DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
Touche. The Lady Bying award, aka the consolation prize for the best player who didn't happen to get a lot of penalties.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
Someone refresh my memory, but wasn't the Lady Byng a more prestigious award back in the days?
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,256
- 17,097
Welll, C1958 IS right : Morenz lined up against Frank Nighbor and Frank Boucher (who won the Lady Byng so much he probably knew her personally), Crosby faced nothing of the sorts.
I'm just not sure that's super relevant.
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
My impression is that it is definitely reflective of an earlier era. I consider the award pretty irrelevant, at least from the Original Six era and beyond.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,256
- 17,097
It was won by the likes of Toe Blake, Red Kelly and Dave Keon. Not worthless at all.
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
Great players. Worthless award. It was a consolation prize for those who had a very good season, but who didn't win the Hart or Art Ross (and good luck having a shot at it as a defenseman). I agree that it was given higher prestige in the earlier days... maybe even the entire Original Six era, but during the 70's and beyond, it's the Miss Congeniality thing.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
Hasek's pre-NHL was 'extra special' but Bourque's tourney all-star nod at the 87 Canada Cup isn't? (The dman scored 95 points that season when the next best Bruin was Neely at 72!! No wonder he was the Hart trophy runner-up to an insane Gretzky only; he nearly doubled the Norris vote of the 2nd place guy. )
Roy's 2001 playoffs is 'extra special' but a 40-year-old defenseman having a 1st team all star season and then 28+ minute Stanley Cup championship postseason isn't an 'extra special' year?
Bourque's 1987 and 2001 were 'extra special'. It would take gerrymandering to think otherwise.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
I wouldn't be so sure it's irrelevant neither.
Did Crosby struggle abnormally facing top two-way centers in the playoffs? That's something to explore in a Crosby vs. Morenz comparison, or even Crosby vs. Messier and so on.
He faced Patrice Bergeron and the Bruins once; Boston won the series 4-0, Crosby had 0 point.I don't remember that series, was Bergeron largely responsible for containing Crosby?
Crosby also struggled against Zetterberg to some extent.
Would be nice if someone took a deep dive into this.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Yes, when it was possible to score multiple goals on a minor PP.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,256
- 17,097
TBH, bobholly was covering about 8 years of pre-NHL hockey with "Pre-NHL".
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,256
- 17,097
I'm not saying it's totally irrelevant.
I'm just saying that the Lady Byng part, as applied to the 21st century, isn't very relevant.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
Hence my 'gerrymandering' reference. 6+ years count here, a year divided up there.
'Extra special' is more points in his calculus, so lumping several years and tourneys to give one guy an 'extra special' but carving up another's single year to deny him one... is rigging the process.
But if his whole process is done to reflect his thinking, to support his preconceived notions and support the final ranking he wants, then so be it. It's not meant to be objective anyways, is it? Different people have different calculations, and I indicate some places where he and I differ.
I LIKE the idea of looking closely at year by year performances. Detailed analysis is illuminating sometimes. But the resulting point totals are meaningless to others but reflective for the person doing the calculus.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,419
- 3,382
Maybe I'm wasting my time on Eddie Shore this round, but I just think this post is so wrong about his defensive play.
Let's define Shore's prime as the period when he was getting significant support for the Hart Trophy, the 12 season period from 1927-28 to 1938-39. Over this 12 year period, the Boston Bruins had the best regular season goals against record in the NHL by more than 10%. How could a team accomplish this with a defensive liability playing most of the game on the blueline? We know that Dustin Byfuglien (to take your example) is a defensive liability by the eye test and by the fact that his teams have always been bad defensively.
| Team | GP | GA | GA/G |
| Boston | 560 | 1115 | 1.99 |
| Rangers | 560 | 1248 | 2.23 |
| Detroit | 560 | 1259 | 2.25 |
| Canadiens | 560 | 1274 | 2.28 |
| Chicago | 560 | 1275 | 2.28 |
| Toronto | 560 | 1303 | 2.33 |
| Maroons | 512 | 1199 | 2.34 |
| Americans | 560 | 1501 | 2.68 |
We Nominate: James C. Hendy, Macleans, April 15, 1935
Eddie Shore, who was honored by the coaches by being selected to the first team in 1932-33 and to the second team last year, regains his position as top man among the defensemen by being chosen by eight coaches for the first team and by the ninth one for the second.
