1931-1940 Hart Voting

[Canadiens1958]

Spillover from another thread "Top 10 Primes" see link.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=749290

Short version. Various posters have remarked that the 1930's Hart Trophy voting showed a BIAS towards defensemen. Bias is a very strong word that carries implications of unfairness, prejudice, manipulation (see Bourque/Messier). Let's have a close look at this alleged bias, starting with an outline of factors. I'll list three to start.Add others before we continue.

Forward Pass
Prior to the start of the 1930-31 season the NHL liberalized forward passing. The new rules greatly impacted the role of defensemen and the skill set of skaters. Defensemen in particular had to worry about the forward pass while defending yet they were also of the forefront of the changes offensively - genesis of the outlet pass and the transition game. Effectively the defenseman became very pivotal in the new forward pass era. This would significantly impact performance and the Hart voting.

Age
Very interesting age phenomena. The 1931-40 Hart Trophy voting produced 7 out of 10 winners who were 30 or older - Shore being the oldest ever at 35. Since 1941 only 14 winners out of the 68 Hart Trophy winners have been thirty or older 70% versus 20+%.

Talent Infusion
The 1931-40 era saw very little new talent at the high end. Hard to find a true generational talent entering the NHL starting with the 1930-31 season, especially true for the first half of the decade. Only two strong defensemen - Coulter and Seibert. Second half only three strong mid-level forwards - Apps Sr., Blake and Schmidt.

Based on the above there is no evidence to suggest bias rather we have a reflection in the Hart Trophy voting of how the game was evolving and adapting given circumstances - rule changes, player population and other factors.

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

What's your point?

 

[pitseleh]

First off, that's a very distorted definition of bias. Bias isn't necessarily malicious or manipulative.

How does your point about age tie to your conclusion?

Also, the high end talent thing only really affects the late thirties. The early thirties had elite all-time forwards like Morenz, Cook, Conacher, Jackson, and Boucher at the forefront. The talent level of the second half of the decade is pretty comparable to the first half of this decade and yet you don't see the same shift to defenceman. I think it's a leap in logic to tie it to more Hart votes for defenceman.

The simplest explanation makes the most sense - the introduction of the Norris shifted voters away from giving Hart votes to defencemen.

 

[overpass]

First off, that's a very distorted definition of bias. Bias isn't necessarily malicious or manipulative.

How does your point about age tie to your conclusion?

Also, the high end talent thing only really affects the late thirties. The early thirties had elite all-time forwards like Morenz, Cook, Conacher, Jackson, and Boucher at the forefront. The talent level of the second half of the decade is pretty comparable to the first half of this decade and yet you don't see the same shift to defenceman. I think it's a leap in logic to tie it to more Hart votes for defenceman.

The simplest explanation makes the most sense - the introduction of the Norris shifted voters away from giving Hart votes to defencemen.

The first half of this decade featured a playing style that made it difficult for defencemen to stand out, with little open ice and few special teams opportunities. I don't know much about playing styles of the 1930s, but it seems likely to me that the forward pass increased the opportunities for defencemen to contribute, much as the elimination of the two-line pass rule has increased the opportunities for defencemen to contribute. I don't know if that was a factor in Hart voting in the 1930s, but it should have been.

 

[pitseleh]

The first half of this decade featured a playing style that made it difficult for defencemen to stand out, with little open ice and few special teams opportunities. I don't know much about playing styles of the 1930s, but it seems likely to me that the forward pass increased the opportunities for defencemen to contribute, much as the elimination of the two-line pass rule has increased the opportunities for defencemen to contribute.

It may have affected their ability to stand out but at the same time I don't think it had a huge impact on their value.

I don't know if that was a factor in Hart voting in the 1930s, but it should have been.

I don't think there was. There was the same type of representation of defencemen in Hart voting prior to the removal of the forward pass rule. It's not as though there was a huge increase that coincided with the removal of the forward pass.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bias and Actual Performance

First off, that's a very distorted definition of bias. Bias isn't necessarily malicious or manipulative.

How does your point about age tie to your conclusion?

