Dishing the Dirt

[rmartin65]

2. Johnson invented the poke check in Montreal. This was confirmed by Alf Smith and others in very fine detail. The NHL singled him out for his absolute dominance decades later with the poke check, which has to be put into the class of how Nighbor and Walker are talked about, reading everything above. Defensively he was a good as you can get. Offensively he was a sensational rusher, very highly regarded, though his effectiveness was more tied to creating/passing than shooting (missing a few fingers on his left hand key reason)

Interesting. I've seen a couple players credited with the creation of the poke check- two that come to mind (besides Johnson, now) are Peg Duval (according to his brother in the Star Weekly, 16 February 1935 Page 6- though I don't know how much stock to put in this one) and Pud Glass (according to Jack Marshall in the Moncton Transcript, 13 March 1916 Page 6). I've quoted the Moncton Transcript article below-

"You fellers have got it all wrong about the poke check," Jack Marshall announced in the course of a hockey fanning bee. "Every paper I pick up says that this guy Nighbor uses a poke check t perfection, but he doesn't. What Nighbor uses isn't a poke check at all. It's a hook check, that's what it is."

"And don't make any mistakes about who invented the poke check, either. Pud Glass was the genius that first put that idea into force. Ol' Pud Glass, he was the chap. Pud used to have six inches added to his stick on purpose so he could make that poke check of his good, and he was the best poke checker I ever saw, or ever expect to see."

"But about this Nighbor boy. Every time he reaches for the puck he reaches with the inside of his stick, and tries to hook the puck toward him. That's what he does, and that isn't the poke check at all. Now the real poke check, is to poke the puck away from the man that has it. That's the real poke check. What Nighbor uses is a hook, I tell you. It's not a poke at all."

Who else gets strong "old man yelling at clouds" vibes here, haha?

The origin of the puck check has interested me for a bit, because it always strikes me as something that wouldn't need to be invented. So before Johnson/Glass/Duval/whoever players weren't poking the puck away from opponents? That just doesn't make sense to me. What else were they doing in an effort to defend? It's such an intuitive concept/action that I really struggle with it being something that suddenly came into being.

Anyway... it makes sense that there would be some confusion about who did it first, Johnson or Glass (if one of them was indeed first), as they played on the same team for years and were apparently close.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Interesting. I've seen a couple players credited with the creation of the poke check- two that come to mind (besides Johnson, now) are Peg Duval (according to his brother in the Star Weekly, 16 February 1935 Page 6- though I don't know how much stock to put in this one) and Pud Glass (according to Jack Marshall in the Moncton Transcript, 13 March 1916 Page 6). I've quoted the Moncton Transcript article below-



Who else gets strong "old man yelling at clouds" vibes here, haha?

The origin of the puck check has interested me for a bit, because it always strikes me as something that wouldn't need to be invented. So before Johnson/Glass/Duval/whoever players weren't poking the puck away from opponents? That just doesn't make sense to me. What else were they doing in an effort to defend? It's such an intuitive concept/action that I really struggle with it being something that suddenly came into being.

Anyway... it makes sense that there would be some confusion about who did it first, Johnson or Glass (if one of them was indeed first), as they played on the same team for years and were apparently close.

What really excites me is that no matter what I think I know about a player, doing this research always ends up bringing us a clearer picture on the players/coaches from ages long past.

I should have stated "seems to have invented or originated" rather than what looks to be concrete by saying "he invented."

I knew about Glass, but what taken aback by just how often Johnson's check was noted. If it was just Alf Smith, I think there'd be more guesswork and while I don't consider it a slam dunk, the volume and quality of citations, coupled with the actual game reports, makes it pretty likely that Moose was at the very least, one of the first, and eventually best practitioners of the poke-check.

The Barney Gross article in 1916 is key for me. That was written during the middle of Johnson's career (along with most of the other pre-consolidation greats) so remembering or confirming details would seem to be easier and more reliable than say in 1940. And obviously it's just one of the many mentions.

Daily News Advertiser​

Vancouver, Metro Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia, Canada • Sun, Jan 16, 1916Page 12

I also liked this entry I found describing the difference between Nighbor's hook and Moose's poke.

The Sunday Oregonian
Portland, Oregon • Sun, Jan 10, 1915Page 18

 

[ImporterExporter]

And I should add, that while I have a good number of game reports in these latest bio's, I've been primarily focusing more on the grander contemporary praise, such as that Barney Goss piece.