The dynamic wheat farmer from Saskatchewan is considered the greatest defenseman in hockey today by the majority of the managers, and some even claim he is the greatest backline performer of all time. Shore’s value to his team is well proved by the fact that when he was not up to his regular form after suffering a nervous breakdown in 1933-34, his club went all to pieces, failing to finish in the play-offs. This season, however, with Shore blocking better than ever and acting as the spearhead of many attacks, his inspired performance has been the greatest factor in Boston’s much improved play.
Connie Smythe – Ted Reeve, Macleans, May 1 1935
He (Smythe) thinks that Eddie Shore is the greatest single force he has ever seen on a hockey team.
Hockey’s Miracle Man – James C. Hendy, Macleans, December 15 1935
Gorman, unlike most managers, does not object to stating his nominations for the greatest players of all time. He thinks that Charlie Conacher is the greatest forward ever to step on the ice; and that Frank Nighbor, the clever Ottawa centre, was top forward in the fifteen years between 1905 and 1920. During the same period he selects Sprague Cleghom as being away ahead of other defensemen, and Georges Vezina, Clint Benedict and Percy Lesueur running a close race for net-minding honors.
In the period from 1920 up until the present time his choices are: Alex Connell and Charlie Gardiner for goaltender; Eddie Shore on the defense, and Charlie Conacher on the forward line. He thinks that the most colorful player ever to lace on a pair of skates was Fred “Cyclone” Taylor, the old “Listowel Thunderbolt,” who made hockey history with the Vancouver Millionaires after many seasons in the East with Portage Lake, Ottawa and Renfrew.
We nominate – James C. Hendy, Macleans, April 1 1936
Each season as the schedule nears an end Maclean’s requests the managers to carefully review the entire campaign, taking into consideration every player in the National Hockey League, and from this great array of talent select the sixteen players he would have liked on his club had he known beforehand just how they were going to perform during the season. He is assured that his individual selections will be treated in strictest confidence, and is therefore at liberty to choose as he pleases without fear that his selections will ever be seen by anyone but the writer. We believe no group is better qualified to select an All-Star team than the managers, and that under the above method a truly authentic team can be named.
Each player who receives a vote for the first team is credited with three points. If he receives a vote for the second team he is credited with two points, and in the case of forwards one point is allowed for each vote on the third line. A general utility man is selected to round out the team, and the managers also voice their opinions as to the outstanding rookie of the season.
...
The only other perfect score registered was polled by Eddie Shore, who has been one of the outstanding defensemen in the game for the past decade. Last season Shore polled twenty-six out of a possible twenty-seven points, this season he registered twenty-four.
...
If you have ever seen the Shore-Siebert defense in action you know what we mean. This bone-crushing pair of guards love the rough going. They are not only willing to hand it out, but take their share of the hard knocks and come back for more. They do not devote their time to playing rough hockey, but they are so robust that when they bodycheck an opponent they not only take him out of that particular play but usually weaken him for the rest of the period, if not for the entire evening.
Shore is a brilliant leader. As captain of the Boston club he is a constant source of inspiration to his men. He is absolutely tireless and frequently plays forty-five and fifty minutes a game. There are few better play-makers in hockey than Shore. He sets up scoring plays for his forwards in the same faultless style as the better centre-ice players.
Hockey Needs Its Hard Harrys – Dink Carroll, Macleans, March 1 1937
You might have expected the Toronto players to retaliate against Eddie Shore. But it can be taken for granted that the attitude adopted by Connie Smythe and Dick Irvin, manager and coach respectively of the Leafs, was that of the entire Toronto team. Both these men made it more than plain that, above everything else, they wanted to protect the Boston player. They said that Shore was the hardest worked player in the whole league, and thought it was a wonder he hadn’t cracked wide-open long before he did, They held the Boston management responsible for not providing adequate substitution for their great star.
We Nominate: James C. Hendy, Macleans, April 1, 1938
The battle for positions on the defense was particularly keen, with the managers finally deciding on Eddie Shore at right defense and A.C. “Babe” Siebert at left defense on the first team, and Earl Seibert and Art Coulter on the second.
...