Also, the high end talent thing only really affects the late thirties. The early thirties had elite all-time forwards like Morenz, Cook, Conacher, Jackson, and Boucher at the forefront. The talent level of the second half of the decade is pretty comparable to the first half of this decade and yet you don't see the same shift to defenceman. I think it's a leap in logic to tie it to more Hart votes for defenceman.

The simplest explanation makes the most sense - the introduction of the Norris shifted voters away from giving Hart votes to defencemen.

Bias. The posters making claims of the alleged bias have never clearly defined the said bias so it is up to the posters making the claim of bias to step up with their definition or in the alternative retract the claim.

Your claim - bolded is simply not supported by statistical evidence. Player by player the scoring leaders from the second half of the thirties - Blake, Dillon, Schriner, Schmidt are 1-3 tiers below the HOFers who led scoring in the first half of the thirties. Neither from the standpoint of prime, longevity or accomplishments do they match Morenz,Cook, Boucher, Conacher,while Jackson is debatable.

The Hart Trophy was not / is not a measure of talent but a measure of value. The voting reflects the value aspect of defensemen of the era around the the forward pass rule modifications.Defensemen who could sustain defensive value AND adapt to the new offensive opportunities and demands had great value.Defensemen had value at both ends of the ice. Forwards simply had greater opportunity and freedom of movement but goal hanging that some perfected for awhile was recognized for what it was.

Age - the young, inexperienced players were not as able to adapt to the new rules and demands so their value was nowhere as great as the experience players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My Point

What's your point?

My point is clear in the last paragraph of the first post of this thread.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don't think the forward pass explains the difference.

I agree that defensemen were able to take a larger role in their teams' offense in the 1930s due to the changes in the forward passing rules. This would explain why defensemen received more Hart votes in the 1930s compared to the 1920s.

However, this doesn't explain why defensemen in the 1930s received more Hart votes than defensemen in every subsequent generation (since the forward passing rules have remained relatively similar over the past 80 years).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Step by Step

I don't think the forward pass explains the difference.

I agree that defensemen were able to take a larger role in their teams' offense in the 1930s due to the changes in the forward passing rules. This would explain why defensemen received more Hart votes in the 1930s compared to the 1920s.

However, this doesn't explain why defensemen in the 1930s received more Hart votes than defensemen in every subsequent generation (since the forward passing rules have remained relatively similar over the past 80 years).

Presently the focus is the 1930's. The other eras will be looked at in due time.The introduction of the red line in the forties further changed the game as did the arrival of NHL coaches who played the game under the liberalized forward passing rules.You also had the adjustments to offensive and defensive strategies throughout the period in question.

The issue at hand is still the "bias" claim. Define and support the claim or withdraw it.

Presently all that is on the table is an observation that supports the view that the Hart Trophy voting reflected how the game was played in the 1930's and who the valuable players were.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

The issue at hand is still the "bias" claim. Define and support the claim or withdraw it.

Presently all that is on the table is an observation that supports the view that the Hart Trophy voting reflected how the game was played in the 1930's and who the valuable players were.

The claim is that voters were more likely to vote for defencemen prior to WWII then they were after. This is supported by the basic fact that defencemen were far more likely to get Hart votes and a much wider range of defencemen got award support than afterwards.

From 1925-26 to 1943-44, a defenceman finished in the top 3 in Hart voting in every single season except two. Here is the entire list of names of defencemen who accomplished this (source: the HFBoards award and all-star voting thread):

Sprague Cleghorn
Herb Gardiner
Eddie Shore
Lionel Hitchman
King Clancy
Ching Johnson
Lionel Conacher
Art Coulter
Babe Siebert
Ebbie Goodfellow
Dit Clapper
Tom Anderson
Walter Pratt

From 1944-45 to 1967-68 (i.e. until Bobby Orr), a defenceman finished in the top 3 in Hart voting only 5 times. Here are the only players who managed to do it:

Red Kelly
Doug Harvey

That gives us the following comparison of top-3 defencemen Hart finishes:

1925-1944: 24 times in 19 seasons, 13 different players
1944-1968: 5 times in 24 seasons, 2 different players

As for the forward pass rule, here are the voting results for the two years immediately prior:

1928-29
HART: (310)
1. Roy Worters, NYA G 74
2. Ace Bailey, Tor RW 64
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 62
4. Sylvio Mantha, Mtl D 60
5. King Clancy, Ott D 50