I think you start seeing separation from the stars to superstars when articles such as those appear with consistent frequency, not just during a player's career but decades after.

With the Clapper and Johnson research I also wanted to try and cite sources from beyond their local papers, of which there ended up being a large amount of. Clapper seems to have been one of the most respected players ever, regardless of which city is reporting, and Johnson was being called Taylors equal by the Ottawa papers (Taylor's team) when he was still with the Wanderers. When out west, Vancouver papers lauded him on the grandest scale, even when he was in Portland.

 

[ImporterExporter]

This was another big bullet point from when Johnson was still in the East (1911). Getting called the most sensational player over Taylor, Lalonde, and others speaks volumes, especially coming from a rival city paper.

The Toronto Star​

Toronto, Ontario, Canada • Wed, Jan 11, 1911Page 13

Just a neat "best of" rundown covering numerous categories. Apparently Pud Glass and Fred Lake took the cake for best looking!

 

[ImporterExporter]

Vancouver Daily World​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Sat, Nov 25, 1916Page 14

 

[ImporterExporter]

Great read from early in 1921 talking about how tough it is to find "perfect" hockey player. MacKay cited as closest to that mark. Nice detailed look at other players as well.

The Province​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Thu, Jan 13, 1921Page 20

 

[rmartin65]

In case anyone thought that old-timey reports were too kind to players, I just came across what reads like a hit piece on Hod Stuart (and Ed Hogan). From the Ottawa Journal, 11 December 1906 (page 2)

"Hod is a Marvel?

The Pittsburg Sun gets off something like this: Hod Stuart has long enjoyed the distinction of being the greatest hockey player the game has produced. It is generally conceded that Pittsburg's wonderful cover point is the equal of three ordinary men. His brilliant dashes down the ice furnish a spectacular feature in every game in which he takes part.

And also this: Hogan handles himself in a manner which shows that too much has not been claimed for him. He was universally regarded the most desirable player in the Dominion and most hockey players doubted that the local management would be able to land him.

When eastern hockey followers read the above it will be a case of 'It is to laugh'.

Imagine Hod Stuart as the greatest product of hockey! Stuart is a big, husky boy, with a slashing mow-'em down style, but lacks the finesse that marks the great player. He is not to be compared for a moment with Harvey Pulford, or Pete Charlton, of to-day, or Magnus Flett and the only Mike Grant of the past. This quartet includes the four greatest defense players the game has produced to date. And a for forward work, how about Frank McGee, Harry Trihey, Russell Bowie, Tom Phillips, Alf. Smith, Harry Westwick, Fred Scanlan, Bob McDougall, Shirley Davidson, Dan Bain, Tony Gingras? Any one of this bunch could play rings around Mr. Stuart.

And as for Mr. Hogan, if he is the gentleman one time of Quebec, Pittsburg has been handed a gold brick. In Montreal or Ottawa, and intermediate team would be about his size"

...wow, right? There's a lot to unpack in this one. First of all, it's the opinion of one person at one moment in time. I'm big and stacking one-person, one-moment-in-time quotes on top of each other to build a picture of what the prevailing opinions of the day were, so I don't want to discount this one out of hand, but I will say that this is very much a minority opinion on Stuart.

That said-, minority opinion or not, the author does at least generally seem to have the "right" names when it comes to historically great examples... as far as I have been able to pull together from various sources/contemporary opinions. More so his forward list, haha. I'll start there.

Frank McGee, Russell Bowie, and Tom Phillips were easily the most decorated/celebrated forwards of the 1881-1909 time period. Good, he has them. Alf Smith and Harry 'Rat' Westwick were long time high-caliber players who had been in the game for about a decade at this point, and Ottawa HC was probably the best team around at the time this article was written. They make sense. Then we get into the older players- Harry Trihey was a very popular player and stayed involved in the game. Dan Bain also had a ton of star power. Bob McDougall and Shirley Davidson were also quite celebrated. That leaves Fred Scanlan and Tony Gingras, who, while I think they fall a little lower on the pecking order, their names don't seem too crazy here.