“Iodine” Eddie Shore, although no longer the dashing figure on the attack of a few years ago, is still one of the best defencemen in the game. The Bruin veteran can still do everything anyone else can do on the ice. Concentrating chiefly on defensive tactics this season, Eddie no longer bears the title of the “Puck Prima Donna.” There was a time when Eddie would crash heavily into a speeding forward, seize the puck himself, and flash up the ice, his legs pumping at breakneck speed. He usually got through for a shot, but when he was heavily dumped he invariably went into a “Dying Swan” routine which lacked only Saint-Saen’s music to think you were witnessing Sonja Henje give one of her inimitable performances. Although Shore has lost some of his “zip”, he still brings the crowd to its feet when he goes hustling up the ice.
We nominate – James C. Hendy, Macleans, April 1 1939
Not being desirous of taking on its thousands of readers in combat, Maclean’s editors leave the selection of their team up to the seven pilots of the National Hockey League clubs, so that if anyone reading this takes exception, he will have to address a letter to the joint managers, which we shall be happy to forward.
Each manager selects two full teams plus a third line, a utility player, and the man whom he considers the outstanding rookie of the season. The votes are tabulated, and the consensus of opinion is used as Maclean's all-star team. Perhaps you can pick a squad to beat it. We wouldn’t try.
...
The defensemen were headed by the one and only Eddie Shore, who totalled seventeen points, to lead Art Coulter of the Rangers by seven points and Earl Seibert of Chicago and his team mate. Dit Clapper. Boston, by eight and nine points respectively. “Babe” Siebert, Montreal Canadiens’ stalwart, missed by a single point, after having been on top for the past few seasons.
...
Our defense couldn’t very well be improved upon. Eddie Shore, who seems to improve with age from a defensive standpoint, has shone even on a team which can produce such guards as Clapper, Portland, Crawford and Hollett. Brimsek calls him his assistant goalkeeper, and in one game Eddie was credited with getting in the way of as many shots as both goalies combined ! Although he doesn’t rush nearly as frequently as he did a few years ago, he is still one of the most feared men in hockey once he starts for the other end of the ice with the puck at the end of his stick.
I'll bite. How do you define offensive driver and defensive driver to exclude Eddie Shore?
Last edited:
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
Good post overpass.
Not wasting your time at all.Someone needs to step up for Shore god damnit!
It's not winning, it's goal scoring and goal prevention. Harvey was not a great offensive defender compared to Ray Bourque. Harvey was an average ES scorer among defenders. During the Norris run Harvey was +0.002 ESPPG over Fern Flaman.
TDMM pointed out that Harvey was a PPQB, and I haven't seen it. Perhaps the games we have are past that point, or off games, but comparing them to numbers it makes sense why it doesn't look like Harvey's a PPQB. (At least not in the modern sense, or in the same way Bourque was.) While Bourque was leading Boston's PP in points, Harvey never did in Montreal. In his best years, Harvey could be a distant 2nd in PP assists on his own team, but the other defenders here were 2nd in assists in the NHL, behind Gretzky and Boucher.
And I don't know if anyone else says that about Plante, but I don't. Plante looks better than the other guys at keeping the puck out of the net. And many times, he and McNeil had to be. We downgrade Jari Kurri as a goal scorer because of his teammates - and there is a far more direct relationship between a player and his goal total than a player and his on-ice GA total. But it seems Harvey gets a ton of credit, as does Plante, as does H. Richard, as do the PK guys, etc. And I don't know how many GA prevented there are to go around.
My question for the guys who are high on Harvey, what defensive value was he providing that wasn't able to be provided by other Canadiens players? (And if possible, answer in terms of GA.) Doesn't need to be overly precise, but whatever it is, does it put him on the same level as players who were offensive leaders, like very other non-goalie in this round. And hell, if Grant Fuhr were here, his peak assist total (14 in 45 GP in 1984) does beat some of Harvey's low-end years in APG.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,928
- 29,710
Yeah - on closer inspection, two guys that are dropping for me are Harvey and Richard. Bourque is a big riser for me. I'm still not sure what to make of Morenz, but I have a good feeling on where I stand for Hull, Hasek, Roy, and Crosby. Shore is a guy I'm also thinking about, because I'm kind of hearing two things about him and I don't know how to rate his pre-Norris era Harts.
Another criteria that should be used to rank these players is who would general managers take to build a franchise around. Is any gm really going to take Richard, Bourque or Harvey over Crosby. I doubt most gms would even take bobby hull over crosby.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,419
- 3,382
Here's an article I came across on Doug Harvey from his peak in 1958.
