Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 2

[Michael Farkas]

I must have missed it; what's your basis for this opinion about Shore anyway?

Combo of watching with contemporary accounts and then what people said about him after the fact...it all points to a very specific player "profile" and it makes him pretty simple to diagnose because absolutely nothing points away from it to date.

See, there's only so many different player "types" out there in reality. A lot of guys fall into these molds, some guys are just straight up "regens" of previous players even...it's guys that don't fall into a mold that are difficult to pin down...two guys up for debate right now just don't fall into a good mold...Howie Morenz and Sidney Crosby...luckily, I've ever had the luxury of watching almost every game Sidney Crosby has even played at the pro and international level...Morenz, not so much, I don't get Morenz, the film is too scarce, the newspaper accounts are too varied, the stats don't always match what's said, the whole thing is jumbled by an untimely death...I don't know what to make of him...I can't pin him down to anything...

Shore matches a player type that we still have today. So that's why I feel as confident as I do about him...I am, in full disclosure, against his player type in today's game...while some people find it valuable, a lot more valuable than me...so it's that combo of things that has me a little iffy about him...

I am very, very confident he does not belong in the discussion for top 10 players of all time. I do believe that he's in the conversation for 10 best defensemen of all time however...

 

[overpass]

Do we know anything about his time on the coast in this regard?

Was 1926-27 left out because Boston was a middling defensive club and then buttoned up when Thompson replaced Hal Winkler?

No, I left 1926-27 out because Shore didn’t figure in Hart voting for that season and I wasn’t sure to what extent he was the #1 defenceman in Boston over Cleghorn and Hitchman. So I didn’t include it in his prime seasons.

Shore came in as a very raw recruit when he started playing in Edmonton and seems to have improved by leaps and bounds in his time there and his first NHL seasons. Sprague Cleghorn claimed to have taught Shore a lot, which would make sense.

Overall my impression of Shore is that he may have developed his game more than any other player did from the beginning g to the end of his career.

Also, regarding his hockey knowledge:

Legends of Hockey - Spotlight - Eddie Shore - The Pinnacle

But Shore's value resides in his former players who went on to excel beyond the ice surface in the game. Keith Allen, Don Cherry, Brian Kilrea and Floyd Smith are but a handful of players who followed excellent careers in Springfield with coaching careers that added their own imprints to the game of hockey. And each credit Eddie Shore with giving them the fundamentals to excel in the game. Although he helped lead a revolt that put an end to Shore's oppressive regime, Brian Kilrea still regards Eddie Shore as a mentor who helped him both as a player and later as a Hall of Fame coach. "As a teacher, he was the best hockey man ever."

Long after his playing days were finished, Eddie Shore's influence continued to permeate hockey. In 1970, he was awarded the Lester Patrick Trophy for outstanding service to the game of hockey in the United States. In 1997, a panel of experts assembled by The Hockey News selected Eddie Shore as the tenth greatest player in the history of the National Hockey League. Said one panelist, "If you had to name one person who had the most influence on the game of hockey, it would be Eddie Shore."

 

[BenchBrawl]

Combo of watching with contemporary accounts and then what people said about him after the fact...it all points to a very specific player "profile" and it makes him pretty simple to diagnose because absolutely nothing points away from it to date.

See, there's only so many different player "types" out there in reality. A lot of guys fall into these molds, some guys are just straight up "regens" of previous players even...it's guys that don't fall into a mold that are difficult to pin down...two guys up for debate right now just don't fall into a good mold...Howie Morenz and Sidney Crosby...luckily, I've ever had the luxury of watching almost every game Sidney Crosby has even played at the pro and international level...Morenz, not so much, I don't get Morenz, the film is too scarce, the newspaper accounts are too varied, the stats don't always match what's said, the whole thing is jumbled by an untimely death...I don't know what to make of him...I can't pin him down to anything...

Shore matches a player type that we still have today. So that's why I feel as confident as I do about him...I am, in full disclosure, against his player type in today's game...while some people find it valuable, a lot more valuable than me...so it's that combo of things that has me a little iffy about him...

I am very, very confident he does not belong in the discussion for top 10 players of all time. I do believe that he's in the conversation for 10 best defensemen of all time however...

What's your take on Crosby?

 

[Michael Farkas]

It says Richard was able to follow the system, by covering his man on his wing and letting the defenseman taking care of the other forward, and not cross him so that both end up covering the same player, leaving the other open.