The author's selection of examples for defense is... interesting, to say the least. Harvey Pulford was undoubtedly great, but I am pretty shocked to read criticism of Stuart's finesse then immediately see praise of Harvey Pulford. I mean...Pulford filled his role well, but I don't see anything in the game reports to suggest that finesse was involved in his role. Pete Charlton is an interesting name. Good defender for a long time, mostly in the OHA. Magnus Flett had his fans, but this is the most effusive praise that I've seen (though I'll readily admit I don't have great visibility on what was happening in Manitoba, at least not in comparison to the AHAC/CAHL/ECAHA). Mike Grant tracks, though.

Actually, looking back, all these guys were winners. McGee, Smith, Pulford, and Westwick on Ottawa. McDougall, Davidson, and Grant with the Montreal Victorias. Harry Trihey with the Montreal Shamrocks. Dan Bain and Tony Gingras with the Winnipeg Victorias. Fred Scanlan with the Montreal Shamrocks and the Winnipeg Victorias. Tom Phillips won pretty much everywhere he went. Pete Charlton, as mentioned, did a lot of winning in the OHA. It looks like the author may value playing a prominent role on a dynasty/near dynasty highly... but it's not like Hod Stuart did do his share of winning, too.

Ah, yes, Eddie Hogan- I think describing him as "universally regarded the most desirable player in the Dominion" as the Pittsburg Sun reportedly did is quite an exaggeration (again, based on what I've put together from various sources), but I think he was also much better than an intermediate team player as the author of this article submits. He had some strong seasons in the CAHL and ECAHA with Quebec HC (though clearly, in my opinion, below Paddy Moran, Herb Jordan, and Joe Power in terms of importance to the team), and was sought after by teams in the IPHL and then signed with the powerhouse Renfrew Creamery Kings of the FHL in 1909 (I believe he led the 1909 FHL in scoring, though 5 of the top 6 scorers were Renfrew- Eddie Hogan, Steve Vair, Bobby Rowe, Didier Pitre, and Ernie Liffiton- some very big names at the time).

Basically my take is that the article is interesting and not something we should just discard/ignore... but I also don't think we need to be rushing off to destroy Hod Stuart's (or Eddie Hogan's) reputation and standing around these parts.

That said, since I'm "dishing the dirt" on Stuart, there is also this article from the Pittsburgh Post, 20 March 1904 (page 18)

"A laughable story appeared in one of the local papers, wherein Stuart laid claim to the fact that it was he who had started Arthur Sixsmith on the road to glory. The wise ones are aware of the fact that Hode was never able to secure a place on the champions Ottawas, but was considered fortunate to secure an engagement with the tail-enders in Quebec, on his brother's reputation. Hode did not shine here until after being transferred from wing position to cover point to make room for Charley Liffiton, a local player. Doc Phymeister took him in charge, under whose tutelage Hode became a good defensive man"

I don't know if the motivations/reasonings from the article are accurate, but some of the facts do track. I've mentioned before on the boards that Stuart never really stood out until he left the CAHL. And it is true that he went from Ottawa to Quebec in 1901... and Ottawa HC won the CAHL championship in 1901. Not a great look, though I believe (and I can't find the quote right now) that the Stuart brothers went to Quebec because their father had jobs for them there. So whether or not they couldn't hang in Ottawa is debatable in my opinion. And for what it is worth, in 1902 Bruce returned to Ottawa while Hod stayed with Quebec. Again, though, I don't know if we'll ever really understand the reasonings behind some of these moves. Bruce Stuart did have a big year in 1900, for what it is worth, so maybe there is some credence to the idea that Bruce was the superior Stuart at that point.

Some of the details about Hod Stuart's time in the WPHL are also accurate. Stuart started off at rover and center for the first part of the 1902-03 WPHL season with the Bankers, and wasn't terribly impressive. After Liffiton joined the team they really took off. Continuing the Bruce/Hod comparison, Bruce crushed Hod in terms of production (21 points vs 10.5) and praise (with one game summary calling Bruce "the big dog in the puddle").

 

[rmartin65]

As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, VsX isn't a great way to measure the offensive abilities/results of the pre-consolidation period. The two biggest issues I've noted are 1) talent was spread out over multiple leagues for most of the time, and 2) in lower scoring scenarios, differences of just a couple points could (and did) either boost a player's score super high, or wreck it far more than it "should" (for lack of a better word".

The first problem is going to be hard to solve. I think it's ultimately going to be assigning various weights to the different leagues and applying those weights to the scores achieved within seasons, but I'm not where near ready to work on that. However, I've been working on a variation of VsX that I think helps ameliorate the second issue a bit, and I'd like to get your thoughts on it.