How Doug Harvey loafed his way to fame – Trent Frayne, Macleans, February 15 1958
Ten years ago his own fans booed him in the Montreal Forum, and sportswriters covering the Canadiens deplored his lackadaisical style ot play. Now, the volatile French-Canadian fans rattle the Habitant playpen with praise for "DugGar-Vee" and when Gazette columnist Dink Carroll was polled by an American magazine recently he named Harvey and Eddie Shore, the former Boston star, as the two best defensemen of all time.
Shore himself says unhesitatingly, “Harvey is the best I've ever seen. He's cool, he can think and he can lift a team." Shore would hardly be expected to name Shore, so I sought an opinion from Hector (Toe) Blake, the Canadien coach who broke into the NHL when Shore was electrifying audiences in the Thirties. "Yes. he's ahead of Shore,” said Blake. "He can do more things— when he wants to.” Another Shore contemporary who has stayed abreast of the game, Joe Primeau, the former centre of Toronto’s Kid Line who is the only man ever to coach teams that have won the Memorial Cup, the Allan Cup and the Stanley Cup, doesn't agree with Blake because he feels rule changes in hockey have made comparisons impracticable when they involve players of different eras. But he agrees that Harvey is "one of the best who ever played.”
...
Harvey seems to go about everything he does in hockey with this stolid purposefulness. “Wasted motion will hurt a team as much as it will hurt a player," he says. “Hockey, in spite of what you hear these days, is a scientific game. Teams that have no system lose. Teams with a negative system lose. Like Toronto until this season: their defensemen were always rushing and their forwards were always backchecking, exactly the reverse of what their very names dictate they should be doing.
“With the Canadiens I’ve found that the nights we’re playing badly are the nights the defensemen are rushing all the time. Their job is to defend and to feed the puck to the forwards—head-manning it, we call it. Toronto even had a rule that a defenseman couldn't pass the puck in his own end. Why in the world should a man carry the puck when the rules permit him to pass it half the length of the ice?
“The Canadiens win because we have a positive system — move the puck around, play your position. As soon as a guy comes to check me I know that he had to leave his position to do it. That means that we’ve got a man loose in his area. I immediately feed our man there the puck. He's got to be there because that’s our system, and this is a team game—it’s not a game for individuals.
“Defensively? It’s the same thing. Suppose we’re playing Chicago, and Ted Lindsay and Eddie Litzenberger get a break. Let’s say Rocket Richard is on his wing chasing Lindsay. Well. I know Rock will take Lindsay so I naturally take Litzenberger, and don’t bother with Lindsay at all. Now we'll look pretty silly, won’t we, if Rock suddenly switches to Litzenberger and tries to take the puck from him with me also covering him? That’d leave Lindsay wide open to take a pass. Richard gets a lot of knocks about never backchecking but in my eleven years playing on his side of the rink I've never seen him cross up a defenseman by switching. That’s what I mean by system. If every man does his job the way common sense says he should do it, then you’re playing the game properly.”
How Doug Harvey loafed his way to fame – Trent Frayne, Macleans, February 15 1958
Ten years ago his own fans booed him in the Montreal Forum, and sportswriters covering the Canadiens deplored his lackadaisical style ot play. Now, the volatile French-Canadian fans rattle the Habitant playpen with praise for "DugGar-Vee" and when Gazette columnist Dink Carroll was polled by an American magazine recently he named Harvey and Eddie Shore, the former Boston star, as the two best defensemen of all time.
Shore himself says unhesitatingly, “Harvey is the best I've ever seen. He's cool, he can think and he can lift a team." Shore would hardly be expected to name Shore, so I sought an opinion from Hector (Toe) Blake, the Canadien coach who broke into the NHL when Shore was electrifying audiences in the Thirties. "Yes. he's ahead of Shore,” said Blake. "He can do more things— when he wants to.” Another Shore contemporary who has stayed abreast of the game, Joe Primeau, the former centre of Toronto’s Kid Line who is the only man ever to coach teams that have won the Memorial Cup, the Allan Cup and the Stanley Cup, doesn't agree with Blake because he feels rule changes in hockey have made comparisons impracticable when they involve players of different eras. But he agrees that Harvey is "one of the best who ever played.”
...