Did I misunderstood the passage?

To be clear, this was not a "gotcha" stunt or anything like that. I legitimately want to know how someone reads that. This is one of those read between the lines situations and why proper talent evaluation is so much more valuable to us than we give it credit for...

Plus side, this falls right in line with what I wrote up about Richard earlier in the thread. He backchecked hard, but he didn't necessarily know what he was doing in detail, but he worked hard...even if it wasn't terribly smart.

It says Richard was able to follow a check in his lane. It does not necessarily say that Richard able to follow the system. I've talked about it in here recently about making the game "more predictable" for your own players and thus I value reliability...they were able to give Richard a simple, repetitive task and it sounds like he was able to complete...(not that Harvey would likely go out of his way to throw darts at Richard unprovoked...he brings up Richard himself, why would he use that stage to tear him down?) ...general principles would actually have Richard eventually switch off, not to the center Lintzenberger, but to push Lindsay into a Montreal defenseman and then once the defenseman has him under wraps, Richard either manages the weak side middle/high or switches to the left point man...naturally, there are different ways to play defense, but this is a pretty standard zone setup and has been for a while...

Richard chasing Lindsay all the way down to presumably the Chicago attack area (end line?) is not common practice...Richard deserves credit for not chasing the puck around in this spot, but this reads to me as "we gave Richard a lane to own and we all work around that premise"...that's hard work, hell, it might even be good work (I'd have to watch more of the tape, but I've seen more than a few Richard games at this point - it's mostly just hard work)...but this doesn't suggest to me that he's a good defensive player, it just suggests to me that he'll chase a player down in his lane...and there's an important distinction to be made there...and I'm not sure it's obvious...

 

[BenchBrawl]

To be clear, this was not a "gotcha" stunt or anything like that. I legitimately want to know how someone reads that. This is one of those read between the lines situations and why proper talent evaluation is so much more valuable to us than we give it credit for...

Plus side, this falls right in line with what I wrote up about Richard earlier in the thread. He backchecked hard, but he didn't necessarily know what he was doing in detail, but he worked hard...even if it wasn't terribly smart.

It says Richard was able to follow a check in his lane. It does not necessarily say that Richard able to follow the system. I've talked about it in here recently about making the game "more predictable" for your own players and thus I value reliability...they were able to give Richard a simple, repetitive task and it sounds like he was able to complete...(not that Harvey would likely go out of his way to throw darts at Richard unprovoked...he brings up Richard himself, why would he use that stage to tear him down?) ...general principles would actually have Richard eventually switch off, not to the center Lintzenberger, but to push Lindsay into a Montreal defenseman and then once the defenseman has him under wraps, Richard either manages the weak side middle/high or switches to the left point man...naturally, there are different ways to play defense, but this is a pretty standard zone setup and has been for a while...

Richard chasing Lindsay all the way down to presumably the Chicago attack area (end line?) is not common practice...Richard deserves credit for not chasing the puck around in this spot, but this reads to me as "we gave Richard a lane to own and we all work around that premise"...that's hard work, hell, it might even be good work (I'd have to watch more of the tape, but I've seen more than a few Richard games at this point - it's mostly just hard work)...but this doesn't suggest to me that he's a good defensive player, it just suggests to me that he'll chase a player down in his lane...and there's an important distinction to be made there...and I'm not sure it's obvious...

Fair enough and thanks for the write-up.I don't think anyone will argue that Maurice Richard was a great defensive player, but he was probably better than some offensive wingers soon-to-be eligible, if only through his effort to follow a simple instruction like ''take care of your lane'' and not through any particular defensive skills of his own.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Boom Boom Geoffrion was the clear playoff points leader over the course of the 5-year Habs dynasty and that is in part because he was the point man on the top powerplay unit. Maybe Harvey was second fiddle on that unit.

Usual misdirect.

Regular season Geoffrion was 3rd on the Canadiens in PP scoring during the dynasty years, 4th if the LW role shared by Moore and Olmstead is combined:

NHL.com - Stats


Playoffs:http:NHL.com - Stats

RS an PO combined Geoffrion remains a distant 4th.

Harvey in both instances moved to the left point. Key point is that the left side of the Canadiens PP in the dynasty years was much more productive than the right side. Left side, 295 pts combined to right side 230 pts. Main centers combined 243 points. Obviously Harvey's side was the strongest with him quarterbacking the PP. As the numbers clearly show, Geoffrion's right side was the weakest by about 24% compared to the strongest.

First, one has to understand the nature of the early PP. As posted by overpass years ago early PPs were five forward based. 1953-54 Rangers with Max Bently coaxed out of retirement and running the PP was such a PP. Produced 50 goals with Bentley registering 23PP pts while allowing 6 SHG. Idea thru the 1950s was to work the puck in close.

Modern PP is a back end PP. San Jose is a good example, Burns participated in over 50%of PPGs.Exception being Pittsburgh with Sidney Crosby, team that lead the 2017-18 NHL with 68 PPGs. Worked the puck in close. Top d-man Letang had 20 PP pts.

2017-18 Pittsburgh Penguins Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Back to Harvey and the Canadiens PP. No other contemporary d-man or team came close to his PP leadership and dominance from 1956 thru 1960.

 

[Michael Farkas]

What's your take on Crosby?

I'm not ready for him yet. I had him 13th and then bumped him to 11th...but he belongs in this conversation at this point. He's been the best player in the league since he stepped foot in it, and it's going on 13 years now...and it's just now starting to become questionable. The only bug-a-boo is the injuries of course...he is robbed of at least 1, but probably 2 MVPs (and all that comes with that)...he's a playoff monster, he plays with various incomplete or relatively-unskilled linemates, in the playoffs he plays really strong defense, he goes end line to end line in the postseason...there's just nothing he can't do - fittingly, he's the only active player that belongs anywhere near the conversation we're having right now...I'm still not quite ready for him, but next vote I will be...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Fair enough and thanks for the write-up.I don't think anyone will argue that Maurice Richard was a great defensive player, but he was probably better than some offensive wingers soon-to-be eligible, if only through his effort and not through any particular defensive skills.

Effort is a big part of defense, no question. And you're right...we are about to get into some offense-only wingers...my first offense-only winger wasn't until 15 and it's a Penguin that has not yet been made available to us...some will suggest that I punish them too harshly, I say, nay...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Combo of watching with contemporary accounts and then what people said about him after the fact...it all points to a very specific player "profile" and it makes him pretty simple to diagnose because absolutely nothing points away from it to date.

See, there's only so many different player "types" out there in reality. A lot of guys fall into these molds, some guys are just straight up "regens" of previous players even...it's guys that don't fall into a mold that are difficult to pin down...two guys up for debate right now just don't fall into a good mold...Howie Morenz and Sidney Crosby...luckily, I've ever had the luxury of watching almost every game Sidney Crosby has even played at the pro and international level...Morenz, not so much, I don't get Morenz, the film is too scarce, the newspaper accounts are too varied, the stats don't always match what's said, the whole thing is jumbled by an untimely death...I don't know what to make of him...I can't pin him down to anything...

Shore matches a player type that we still have today. So that's why I feel as confident as I do about him...I am, in full disclosure, against his player type in today's game...while some people find it valuable, a lot more valuable than me...so it's that combo of things that has me a little iffy about him...

I am very, very confident he does not belong in the discussion for top 10 players of all time. I do believe that he's in the conversation for 10 best defensemen of all time however...

Thanks for the answer. Whatever "type" Shore was, he was perfect for his era, when violence was a major part of playing defense. I mean, would someone like Lidstrom have thrived in such an era? How much should it matter?

Based off the existing awards voting we have (Hart voting and All Star voting), Shore led all defensemen in voting 8 times. Call it 8 Norris equivalents.

Now, I do expect Shore to fall behind Harvey and Bourque. But let's not take it so far that we punish a player based on style as much as substance.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

I agree with your point, except for this part. Crosby was nothing special, a disappointment, in fact, in 2010 Olympics. He was not even in the top three Canadian forwards (Toews, Richards, and Staal were). He scored one big goal. Not even remotely on the same level as Hasek's Nagano heroics. Crosby was much more dominant in 2014, 2015 WHC, and 2016.

 

[overpass]

Combo of watching with contemporary accounts and then what people said about him after the fact...it all points to a very specific player "profile" and it makes him pretty simple to diagnose because absolutely nothing points away from it to date.