First, I know some people think that pre-consolidation should be measure on a Vs1 basis; that seems crazy to me, as it means that no player from the first 40ish years of hockey can't get a score over 100 for any given season, and that seems crazy to me. Do we really feel good saying that Jamie Benn had a better offensive season than Russell Bowie ever did? I hope not.

Second, a couple examples demonstrating the impact of lower scoring seasons on VsX/Vs2/etc-

In 1891, George 'Bunny' Lowe led the AHAC in points with 5.5 (according to the stats I have collected as of this moment). Second place was Alex Kingan with 3.5, Archie McNaughton was third with 3. That small difference in points resulted in Lowe receiving a Vs2 of 157.14- that's ridiculous, a two point difference shouldn't have that level of impact.

In 1903 Russell Bowie led the CAHL in points with 27.33. Frank McGee was second with 24.33, which means 24.33 would be the benchmark for Vs2. Accordingly, Herb Jordan's third place finish (17 points) would be worth just 69.87 points- again, that feels far too low for the 3rd highest scorer in what was almost certainly the best league in the world.

The 1907 ECAHA is similar- Bowie and Ernie Russell finish well ahead of the pack. Alf Smith's 3rd place finish ends up being worth just 76.89, and Harry Smith's 4th place is worth just 61.36.

I could go on, but I hope this gets the general idea across.

What I decided to try was to use averages, and to have sort of a floating benchmark for the first 3 finishers. Why top 3? In small leagues with talent spread out over multiple leagues, I don't really think anything lower than 3rd is worth going through extra effort for. Top tier offensive talent should be placing at or near third consistently in this environment.

For first, the benchmark became the average of the 1st and 2nd place finishes. That keeps first place finishes above 100, but keeps the number to a more realistic level.

The benchmark for second place remained the same- 2nd.

The benchmark for third place (and below) became the average of the 2nd and 3rd place finishers. This keeps 2 ahead of 3, but pulls up the rear a little bit to account for the issue previously discussed.

Finally, I ran this for all the seasons and have 1-year through 7-year spreads. Here is what the top 10 for each of those look like:

1-Year

Name	Score
Russell Bowie	133.04
Archie McNaughton	126.83
George Lowe	122.22
Bob MacDougall	121.28
Reginald Bradley	118.92
James Virtue	115.00
Haviland Routh	113.29
Dolly Swift	112.00
Marty Walsh	111.56
Harry Trihey	109.86

In case anyone was curious, from 1887-1909 there were 13 players who led the AHAC/CAHL/ECAHA in points, and another 19 who finished (or tied for) second.

2-Year

Name	Score
Archie McNaughton	124.25
Russell Bowie	123.13
Bob MacDougall	114.30
Haviland Routh	110.75
Reginal Bradley	108.55
Harry Trihey	108.48
George Lowe	105.56
Dolly Swift	105.02
Marty Walsh	101.51
Herb Jordan	100.00
Archie Hodgson	100.00
Jack Campbell	100.00

3-Year

Name	Score
Russell Bowie	119.16
Archie McNaughton	124.25
Bob MacDougall	110.71
Haviland Routh	107.16
Harry Trihey	100.27
Dolly Swift	99.54
Art Farrell	98.03
Herb Jordan	97.97
Archie Hodgson	96.09
George Lowe	94.07

4-Year

Name	Score
Russell Bowie	116.09
Bob MacDougall	108.03
Herb Jordan	95.96
Dolly Swift	95.57
Archie Hodgson	90.01
Archie McNaughton	88.90
George Lowe	86.86
Alf Smith	85.08
Harry Trihey	82.38
Haviland Routh	81.94

5-Year

Name	Score
Russell Bowie	114.03
Bob MacDougall	97.39
Herb Jordan	93.03
Dolly Swift	92.69
Alf Smith	83.43
Archie Hodgson	82.20
George Lowe	81.85
Blair Russell	79.38
Shirley Davidson	73.74
Archie McNaughton	73.73

6-Year

Name	Score
Russell Bowie	112.66
Herb Jordan	88.63
Bob MacDougall	87.04
Dolly Swift	85.58
Alf Smith	76.95
Blair Russell	76.35
Archie Hodgson	73.05
George Lowe	72.97
Chauncey Kirby	68.28
Rat Westwick	67.28

7-Year

Name	Score
Russell Bowie	110.85
Herb Jordan	80.86
Dolly Swift	77.46
Bob MacDougall	74.61
Blair Russell	72.72
Alf Smith	71.33
Rat Westwick	65.15
Archie Hodgson	64.73
Chauncey Kirby	62.92
George Lowe	62.55

A couple quick comments:

0) I should have noted this earlier, but I have 1310 player-seasons (not individual players, but total seasons by all players), so my data set includes any player who had one of the top 131 seasons. This ended up being 62 players. For those 62 players, I included all the information they had for the specified timespan and leagues.

1) First, obviously, this only tracks what a player did in the AHAC/CAHL/ECAHA. Players who spent considerable time in other leagues and/or outside the 1887-1909 time-frame are going to look worse here. Look at Marty Walsh, Tommy Phillips, or Frank McGee, for example. Those guys were clearly top 10 offensive forces, but that doesn't show here due to the cutoffs.

2) Russell Bowie... yet another metric where he just looks truly spectacular. The fact that his 7 year score is still at 100 while the next highest player is at just 80 really shows how good of a point producer he was for so long.

3) I don't know if we can really group all the players into this time period into a single VsYear metric fairly, but if I was going to try, I'd pick the 5-Year number.

4) Herb Jordan looks good. A little bit of "always the bridesmaid, never the bride" with him, but I think this really starts to capture his impact once we start looking at 4+ years.

5) Dolly Swift's longevity never fails to amaze me. He debuted 6 years before this time-period, and then also missed some prime years due to Quebec HC not playing in all the early AHAC seasons. And he missed half of 1887.

I also became curious as to what this looks like if we just look at finishes as a rank, and then averaged out a players 1-Year through 7-Year finishes. I've also included the year the player debuted in the AHAC/CAHL/ECAHA. I'd like to stress that this is when they debuted in these leagues, not when they made their Senior debuts, and it doesn't track that several players (Phillips, McGee, etc) didn't always play in this set of leagues, regardless of when they debuted.

I'll pop this table out to 20, because I want to be sure to include Alf Smith and Rat Westwick, because they are an interesting case study I want to mention in a bit:

Rank	Name	Debut	1Y	2Y	3Y	4Y	5Y	6Y	7Y	Average
1	Russell Bowie	1899	1	2	1	1	1	1	1	1.14
2	Bob MacDougall	1894	4	3	3	2	2	3	4	3.00
3	Dolly Swift	1887	8	8	6	4	4	4	3	5.29
4	Herb Jordan	1903	14	10	8	3	3	2	2	6.00
5	Archie McNaughton	1888	2	1	2	6	10	13	15	7.00
6	George Lowe	1887	3	7	10	7	7	8	10	7.43
7	Archie Hodgson	1887	14	10	9	5	6	7	8	8.43
8	Harry Trihey	1897	10	6	9	9	14	16	16	10.86
9	Haviland Routh	1891	7	4	4	10	16	19	19	11.29
10	Alf Smith	1895	34	21	12	8	5	5	6	13.00
11	Shirley Davidson	1893	14	19	18	13	9	11	13	13.86
12	Art Farrell	1897	14	13	7	12	19	20	20	15.00
13	Joe Power	1903	38	20	17	15	15	14	11	15.14
13	Blair Russell	1900	14	23	15	11	8	6	5	15.14
15	Graham Drinkwater	1893	14	22	14	14	17	17	17	16.43
16	Billy Barlow	1891	14	27	22	18	12	12	14	17.00
16	Rat Westwick	1895	14	30	25	20	13	10	7	17.00
18	Bert Russell	1889	11	17	19	22	18	18	18	17.57
19	Chauncey Kirby	1890	36	25	20	16	11	9	9	18.00
20	Jack Campbell	1887	14	10	21	23	24	25	25	20.29
20	Cam Davidson	1894	14	14	13	24	25	26	26	20.29

I think this table really captures the effects of career-length on scoring/Vs whatever scoring finishes. Look at guys like Rat Westwick and Alf Smith. They debuted in 1895, but never really stood out until well into their careers. Rat Westwick especially was a rather poor point producer (comparing to historical greats), who played long enough to just outlast other players.

Plus, it should be noted that neither Alf Smith nor Rat Westwick achieved their highest-value offensive seasons early on- Westwick's highest score came in 1902, Alf Smith in I believe 1906.

As always, I welcome any thoughts, comments, or ideas. Or if any of this data looks suspect, I'll be glad to check if I made any errors.