Harvey seems to go about everything he does in hockey with this stolid purposefulness. “Wasted motion will hurt a team as much as it will hurt a player," he says. “Hockey, in spite of what you hear these days, is a scientific game. Teams that have no system lose. Teams with a negative system lose. Like Toronto until this season: their defensemen were always rushing and their forwards were always backchecking, exactly the reverse of what their very names dictate they should be doing.
“With the Canadiens I’ve found that the nights we’re playing badly are the nights the defensemen are rushing all the time. Their job is to defend and to feed the puck to the forwards—head-manning it, we call it. Toronto even had a rule that a defenseman couldn't pass the puck in his own end. Why in the world should a man carry the puck when the rules permit him to pass it half the length of the ice?
“The Canadiens win because we have a positive system — move the puck around, play your position. As soon as a guy comes to check me I know that he had to leave his position to do it. That means that we’ve got a man loose in his area. I immediately feed our man there the puck. He's got to be there because that’s our system, and this is a team game—it’s not a game for individuals.
“Defensively? It’s the same thing. Suppose we’re playing Chicago, and Ted Lindsay and Eddie Litzenberger get a break. Let’s say Rocket Richard is on his wing chasing Lindsay. Well. I know Rock will take Lindsay so I naturally take Litzenberger, and don’t bother with Lindsay at all. Now we'll look pretty silly, won’t we, if Rock suddenly switches to Litzenberger and tries to take the puck from him with me also covering him? That’d leave Lindsay wide open to take a pass. Richard gets a lot of knocks about never backchecking but in my eleven years playing on his side of the rink I've never seen him cross up a defenseman by switching. That’s what I mean by system. If every man does his job the way common sense says he should do it, then you’re playing the game properly.”
Yeah - Roy won the conn smythe in 2001. Bourque in 2001 season finished 2nd in the Norris - and wasn't even a top 2 player in the playoffs for Colorado. The "extra special" designation are for hart trophies, or all-time great moments.
The 2001 Cup win for Bourque was definitely a very special "feel good" moment - but it's not about something he accomplished, it's more of a team success and it felt great to see Bourque win his cup. It's different then the Golden goal where Crosby scored it - or 98 Olympics where Hasek stole the games.
To make a parallel - Ovechkin just won a cup in 2018. Feel good moment - but also extra special because he won the smythe/was best player. If Ovechkin had won his first cup at 40 instead - it would be a terrific "feel good" moment, but not necessarily extra special on its merit.
I really hate the idea of obsessing over specific matchups unless you can show a trend of a player facing another player and how it's impacted his own results, as well as his teams.
Concerning Bergeron vs Crosby specifically - maybe Begeron "owns" Crosby, or maybe it was just a bad playoffs by Crosby. Unless Crosby's team faces Bergeron 4-5x in playoffs, and that one on one matchup is specifically one-sided and hurts Crosby/his team - i don't think it means a lot.
Matchups like those probably have more meaning in a league with less teams where you face the same opponents more often.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
The threshold for being a 1st Team All-Star on Defense in 2000-01 was being better than 67 GP Rob Blake, and Ray Bourque still barely cleared it (18-23-10 vs. 15-22-10). I wouldn’t necessarily put it up there with his 1987 which was fantastic.
I mean, how many Forwards and Goaltenders were better than 67 GP of Rob Blake in 2001? A dozen? Two dozen? I think this would be a case of the All-Star selection itself making the season more than it was.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
Great find.
Everyone should note the mention of Maurice Richard's defensive game at the end.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,007
- 13,924
Matchups are important though, just ask Roger Federer.OK, tennis is not hockey, but you want your #1 center to be able to compete head to head against the top centers in the league.This is how you win championships, unless you somehow avoid them all.But in that case, it's like Federer winning the French Open.It's a Grand Slam, but he didn't do it winning against Nadal, so it has less value IMO.
If your #1 center cannot compete against top centers, you don't control your destiny.You're relying on the draw.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Grub's Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Offer Sheets?!- Latest: Sexy Necksy Garland
Upcoming events
-
-
Preliminary Final Port Adelaide Power vs Sydney Swans - SCG, SydneyWagers: 2Staked: $1,250.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Preliminary Final Brisbane Lions vs Geelong Cats - MCG, MelbourneWagers: 2Staked: $259.00Event closes - 2 days from now
- Updated: