comfortable saying that Shore likely would have won seven Norris trophies (1928, 1931, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938 and 1939).

I think that 1929 is too close to call. Shore led all defensemen in Hart voting, but didn't distance himself from his peers (Shore had 62 votes, compared to Mantha's 60 and Clancy's 50). I'm not confident saying he would have won an eighth Norris trophy - but he likely would have finished somewhere in the closely-grouped top three, and it was still an excellent season.

 

[seventieslord]

Ovechkin and Crosby rated two seasons ago would rate high by position in a historic positional ranking than they would today.

No they would not.

And we should not be talking about this here.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Secondly, despite the bemoaned lack of high-end historical competition, Lidstrom also has five finishes as a top defenceman point-wise, tied with Kelly for the lead on this list and better than even the vaunted Potvin, who many consider a better offensive player historically-speaking. Lidstrom accomplished two of these titles when all of Ray Bourque, Al MacInnis, Brian Leetch, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, and Chris Chelios were still considered stud defenders, or close to it. He received another one in the season after Ray Bourque retired and the season before Al MacInnis had one of his best years in his final full NHL season (2002-03). That seems to downplay the notion that Lidstrom has only dominated against sub-par competitors in the history of the position.

He didn't dominate those guys though. While in his prime, he edged out guys well past their primes in their final years and he still NEEDED them all to retire before he gained this huge level of dominance that keeps getting referred to here.

When I get time this weekend, I'm doing up a pretty graph to show that Lidstrom's offensive dominance was clearly a product of his competition dropping off and definitely not because he got THAT much better.

I'm sorry, you don't spend the first half of your career fighting for 3rd in points and 5th in PPG and then spend the second half of your career holding an incredible offensive edge without GREATLY increasing your production. Something Lidstrom most definitely did not do.
And don't hand me this DPE era/scoring was lower in the 90's crap either. The first half of Lidstrom's career covers up to '01, his second half only has 3 pre-lockout years.
There is only one explanation, a HUGE drop off in competition level and it's actually quite ridiculous to argue otherwise. It is that night and day!

Oh, Lidstrom didn't mature offensively till he was 27, so what?
That actually hurts him in this conversation about offense as every other D-man mentioned was already dominate offensively long before they were 27 and the only time Lidstrom competes offensively with them is during his prime vs their twilight years. Hell, a good number of these guys were already dominating offensively at an earlier age than Lidstrom even played his first game in the NHL by.
Denis Potvin had already led his team in scoring 4 times and won a Norris before his 24th birthday.

Lidstrom is a good offensive D-man, that's where it ends though no matter what his recent dominance over his (Lack of) competition dictates.

 

[seventieslord]

one other thing about offensive dominance for post-expansion defensemen that people aren't considering, is the whole "leading the team" thing. I'd take 70 points if it led the team, compared to 80 points when there were teammates with 90 and 95.

Rankings on team in points in seasons with 70+ games:

Bourque: 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 6.
Lidstrom: 6, 9, 8, 8, 5, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 10, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2.
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6.

Name|top-1|top-2|top-3|top-4
Bourque|5|10|15|18
Lidstrom|0|3|8|12
Potvin|4|5|8|10

The same premise that says the player with the fewest points on a forward line is likely contributing the least offensively, can hold true for defensemen in a similar way. If you led your team in points, including all the forwards, then you were the offensive catalyst of your team. If a few forwards had more points than you, you deserve to be commended for a high point total but it must be acknowledged that you benefitted from the opportunity to participate in some goals with those players.

This all assumes that these defensemen played with the top forwards on the team often. Considering they were 30 minute players who played most of every powerplay, I would say that is a fair assumption.

 

[Hardyvan123]

one other thing about offensive dominance for post-expansion defensemen that people aren't considering, is the whole "leading the team" thing. I'd take 70 points if it led the team, compared to 80 points when there were teammates with 90 and 95.

Rankings on team in points in seasons with 70+ games:

Bourque: 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 6.
Lidstrom: 6, 9, 8, 8, 5, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 10, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2.
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6.

Name|top-1|top-2|top-3|top-4
Bourque|5|10|15|18
Lidstrom|0|3|8|12
Potvin|4|5|8|10

The same premise that says the player with the fewest points on a forward line is likely contributing the least offensively, can hold true for defensemen in a similar way. If you led your team in points, including all the forwards, then you were the offensive catalyst of your team. If a few forwards had more points than you, you deserve to be commended for a high point total but it must be acknowledged that you benefitted from the opportunity to participate in some goals with those players.

This all assumes that these defensemen played with the top forwards on the team often. Considering they were 30 minute players who played most of every powerplay, I would say that is a fair assumption.

This chart re enforces what most of us probably already agree upon with these 3 players when it comes to offense.

The harder question is how they rank on defense and how large the margins are there.

Offense is easier to measure than defense so the "defensive rating" is a little more subjective.

Honestly there is a very strong argument to place these 3 guys in any order IMO as all 3 have their strong points and their slightly lesser ones.

 

[seventieslord]

This chart re enforces what most of us probably already agree upon with these 3 players when it comes to offense.

The harder question is how they rank on defense and how large the margins are there.

Offense is easier to measure than defense so the "defensive rating" is a little more subjective.

Honestly there is a very strong argument to place these 3 guys in any order IMO as all 3 have their strong points and their slightly lesser ones.

Overall, I think Potvin is a clear 3rd. Unfortunately he lacks the longevity and the extended primes that Lidstrom and Bourque have.

As I said before, it's also clear to me that Bourque is better than Lids, for reasons already described by hockey outsider. The point about being the offensive catalyst for his team only hammers home the offense piece.

 

[Pear Juice]

one other thing about offensive dominance for post-expansion defensemen that people aren't considering, is the whole "leading the team" thing. I'd take 70 points if it led the team, compared to 80 points when there were teammates with 90 and 95.

Rankings on team in points in seasons with 70+ games:

Bourque: 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 6.
Lidstrom: 6, 9, 8, 8, 5, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 10, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2.
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6.

Name|top-1|top-2|top-3|top-4
Bourque|5|10|15|18
Lidstrom|0|3|8|12
Potvin|4|5|8|10

The same premise that says the player with the fewest points on a forward line is likely contributing the least offensively, can hold true for defensemen in a similar way. If you led your team in points, including all the forwards, then you were the offensive catalyst of your team. If a few forwards had more points than you, you deserve to be commended for a high point total but it must be acknowledged that you benefitted from the opportunity to participate in some goals with those players.

This all assumes that these defensemen played with the top forwards on the team often. Considering they were 30 minute players who played most of every powerplay, I would say that is a fair assumption.

I don't agree with this argument. I would say that it was a lot easier to lead the 70s Islanders or the 80s Bruins in scoring than it is to lead the 90s/00s Red Wings.

During the years they won their team scoring race, these players also placed top 3.

Bourque's Bruins: Rick Middleton, Ken Linseman, Steve Kasper, Cam Neely, Craig Janney, Charlie Simmer, Vladimir Ruzicka and Stephen Leach

Potvin's Islanders: Billy Harris, Ralph Stewart, Ed Westfall, Bryan Trottier and Jean Potvin

As for the Red Wings, when Lidström placed 3rd or 2nd, these are the other top 3 forwards: Brendan Shanahan, Sergei Fedorov, Steve Yzerman, Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk

The difference between Potvin's and Bourque's groups to Lidström's group is astronomical. Imo, it should absolutely not be a slight to Lidström that he never won his team's scoring when the competition is that much better.

 

[plusandminus]

These are Lidström's point finishes among defensemen since he entered the league:

Season | Rank
91/92 | 9
92/93 | 34
93/94 | 16
94/95 | 20
95/96 | 6
96/97 | 3
97/98 | 1
98/99 | 2
99/00 | 1
00/01 | 2
01/02 | 1
02/03 | 3
03/04 | 22
05/06 | 1
06/07 | 5
07/08 | 1
08/09 | 3
09/10 | 8
10/11 | 2

As can be seen, he didn't crack the top-5 during his first five seasons but has after that placed at least top-5 in all but two seasons.

Looking into it, it seems his PP points increased significantly from his 5th season.

1st season. Teammates Steve Chiasson and (I assume) Yves Racine missed 20 games each. Other defencemen were McCrimmon and Konstantinov. Maybe that explains some things. A couple of pretty good defensive defencemen on the team.

2nd season, Chiasson was their leading PP scoring defenceman, followed by Lidstrom. Same team, with the addition of Mark Howe who played 60 games.

3rd season, Paul Coffey was on the team. He had 36 PP points, which was twice as many as Lidstrom and Chiasson. No McCrimmon on the team. Coffey instead of McCrimmon surely may have altered roles on the defence, with Lidstrom perhaps being asked to take a more defensive role.

4th season. Lidstrom missed 5 games, during the 48 game season. Coffey dominated the scoring of the defencemen on the team. No Chiasson. Mark Howe now 39 years old.

5th season. While Coffey dominates the ES scoring, Lidstrom outscored him on PP (both producing, 37 and 33 points). Fetisov on the team. No Mark Howe. Coffey finished about 3rd in scoring in the whole league.

6th season. No Coffey, and Lidstrom now finishes 3rd in league in scoring. On the PP, he scored 30 pts, while his defensive teammates together scored 9(!) pts on the PP.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

This is something that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet. I also think this is one of the reasons why Lidstrom is in the 5-6 range because people tend to lament over the greats that have come and gone. I believe that in 25 or so years Lidstrom's career will be shed in an even greater light than it is today but for the sake of this discussion he is being hurt by still being active.

I have to believe this is true.

I had a chance to bug Ted Lindsay on defensemen from Shore to Lidstrom, and based on a lot of what I have read here I asked about Harvey and said I often hear of him as the perfect defenseman... He actually looked at me funny for suggesting it. Lindsay said Harvey and Kelly took defenseman to the next level after Shore, but that Lidstrom would ultimately be remembered better than all of them, rightfully.

 

[plusandminus]

I would say that it was a lot easier to lead the 70s Islanders or the 80s Bruins in scoring than it is to lead the 90s/00s Red Wings.

[...]

The difference between Potvin's and Bourque's groups to Lidström's group is astronomical. Imo, it should absolutely not be a slight to Lidström that he never won his team's scoring when the competition is that much better.

Absolutely. It also seems more difficult these days for defencemen to place high in the overall scoring, compared to some decades ago.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Looking into it, it seems his PP points increased significantly from his 5th season.

1st season. Teammates Steve Chiasson and (I assume) Yves Racine missed 20 games each. Other defencemen were McCrimmon and Konstantinov. Maybe that explains some things. A couple of pretty good defensive defencemen on the team.

2nd season, Chiasson was their leading PP scoring defenceman, followed by Lidstrom. Same team, with the addition of Mark Howe who played 60 games.

3rd season, Paul Coffey was on the team. He had 36 PP points, which was twice as many as Lidstrom and Chiasson. No McCrimmon on the team. Coffey instead of McCrimmon surely may have altered roles on the defence, with Lidstrom perhaps being asked to take a more defensive role.

4th season. Lidstrom missed 5 games, during the 48 game season. Coffey dominated the scoring of the defencemen on the team. No Chiasson. Mark Howe now 39 years old.

5th season. While Coffey dominates the ES scoring, Lidstrom outscored him on PP (both producing, 37 and 33 points). Fetisov on the team. No Mark Howe. Coffey finished about 3rd in scoring in the whole league.

6th season. No Coffey, and Lidstrom now finishes 3rd in league in scoring. On the PP, he scored 30 pts, while his defensive teammates together scored 9(!) pts on the PP.

Lidstrom's first season and 2007 (with D. Markov) might be his only seasons paired with a defense-first linemate.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I have to believe this is true.

I had a chance to bug Ted Lindsay on defensemen from Shore to Lidstrom, and based on a lot of what I have read here I asked about Harvey and said I often hear of him as the perfect defenseman... He actually looked at me funny for suggesting it. Lindsay said Harvey and Kelly took defenseman to the next level after Shore, but that Lidstrom would ultimately be remembered better than all of them, rightfully.

Here's a challenge:

Are there contemporary articles describing Harvey/Bourque/Shore as "perfect"?

That description popped up a lot for over a decade in articles describing Lidstrom's play... without being scoffed at.

That almost nickname of "Perfect" just strikes me as historically significant.

 

[nik jr]

can someone post some sort of evidence that harvey was the best defensive d-man of his era? it is very often said here that harvey was the best defensive d-man in history, but i don't think i have ever read that in old sources. i have not read a huge amount about harvey, though.

his ability to control the play seems to be mentioned much more often.

I think Shore's getting a little underrated here. I don't have time to make a detailed case now, but want to get it out here.

The biggest thing is the voting records show that everyone basically considered him to be the best defenceman in the world for a long time, and often the best player in the world. Breaking down his game in detail beyond that can be interesting and useful, but you have to reconcile that with the overall record. Was he the best defender? The best skater? The best passer? I don't know. But he was spectacular. (the Ken Reardon argument.)

Re Shore's defensive reputation, he came from an era when the best defensive defencemen hung out at the red line while the puck was in the offensive zone. If a sportswriter says someone else was better defensively than Shore, it might well have been because Shore was going up ice too much for his liking. Also, IIRC the few quotes that have been posted about Shore's defensive ability have been taken from earlier in his career, in the late 1920s.

Shore was like an earlier Bobby Orr, who drove the play all over the ice and changed the position.

Of course Harvey and Bourque have their arguments too, but Shore has as strong a case as anyone for #2, IMO.

agree

in the usual way players are ranked here (dominance in their eras), i don't see why shore should be lower than 3. shore was very often called the best player of his era. he was paid very highly and some observers thought he changed hockey.

shore was a hart finalist 7 times in 13 seasons, despite being more or less ineligible in '34 and '37 b/c of missed games.

shore was also nicknamed "mr. hockey" before howe.

Here are some excerpts from an interesting little article I found on Eddie Shore, printed about a week after he died. It talks about his temper costing his team, but also about how spectacular and valuable he was, despite his temper:

The Montreal Gazette, March 22, 1985.

Note that Potvin was on his way out when this was written, so his full peak would be fresh in the minds of everyone - yet he isn't mentioned in the same breath as Orr, Harvey, or Shore.

Bourque, on the other hand, had yet to win his first Norris when this was written.

that was game 2 in '36

Total Hockey's "Retro Norrises" are a farce. In 1952-53, Kelly was a unanimous First Team All-Star, receiving more 1st place votes than Doug Harvey had total votes, yet the book gave the "Retro Norris" to Harvey. It's obvious that the authors didn't have the data we do now, knew that Kelly and Harvey were 1st Team All Stars for several years before the first Norris and just decided to "split the difference."

Overall, Kelly was a unanimous First Team All Star in each of the three seasons preceding the first Norris Trophy.

1950-51: Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 68 (9-7-2); Jim Thomson, Tor 62 (8-6-4); Leo Reise, Det 50 (0-16-2)

1950-51: Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Doug Harvey, Mtl 71 (12-3-1); Hy Buller, NYR 47 (1-13-3); Jim Thomson, Tor 38 (2-6-10);

1952-53: Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Doug Harvey, Mtl 56 (8-5-1); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3); Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9)

By any reasonable standard, Kelly would have won 4 Norrises in a row, all of them in dominant fashion, had the award existed through his career.

His Hart record is significantly better than Sawchuk or Lindsay's, despite the award already becoming biased against defensemen when he played. I'm sure this will be covered in more detail later.

kelly also probably should have won '54 hart.

i have posted about the hart controversy before, and kelly was voted player of the year in '54 in a united press poll, and by the hockey news.

I don't really see what Shore did to revolutionize the game. There were plenty of rushing defensemen before and after, so what did he change? Same goes for Harvey - what did he actually change?

I'm not even really sold on Orr revolutionizing the game.... I'm on the fence on that one.

earl seibert thought shore was central to the spread of "pressure hockey," a more offensive style where more players joined the attack.

bruins apparently had an innovative offense with more attackers, and shore may have helped move hockey away from passive d-men who stood in the neutral zone and towards mobile d-men who participated in the attack.

shore was the key player in boston's ES "power plays."

i posted some things about this in this thread:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=1001331

Simply looking at Robinson and Potvin respectively using their rankings in defenceman points to evaluate their production relative to their contemporaries.

A few things jump out at me from the comparative rankings.

Firstly, Red Kelly's offensive game relative to his peers might just have been the best out of any defenceman not named Orr. He led the league in scoring by a defenceman in five straight seasons, in a period when both Bill Gadsby and Doug Harvey were at their peak strength (or close to it) as NHL defenders. That is insanely impressive in a historical context. The fact that Kelly only has one season out of the top ten while playing defence, and it was an eleventh place finish no less, is also extremely impressive to his cause. His 1960 season split between Detroit and Toronto is the only other season in which he is even out of the top five in defenceman scoring, although I am not sure how many games he played at centre once Imlach converted him to a centre with the Leafs.

Secondly, despite the bemoaned lack of high-end historical competition, Lidstrom also has five finishes as a top defenceman point-wise, tied with Kelly for the lead on this list and better than even the vaunted Potvin, who many consider a better offensive player historically-speaking. Lidstrom accomplished two of these titles when all of Ray Bourque, Al MacInnis, Brian Leetch, Chris Pronger, Scott Stevens, and Chris Chelios were still considered stud defenders, or close to it. He received another one in the season after Ray Bourque retired and the season before Al MacInnis had one of his best years in his final full NHL season (2002-03). That seems to downplay the notion that Lidstrom has only dominated against sub-par competitors in the history of the position.

And lastly, we can see that even at his peak Chris Chelios was not as feared offensively as the other defencemen. He made his living as arguably the meanest SOB in the NHL at the time and in playing intimidating, even downright dirty defence, complete with fash-washes, cross-checks, hard hits, and clearing the front of the net to a degree that even Denis Potvin or Eddie Shore would have been proud of. However, offence was not his forte, even his 70+ point seasons, and it is demonstrative of how highly regarded his defensive game was that he was winning Norris Trophies as only the 4th (1989), 9th (1993), and 4th (1996) highest-scoring defenceman in the NHL. He also finished a close second to teammate Lidstrom in 2001-02, when Nick again led the league in defenceman scoring, in Norris Trophy voting despite being only 17th in the league amongst blueliners from an offensive standpoint.

kelly also sometimes played F with DRW, usually LW, i think.

in '56, kelly played about 25 games at LW (i think scored 23p), and at least 1 writer thought that was why kelly was not a 1st AS d-man. kelly also played some of '58 at LW.

kelly also played F after howe's injury in '50 playoffs.

 

[plusandminus]

Lidstrom's first season and 2007 (with D. Markov) might be his only seasons paired with a defense-first linemate.

Lidstrom had proven he was gifted offensively when he arrived in the NHL, and during his rookie season proved it by finishing 9th among defencemen in scoring.

He then had 3 seasons where he finished a bit lower, but that may at least partly be explained by his environment, for example the acquisition of Paul Coffey. When Coffey was gone, Lidstrom finished 3rd and then continued to produce season after season. 5 times he has been the player on ice for most GF (goals for), in the whole league.

Lidstrom arrived to a Detroit team that had been below .500 for years. After the arrival of Lidstrom (I'm not saying it's all due to him), they have like 19 straight seasons with far more wins than losses, and also a number of Stanley Cups. http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/

 

[chaosrevolver]

I expected these ten, although was kinda hoping Brad Park would be there rather than Chelios. Nevertheless, I find many of the arguments interesting thus far.

I'll see if I can chip into the conversation later.