See, there's only so many different player "types" out there in reality. A lot of guys fall into these molds, some guys are just straight up "regens" of previous players even...it's guys that don't fall into a mold that are difficult to pin down...two guys up for debate right now just don't fall into a good mold...Howie Morenz and Sidney Crosby...luckily, I've ever had the luxury of watching almost every game Sidney Crosby has even played at the pro and international level...Morenz, not so much, I don't get Morenz, the film is too scarce, the newspaper accounts are too varied, the stats don't always match what's said, the whole thing is jumbled by an untimely death...I don't know what to make of him...I can't pin him down to anything...

Shore matches a player type that we still have today. So that's why I feel as confident as I do about him...I am, in full disclosure, against his player type in today's game...while some people find it valuable, a lot more valuable than me...so it's that combo of things that has me a little iffy about him...

I am very, very confident he does not belong in the discussion for top 10 players of all time. I do believe that he's in the conversation for 10 best defensemen of all time however...

I think your archetype is missing Shore’s monomaniacal obsession to master the details of whatever he did and to do it better than anyone else. As a teenager who had shown no outstanding ability (his older brother was considered the better athlete growing up), he decided to become a professional hockey player and from that point on he improved his game to an incredible degree. From weaving his way around chairs to weaving around professional hockey players in a very short time. Far different than a Dustin Byfuglien who has dominated since a young age based in athletic ability and still has never learned many things he should have.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well Geoffrion's assists can come from rebounds of his shots no?

Speaking of rebounds, when did they start being considered as assists, does anyone know?

Progressively from the second half of the 1930s with adjustments along the way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, Lidstrom would have been the best d-man in that era provided he was developed in that era. Lidstrom was highly adaptable.

And what kind of competition was he facing really in the Depression era? I don't mean to be so snide with the comment...but it's a pretty unimpressive bunch...I mean, the best player went and ******* died...that's what I'm saying, there's just not a lot going on...doesn't mean he didn't do it, doesn't mean he can control how many people were too depressed to play or whatever...but I feel like the four Hart Trophies were always just a free pass...like every time I see him come up, the third base coach has got the full windmill going "go for it, you're all good...go in standin' up, don't even slide!" and frankly, I don't think he's anything of the sort...him or Richard for that matter...and I could easily be convinced that Morenz is too big for his britches, while I'm taking names...

Some of these guys get an awful lot of credit for things that we think they did...and I'm just saying "hey, let's take a closer look and what these accounts are really saying and what the tape is really showing..." and at the end of the day, maybe they're twice as great as what we thought they were and that's fine...I just want to sound the alarm that in my research of the situation in conjunction with what I know about the game, I'm not buying Shore right now and I'm not hiding the reasons either...or at least trying not to...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think your archetype is missing Shore’s monomaniacal obsession to master the details of whatever he did and to do it better than anyone else. As a teenager who had shown no outstanding ability (his older brother was considered the better athlete growing up), he decided to become a professional hockey player and from that point on he improved his game to an incredible degree. From weaving his way around chairs to weaving around professional hockey players in a very short time. Far different than a Dustin Byfuglien who has dominated since a young age based in athletic ability and still has never learned many things he should have.

That may well be true, and I do appreciate you indulging me so thoughtfully on this because I am learning things, it is resonating...but my issue is is that these details are always sounding like athletic details...Buff and Burns are good athletes, no question...but they also got be able to haul all that meat around...they're probably about 500 pounds combined (that's like 63.pi hogsheads or something...except for that pusscake Jimmy Carter, we don't D around with the metric system here), they needed to do something to be able to skate like that, shoot like that, etc.

Shore improved to become a superior athlete...I'm not convinced that I see enough to suggest he was hockey smart too...it just doesn't read that way in the stories, it doesn't look that way on the tape to me...

You're right, Buff's an idiot...I saw something where he tried to show kids how to defense or whatever...and he couldn't have been more wrong...he's an absolute clown...but he plays the game at a pretty high level (I know it because I said when I saw him in Prince George I said he wouldn't be more than a fringe NHLer...can't win'em all I suppose)...the fact that Shore was not a better athlete than his brother (who I don't know) is tough for me to contextualize...is he like Richie Cunningham's brother who goes upstairs with a basketball in season 2 and then never comes down again for the rest of the 1970's? I have no idea who that guy is...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, Lidstrom would have been the best d-man in that era provided he was developed in that era. Lidstrom was highly adaptable.

And what kind of competition was he facing really in the Depression era? I don't mean to be so snide with the comment...but it's a pretty unimpressive bunch...I mean, the best player went and ******* died...that's what I'm saying, there's just not a lot going on...doesn't mean he didn't do it, doesn't mean he can control how many people were too depressed to play or whatever...but I feel like the four Hart Trophies were always just a free pass...like every time I see him come up, the third base coach has got the full windmill going "go for it, you're all good...go in standin' up, don't even slide!" and frankly, I don't think he's anything of the sort...him or Richard for that matter...and I could easily be convinced that Morenz is too big for his britches, while I'm taking names...

Some of these guys get an awful lot of credit for things that we think they did...and I'm just saying "hey, let's take a closer look and what these accounts are really saying and what the tape is really showing..." and at the end of the day, maybe they're twice as great as what we thought they were and that's fine...I just want to sound the alarm that in my research of the situation in conjunction with what I know about the game, I'm not buying Shore right now and I'm not hiding the reasons either...or at least trying not to...

This is really teetering on the edge of saying "pre-WW2 hockey sucks."

I can't believe I'm the one defending Shore....

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is really teetering on the edge of saying "pre-WW2 hockey sucks."

I can't believe I'm the one defending Shore....

I think the group knows me better than that.

That said, I do confess that I have some reservations about how much weight is given to pre-1950 hockey...I believe I listed those reasons thoughtfully in one of the prelim threads...particularly as it relates to goaltending...

Again though, I had Morenz in my top 20...I have Shore as 10th-ish best d-man of all time, Richard and Nighbor are in my top 25...I'm not discounting the era entirely...but I'm watching what I can and reading what I can of it, the ambiguity to some things winks at the notion that the greatness didn't prevail like we saw it did in later decades perhaps...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yeah, these things say exactly what I believe him to be and have seen him to be. Like Buff or Burns, they play defense, but it's reckless...it's high risk. Go for the big hit and the steal and the rush. Difference between going for a "hit stick" tackle in football, a de-cleater...versus a safe wrap-up. Yeah, you're still gonna do something with the big hit tactic unless you whiff completely...but it's still a risk exposure. That's just his style. That doesn't mean he was sucky player...he just wasn't this defensive stalwart...

As for goals against, yeah...it's low. He also had an all-time coach in Art Ross and two HOF goalies in Tiny Thompson, then giving way to Frank Brimsek...plus, maybe the best defensive defenseman of the era in Lionel Hitchman for half of that time.

Do we know anything about his time on the coast in this regard?

Was 1926-27 left out because Boston was a middling defensive club and then buttoned up when Thompson replaced Hal Winkler?

Without knowing any other circumstances, I suppose it's right to note that the Indians (AHL) suppressed their GA numbers when he went there...maybe you can hang a hat on that if it's worth anything...I just don't see anything that really points to Shore being this God among men...seems like he was our Brent Burns maybe...where, yeah, he's an impact player...but he's no Harvey...

O6 Springfield had a reputation as a finishing school for defencemen - Bill White, Dale Rolfe, Kent Douglas, Ted Harris, others. Don Cherry was a drop - out.

Key to understanding post consolidation, defencemen is identifying the skaters - Shore, clancy,Sylvio Mantha, then ......

 

[Sentinel]

Thanks for the answer. Whatever "type" Shore was, he was perfect for his era, when violence was a major part of playing defense. I mean, would someone like Lidstrom have thrived in such an era? How much should it matter?

Based off the existing awards voting we have (Hart voting and All Star voting), Shore led all defensemen in voting 8 times. Call it 8 Norris equivalents.

Now, I do expect Shore to fall behind Harvey and Bourque. But let's not take it so far that we punish a player based on style as much as substance.

I seriously can't wrap my mind around the fact that a guy who won the Norris 8 times (with 4 Harts incorporated into this) can fall behind the guy who won the Norris 5 times (with no Harts... OK, 1 in a Gretzky-less world). But Bourque is getting some seriously overratin' here.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Combo of watching with contemporary accounts and then what people said about him after the fact...it all points to a very specific player "profile" and it makes him pretty simple to diagnose because absolutely nothing points away from it to date.

See, there's only so many different player "types" out there in reality. A lot of guys fall into these molds, some guys are just straight up "regens" of previous players even...it's guys that don't fall into a mold that are difficult to pin down...two guys up for debate right now just don't fall into a good mold...Howie Morenz and Sidney Crosby...luckily, I've ever had the luxury of watching almost every game Sidney Crosby has even played at the pro and international level...Morenz, not so much, I don't get Morenz, the film is too scarce, the newspaper accounts are too varied, the stats don't always match what's said, the whole thing is jumbled by an untimely death...I don't know what to make of him...I can't pin him down to anything...

Shore matches a player type that we still have today. So that's why I feel as confident as I do about him...I am, in full disclosure, against his player type in today's game...while some people find it valuable, a lot more valuable than me...so it's that combo of things that has me a little iffy about him...

I am very, very confident he does not belong in the discussion for top 10 players of all time. I do believe that he's in the conversation for 10 best defensemen of all time however...

I found this quote from Cooper Smeaton, NHL referee from 1917-37. Why he didn't pick Eddie Shore on his all-star teams from the early NHL and the 1930's:

(Smeaton)
“No, no Eddie Shore this time. I’m naming defence players and Shore, good as he was, never would have been the player he’s rated if it wasn’t for Lionel Hitchman, “Hitch”, to my mind, was one of the most underrated players of all time as a defenceman. Eddie drew a lot of the credit, but you ask any of those who played against them who they’d want out there if it was a one-man defence. They’d say Shore because they could get around him. None of them ever relished the task of getting by Hitchman.”

Its from a thread on this site: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/all-time-best-players-lists-by-their-contemporaries.2426767/

This seems to be a quote you took to heart describing Shore. It should be noted, though, that Smeaton also did not have Frank Nighbor, rather Joe Malone as his best center on his old timer all-stars. And Joe Primeau over Howie Morenz on the "modern all-stars" (1930's). I might take his Eddie Shore view with a grain of salt.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You keep saying the same three things over and over again, but with no information...

"I miss Hasek...when's Hasek coming home?"
"I don't like Bourque...nobody likes Bourque, right?"
"Isn't Ovechkin great guys? I value the playoffs, but love Hasek and Ovechkin...that's not weird though..."

Can we up our game a little here please...and if you don't have the time, fine, but these odd little snips at players with nothing else to them is not productive...and I say that respectfully because I know you're a good regular here that posts some interesting stuff, but I just don't get what's happening right now...

 

[Canadiens1958]

@Canadiens1958 , for fun, what are your three stars for the 1950s dynasty, and your three stars for the 1960s dynasty? (playoffs only)

1950s
1.)Doug Harvey
2.)JacquesPlante
3.)Jean Beliveau

1960s
1.)Jean Beliveau
2.)Henri Richard
3.)Claude Provost/Ralph Backstrom

 

[MXD]

... I never saw any of those guys play, but if someone picks Joe Primeau ahead of Howie Morenz and Frank Boucher, that person is just begging me to not bother about his opinion (and to be a contrarian).

 

[BenchBrawl]

1950s
1.)Doug Harvey
2.)JacquesPlante
3.)Jean Beliveau

1960s
1.)Jean Beliveau
2.)Henri Richard
3.)Claude Provost/Ralph Backstrom

Thanks!

Not so far from what I had.Only difference Beliveau vs. H.Richard 3rd star of the 50s dynasty, and it was probably a mistake on my part.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All-Star voting records

Roy 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8
Crosby 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 5
Hasek 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 7, 7

Of course, once we get past the top 3 in All-Star voting, we are talking minority support. Once past top 5, we are generally talking "he got a few votes here and there"

So what's the point of this? A really quick and dirty way of showing that Crosby has at least as many noteworthy NHL seasons as Hasek.

IMO, in modern times, center and goalie have generally (though not always) been the toughest All-Star Teams for a player to make consistently.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thanks for the answer. Whatever "type" Shore was, he was perfect for his era, when violence was a major part of playing defense. I mean, would someone like Lidstrom have thrived in such an era? How much should it matter?

Based off the existing awards voting we have (Hart voting and All Star voting), Shore led all defensemen in voting 8 times. Call it 8 Norris equivalents.

Now, I do expect Shore to fall behind Harvey and Bourque. But let's not take it so far that we punish a player based on style as much as substance.

Really hope he doesn't fall behind Bourque. Seems that would be an indictment of the era Shore played in rather than of the player himself. Doesn't seem right.