1929-30
HART: (426)
1. Nels Stewart, Mtl M C 101
2. Lionel Hitchman, Bos D 94
3. Cooney Weiland, Bos C 79
4. King Clancy, Tor D 77
5. Frank Boucher, NYR C 75

This an open and shut case. After WWII, voters were way less likely to vote defencemen for the Hart. Trying to attribute it to situational factors really strains credibility. Furthermore, later periods are absolutely relevant in this discussion because they present a comparative. Whether early voters were biased towards defencemen or later voters were biased against defencemen, the result is the same: We have to adjust Hart voting results for defencemen by era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why?

The claim is that voters were more likely to vote for defencemen prior to WWII then they were after. This is supported by the basic fact that defencemen were far more likely to get Hart votes and a much wider range of defencemen got award support than afterwards.

From 1925-26 to 1943-44, a defenceman finished in the top 3 in Hart voting in every single season except two. Here is the entire list of names of defencemen who accomplished this (source: the HFBoards award and all-star voting thread):

Sprague Cleghorn
Herb Gardiner
Eddie Shore
Lionel Hitchman
King Clancy
Ching Johnson
Lionel Conacher
Art Coulter
Babe Siebert
Ebbie Goodfellow
Dit Clapper
Tom Anderson
Walter Pratt

From 1944-45 to 1967-68 (i.e. until Bobby Orr), a defenceman finished in the top 3 in Hart voting only 5 times. Here are the only players who managed to do it:

Red Kelly
Doug Harvey

That gives us the following comparison of top-3 defencemen Hart finishes:

1925-1944: 24 times in 19 seasons, 13 different players
1944-1968: 5 times in 24 seasons, 2 different players

As for the forward pass rule, here are the voting results for the two years immediately prior:

1928-29
HART: (310)
1. Roy Worters, NYA G 74
2. Ace Bailey, Tor RW 64
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 62
4. Sylvio Mantha, Mtl D 60
5. King Clancy, Ott D 50

1929-30
HART: (426)
1. Nels Stewart, Mtl M C 101
2. Lionel Hitchman, Bos D 94
3. Cooney Weiland, Bos C 79
4. King Clancy, Tor D 77
5. Frank Boucher, NYR C 75

This an open and shut case. After WWII, voters were way less likely to vote defencemen for the Hart. Trying to attribute it to situational factors really strains credibility. Furthermore, later periods are absolutely relevant in this discussion because they present a comparative. Whether early voters were biased towards defencemen or later voters were biased against defencemen, the result is the same: We have to adjust Hart voting results for defencemen by era.

All you are doing is arguing that a superficial answer is the only one.
Like pretending that in Canada there is a winter bias to overcoats while in summer there is a bias to t-shirts. Dismissing that the outdoor temperature (a situational) has any impact on the choice.

The NHL made a conscious effort to generate offense after the 1928-29 season which was the height of defensive hockey. The start of the 1929-30 season saw rule changes re the forward pass designed to generate offense. These rules were tweaked in season with other rules designed to eliminate what had become goal hogging. Starting with the 1930-31 season you had stable rules re the forward pass.The 1944 introduction of the red line, designed to reduce offsides and increase the speed of the game (TTOTSC II) furthered offensive hockey.

Rather interesting coincidence that the introduction of the Red Line signaled a change in the Hart Trophy voting patterns. The Norris Trophy was still nine seasons away.

The defensemen you list from the era are a representation of the eight core NHL franchises of the era. Depending on the team's performance, their value is reflected in the Hart Trophy voting. No bias involved.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I don't think the rule change explains it, because we saw similar voting patterns prior to 1929-30.

1926-27: 2 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Gardiner 1st, Clancy 5th)

1927-28: 2 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Shore 3rd, Johnson 5th)

1928-29: 3 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Shore 3rd, Mantha 4th, Clancy 5th)

Then the forward passing rules were changed before the 1929-30 season, and amended partway through the season.

1929-30: 2 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Hitchman 2nd, Clancy 5th)

1930-31: 3 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Shore 2nd, Clancy 3rd, Goodfellow 4rh)

1931-32: 1 of 2 finalists were defensemen (Johnson 2nd). Data for 3rd through 5th is unavailable.


In the three years before 1929-30, 47% of finalists (7 of 15) were defensemen.

In the next three years, 50% of finalists (6 of 12) were defensemen.

That's a very minor difference. If the 1929-30 rule change caused people to vote for defensemen, then we wouldn't see such a large percentage of votes going to defensemen before that season.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensemen

I don't think the rule change explains it, because we saw similar voting patterns prior to 1929-30.

1926-27: 2 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Gardiner 1st, Clancy 5th)

1927-28: 2 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Shore 3rd, Johnson 5th)

1928-29: 3 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Shore 3rd, Mantha 4th, Clancy 5th)

Then the forward passing rules were changed before the 1929-30 season, and amended partway through the season.

1929-30: 2 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Hitchman 2nd, Clancy 5th)

1930-31: 3 of 5 finalists were defensemen (Shore 2nd, Clancy 3rd, Goodfellow 4rh)

1931-32: 1 of 2 finalists were defensemen (Johnson 2nd). Data for 3rd through 5th is unavailable.


In the three years before 1929-30, 47% of finalists (7 of 15) were defensemen.

In the next three years, 50% of finalists (6 of 12) were defensemen.

That's a very minor difference. If the 1929-30 rule change caused people to vote for defensemen, then we wouldn't see such a large percentage of votes going to defensemen before that season.

Pre 1929-30 the Hart voting reflects the defensive nature and direction of the game. The subsequent voting thru the 1930's reflects the strength and depth of defensemen and how well, better than forwards, they adapted to the new forward pass rules.

The issue again is whether there was bias in the voting. Lets look at the Calder voting.

If you look at the Calder voting between 1933 and 1955 very few d-men received votes and no defenseman won the Calder.
You had Bucko McDonald - 1936,Wally Stanowski - 1940, Glen Harmon - 1943, Frank Eddolls - 1945,Red Kelly - 1948, Allan Stanley - 1949, Hy Buller - 1952, Leo Boivin - 1953, Gord Hollingsworth - 1955 receiving votes. From the lot only Kelly was a top tier player and he earned serious Hart consideration.

The defensemen who entered the NHL in the thirties were not of the same quality as Shore or the older generation - basically you would have Art Coulter, Earl Seibert, Jack Stewart, with only Seibert approaching top tier quality.

The claim of bias does not extend to the Calder voting. Why? Same games, similar voting.

Simple fact seems to be that the voters were reflecting the nature of the game, the value of the players and the capabilities of the newcomers.

Implying bias does the voters and the game a great disservice.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

"Pre 1929-30 the Hart voting reflects the defensive nature and direction of the game."

If this is the case, I'd expect a lot of defensemen to receive Hart votes during the "dead puck" era in the 1990's. However, virtually no defensemen were Hart finalists between 1995 and 2004*.


"The subsequent voting thru the 1930's reflects the strength and depth of defensemen and how well, better than forwards, they adapted to the new forward pass rules."

This is certainly a plausible explanation, but how do we know it's true?

Is there evidence (aside from the Hart results, which is what we're examining) that defensemen adapted to the new rules more effectively than forwards? Otherwise this is a circular argument ("defensemen earned more Hart votes because they adapted better, and we know they adapted better because they earned more Hart votes").


"Simple fact seems to be that the voters were reflecting... the capabilities of the newcomers."

Most people here believe that there was a very high number of elite defensemen in their primes during the eighties to mid-nineties. If the Hart voters reflected the value of newcomers, I'd expect a lot of defensemen in the 1980s-1990s to earn votes for the Hart trophy, since this was arguably the greatest generation of elite defensemen in NHL history.

However, we only see that defensemen are 14% of finalists in the 1980s-1990s**, compared to 45-50% in the 1920s-1930s (as shown in my previous post). That's a massive decrease and few would argue that the 1980s-1990s had, in general, better defensemen than the 1930's. Thus, the voting record is not consistent and does not reflect the quality of the defensemen in the league at the time.


"The claim of bias does not extend to the Calder voting. Why? Same games, similar voting."

Your point about the Calder is interesting. I haven't really studied or though about the Calder. This deserves further thought.


====
* In fact, just two defensemen (Coffey 4th in 1995; Pronger 1st in 2000) finished in the top five between 1995 and 2004. (2 of a possible 50 finalists = 4%).

** Between 1985 and 1994, seven defensemen (Langway 4th in 1985; Bourque 5th in 1985; Howe 4th in 1986; Coffey 5th in 1986; Bourque 2nd in 1987; Bourque 2nd in 1990; Bourque 4th in 1991) finished in the top five. This is 14%. More than we saw in the "dead puck era", but far less than what we saw during the 1920's and 1930s. Bourque singlehandedly makes up more than half of those finalists!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scoring Leaders

"Pre 1929-30 the Hart voting reflects the defensive nature and direction of the game."

If this is the case, I'd expect a lot of defensemen to receive Hart votes during the "dead puck" era in the 1990's. However, virtually no defensemen were Hart finalists between 1995 and 2004*.


"The subsequent voting thru the 1930's reflects the strength and depth of defensemen and how well, better than forwards, they adapted to the new forward pass rules."

This is certainly a plausible explanation, but how do we know it's true?

Is there evidence (aside from the Hart results, which is what we're examining) that defensemen adapted to the new rules more effectively than forwards? Otherwise this is a circular argument ("defensemen earned more Hart votes because they adapted better, and we know they adapted better because they earned more Hart votes").


"Simple fact seems to be that the voters were reflecting... the capabilities of the newcomers."

Most people here believe that there was a very high number of elite defensemen in their primes during the eighties to mid-nineties. If the Hart voters reflected the value of newcomers, I'd expect a lot of defensemen in the 1980s-1990s to earn votes for the Hart trophy, since this was arguably the greatest generation of elite defensemen in NHL history.

However, we only see that defensemen are 14% of finalists in the 1980s-1990s**, compared to 45-50% in the 1920s-1930s (as shown in my previous post). That's a massive decrease and few would argue that the 1980s-1990s had, in general, better defensemen than the 1930's. Thus, the voting record is not consistent and does not reflect the quality of the defensemen in the league at the time.


"The claim of bias does not extend to the Calder voting. Why? Same games, similar voting."

Your point about the Calder is interesting. I haven't really studied or though about the Calder. This deserves further thought.


====
* In fact, just two defensemen (Coffey 4th in 1995; Pronger 1st in 2000) finished in the top five between 1995 and 2004. (2 of a possible 50 finalists = 4%).

** Between 1985 and 1994, seven defensemen (Langway 4th in 1985; Bourque 5th in 1985; Howe 4th in 1986; Coffey 5th in 1986; Bourque 2nd in 1987; Bourque 2nd in 1990; Bourque 4th in 1991) finished in the top five. This is 14%. More than we saw in the "dead puck era", but far less than what we saw during the 1920's and 1930s. Bourque singlehandedly makes up more than half of those finalists!

Look at the Scoring Leaders from the twenties thru the thirties:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_yearly.html

Factor out Bailey 1928-29 and Weiland 1929-30 and you basically have early 1920's point levels but with more games. Malone's 1919-20 number wins a few titles during the post 1929-30 thirties.


Look at Eddie Shore point totals from the 1929-30 season onwards compared to previous:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/shoreed01.html

Notice the significant increase in assists from a pre forward pass high of 7 Shore goes to a high of 27.Almost a four fold increase.

Contrast the Shore numbers with Howie Morenz:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/morenho01.html

Shore's playmaking was at least on a par with Morenz post 1929. In fact the point could be made that Howie Morenz did not benefit from the forward pass rule.

Your point about the 1980's and 1990's is a half argument. The thirties did not have forwards the caliber of Gretzky, Lemieux,Yzerman, Sakic, and others. All recognizably superior to Charlie Conacher - only thirties forward of note. Conversely when the offensive studs were eliminated early in the playoffs defensemen won Conn Smythe Trophies in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's - five at least MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, Neidermayer, Lidstrom.

Further to your point re d-men and Hart voting in the eighties and nineties, other that Coffey in 1986 all played on teams that did not have a stud center /forward who could generate offense.

Again when all is said and done you are left with the voting reflecting the value of those who played the game in any given era. That you have a resulting statistically quirk is not evidence of bias.

 

[seventieslord]

1931-32: 1 of 2 finalists were defensemen (Johnson 2nd). Data for 3rd through 5th is unavailable.

.

2 of 4. I have Hooley Smith and Red Dutton 3rd and 4th.

Pre 1929-30 the Hart voting reflects the defensive nature and direction of the game. The subsequent voting thru the 1930's reflects the strength and depth of defensemen and how well, better than forwards, they adapted to the new forward pass rules.

The issue again is whether there was bias in the voting. Lets look at the Calder voting.

If you look at the Calder voting between 1933 and 1955 very few d-men received votes and no defenseman won the Calder.
You had Bucko McDonald - 1936,Wally Stanowski - 1940, Glen Harmon - 1943, Frank Eddolls - 1945,Red Kelly - 1948, Allan Stanley - 1949, Hy Buller - 1952, Leo Boivin - 1953, Gord Hollingsworth - 1955 receiving votes. From the lot only Kelly was a top tier player and he earned serious Hart consideration.

The defensemen who entered the NHL in the thirties were not of the same quality as Shore or the older generation - basically you would have Art Coulter, Earl Seibert, Jack Stewart, with only Seibert approaching top tier quality.

The claim of bias does not extend to the Calder voting. Why? Same games, similar voting.

Simple fact seems to be that the voters were reflecting the nature of the game, the value of the players and the capabilities of the newcomers.

Implying bias does the voters and the game a great disservice.

This post is the definition of making something out of nothing.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

"Your point about the 1980's and 1990's is a half argument. The thirties did not have forwards the caliber of Gretzky, Lemieux,Yzerman, Sakic, and others. All recognizably superior to Charlie Conacher - only thirties forward of note..."

True - we need to consider the forwards as well. I'm in full agreement that the best forwards of the 1980's were better than the best forwards of the 1930's. If we saw defensemen getting twice the number of votes in the 1930's, I think I'd be okay with that.

But the gap is so large it hasn't (so far) been explained away.

52% of Hart finalists (top three) were defensemen in the 1930s. Source.

4% of Hart finalists (top three) were defensmen between 1985-1994 (2 of 50 potential finalists). Source.

Were the 1980's forwards so good that there were 13 times as many valuable defensemen in the 1930s?


"Look at the Scoring Leaders from the twenties thru the thirties:"

I'm not sure how this point is relevant. Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau peaked in a very low scoring era, but nobody would argue that they're less valuable than the defensemen of that era.


"In fact the point could be made that Howie Morenz did not benefit from the forward pass rule."

Morenz adapted, like most of the NHL's best players. In the first four years after the rule change, he was 2nd in the NHL in scoring, won two Hart trophies, and was a three-time all-star. (source)


"Notice the significant increase in assists from a pre forward pass high of 7 Shore goes to a high of 27.Almost a four fold increase."

The only relevant question is - did Shore improve relative to the rest of the league? If Shore scored a lot more after the rule change, but everyone else did as well, then he was no more valuable after the rule change.

1927-1929: Shore is 18th in scoring (source)
1930-32: Shore is 24th in scoring (source)

I'm not going to pretend that there's a huge difference between 18th and 24th place. Shore was just as productive after the rule changes, as he was before it.

2 of 4. I have Hooley Smith and Red Dutton 3rd and 4th.

Thanks. Out of curiosity where did you find this?

 

[seventieslord]

Thanks. Out of curiosity where did you find this?

I have to have found it on these boards somewhere. In all likelihood it was mentioned in the awards voting thread when someone posted an old article they found.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

"Your point about the 1980's and 1990's is a half argument. The thirties did not have forwards the caliber of Gretzky, Lemieux,Yzerman, Sakic, and others. All recognizably superior to Charlie Conacher - only thirties forward of note..."

True - we need to consider the forwards as well. I'm in full agreement that the best forwards of the 1980's were better than the best forwards of the 1930's. If we saw defensemen getting twice the number of votes in the 1930's, I think I'd be okay with that.

But the gap is so large it hasn't (so far) been explained away.

52% of Hart finalists (top three) were defensemen in the 1930s. Source.

4% of Hart finalists (top three) were defensmen between 1985-1994 (2 of 50 potential finalists). Source.

Were the 1980's forwards so good that there were 13 times as many valuable defensemen in the 1930s?


"Look at the Scoring Leaders from the twenties thru the thirties:"

I'm not sure how this point is relevant. Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau peaked in a very low scoring era, but nobody would argue that they're less valuable than the defensemen of that era.


"In fact the point could be made that Howie Morenz did not benefit from the forward pass rule."

Morenz adapted, like most of the NHL's best players. In the first four years after the rule change, he was 2nd in the NHL in scoring, won two Hart trophies, and was a three-time all-star. (source)


"Notice the significant increase in assists from a pre forward pass high of 7 Shore goes to a high of 27.Almost a four fold increase."

The only relevant question is - did Shore improve relative to the rest of the league? If Shore scored a lot more after the rule change, but everyone else did as well, then he was no more valuable after the rule change.

1927-1929: Shore is 18th in scoring (source)
1930-32: Shore is 24th in scoring (source)

I'm not going to pretend that there's a huge difference between 18th and 24th place. Shore was just as productive after the rule changes, as he was before it.



Thanks. Out of curiosity where did you find this?

Comparing 1930's defensemen to the 1980's and 1990's defensemen is tricky.In the thirties virtually all the teams had quality HHOF d-men, exceptions being Ottawa/St.Louis,Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for the few seasons they were in the league.Some had two or three - Leafs. In the 1980's and 1990's you may have had more total quality d-men but the impact was limited to a minority of the teams. In the thirties any move upwards in the standings was linked to the performance of defensemen. In the 1980's and 1990's this was not so - example Winnipeg with Dale Hawerchuk, Detroit with Yzerman, Pittsburgh with Lemieux, Quebec with Sakic. The respective voting reflects this phenomena either directly or indirectly.

Howie Morenz.four best seasons 49/50/51/51 points the two 51s split before and after the rule change The 49 and 50 after the rule change. Eddie Shore 19 point best before the rule change 31,31,35 afterwards. Shore's point performance improved significantly > 60%.
Not exactly just as productive while Morenz's performance more or less flatlined or showed a single digit improvement.Bringing the Shore / Morenz scoring analogy full circle they were tied point wise during the 1932-33 season.

The fact that Shore is 18th in scoring before and 24th after the rule change on a league basis is truly irrelevant since that is not the objective of the game. The objective was and is for the team to be in the best possible position in the standings at the end of the regular season. Excluding the 1929-30 season which was a transitional season with in season rule adjustments, the Bruins finished first in their division during the 1930-31 season, Shore was 7(38/31) points from the team scoring lead, the 1932-33 season, Shore was 2 points(37/35) from the team scoring lead, 1934-35 Shore was 7 points(40/33) of the team scoring lead. In terms of % he would have been less than 20% behind in two of the season and less than 6% behind. Compare this to the gap between Kelly and Howe or Harvey and Beliveau and the value/impact that Shore had on the Bruins is clear. Howe more than doubled Kelly's points in the 1949-57 period during three seasons,usually Kelly finished at least 28% behind Howe. During the 1955-61 period Beliveau more than doubled Harvey's totals during four season with Harvey never finishing higher than 30% below Beliveau.

Regardless of how the comparisons are made Eddie Shore's regular season value to his team stands out. The same is true for the other elite d-men of the thirties. This was not the case with Harvey and Kelly in the fifties. At times they approached such value but were somewhat short. Likewise Bourque in the eighties / early nineties.

Again no bias just a recognition of value.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Calder Voting

2 of 4. I have Hooley Smith and Red Dutton 3rd and 4th.



This post is the definition of making something out of nothing.

Calder voting is very interesting if you know how to interpret it. Examples - early fifties voting reflects the potential strength of the New York Rangers that was butchered by the poor coaching of Phil Watson, likewise it reflects the strong NHL goaltending that would carry over into the 1960's.On a yearly basis Sanderson / Lemaire reflects how talent may be wasted or developed by a studious approach to the game.

Data is like restaurants - given the same ingredients and equipment not all Italian restaurants will produce a quality pizza. Likewise some may not see rather obvious links between bits of data