HOH 2022-23 Project: Top-60 Pre-Merger Players of All-Time Pre-Discussion thread

[Professor What]

Just a random thought, but I have a feeling that there's going to be more variance in these lists than any project the board has seen before.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Just a random thought, but I have a feeling that there's going to be more variance in these lists than any project the board has seen before.

All about how high people put Bowie, because then based on Bowie's placement the 00s stars need to get ranked appropriately relative to him like Ernie Russell.

Wouldn't be shocked by people making a "Big-4" of pre-consolidation of Nighbor/Taylor/Lalonde/Bowie

However I assume most people's #4 will be either Vezina or Cleghorn

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I get the guy has done the most research on this era of anyone, but unless he's an active participant I'm steering clear of relying on a lot of his statistics. They have value of course, but as I tried to reproduce them with the scant instructions on his blog it's just opaque enough to be impossible to reproduce which he fully acknowledges as there are enough fudges in there to open a candy store in Banff.

I'm treating his meritious man lists as people who should be considered but will fully ignore them for rankings.

Edit: His positions are somewhat incorrect. Taylor is a CP/Rover/Center and Lester played a fair amount of Rover besides P & CP

I'm trying to steer clear of "engineering" the list or trying to meet specific quotas. Obviously if your list has 76 forwards and 4 defenders, maybe a re-evaluation is in order, but I think this is a project where building a clear consensus probably isn't likely to happen and needn't be the goal.

Do guys from the 1800s get dinged for short careers? Do goalies from an era where regular players could sub in at the position and not significantly handicap their team get left out in the cold? I think it's going to come down to personal taste a lot more than other projects, and I think that's fine. Personally I think it would be great if somebody went out and built a case for Bowie or McGee or Trihey or somebody else as the greatest player of the era, whether or not anyone else is convinced of it.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Quoting myself from the ATD Dishing Dirt thread (full of information)

1925 Maclean's list with "voters" listing their All-Star team to the present. A useful data point from contemporary observers

W.A Hewitt - Toronto Star

G: Percy Leseur
D: Hod Stuart
D: Eddie Gerard
C: Newsy Lalonde
RW: George Richardson
LW: Tommy Phillips

Lester Patrick

G: Hugh Lehman
D: Sprague Cleghorn
D: Hod Stuart
RW: Arthur Farrell
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Tom Phillips

J.E. Abern - Halifax Herald

G: John Ross Roach
D: Hod Stuart
D: Alan Davidson
RW: Dubbie Kerr
C: Mickey MacKay
LW: Newsy Lalonde

Tommy Gorman

G: Georges Vezina
D: Eddie Gerard
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Scott Davidson
C: Frank Nighbor
LW: George Hay

W.J. Morrison - Montreal Gazette

(Modern)
G: Clint Benedict
D: Georges Boucher
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Babe Dye
C: Billy Burch
LW: Cy Dennenay

(Old)
G: Mike Merritt
D: Mike Grant
D: Harvey Pulford
RW: Jim Gardner
C: Frank McGee
LW: Tom Phillips

Sandy Hook (?)

G: Percy Leseur
D: Hod Stuart
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Scotty Davidson
C: Russell Bowie
LW: Harry Watson

Also has kind words for F. Frederickson, T. Phillips, B. Dye. Vezina and E. Gerard

Bruce Boreham - Winnipeg Tribune

G: Georges Vezina
D: Joe Simpson
D: Eddie Gerrade
RW: Babe Dye
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: George Hay

K.G.H McConnell - Edmonton Bulletin

G: Percy Leseur
D: Joe Simpson
D: George Boucher
RW: Alf Smith
C: Duke Keats
LW: Tommy Phillips

Roy Halpin - Quebec Daily Telegraph

G: Georges Vezina
D: Sprague Cleghorn
D: Art Ross
RW: Aurel Joliat
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Joe Malone

Ross MacKay - The Star

G: Georges Vezina
D: Hod Stuart
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Scotty Davidson
C: Frank Nighbor
LW: Tommy Phillips

Harry Scott - Calgary

G: Georges Vezina
D: Ernie Johnson
D: Hod Stuart
RW: Newsy Lalonde
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Tommy Phillips

Mr Young -

G: Hugh Lehman
D: XXX
D: XXX
RW: Russell Bowie
C: Frank Nighbor
LW: Tommy Phillips

Art Ross

G: Paddy Moran
D: Hod Stuart
D: Si Griffis
D: Lester Patrick
F: Russell Bowie
F: Tommy Phillips
F: Cyclone Taylor
F: Frank Nighbor
F: Frank McGee
F: Tony Gingras

Frank Shaughnessey

G: Clint Benedict
D: Hod Stuart
D: Eddie Gerard
RW: Alf Smith
C: Russell Bowie
LW: Tommy Phillips

James T Sutherland's list is hard to follow I'll fix it later

I have 14 lists here accounted for removing Ross's because he refused to list just 6

Taylor - 4/13
Lalonde - 2/13
Bowie - 3/13
Nighbor - 3/13
Tommy Phillips 9/13

@seventieslord with some good commentary

So it appears these are all the guys named more than once:

Tommy Phillips 10
Stuart 8
Cleghorn 6
Vezina 6
Taylor - 5
Bowie - 4
Nighbor - 4
Davidson - 4
Gerard 4
Lalonde - 3
Lesueur 3
Dye 3
Simpson 2
Benedict 2
Boucher 2
Smith 2
Hay 2
Lehman 2
McGee 2

Guys named once:

RW: George Richardson
RW: Arthur Farrell
G: John Ross Roach
RW: Dubbie Kerr
C: Mickey MacKay
C: Billy Burch
LW: Cy Dennenay
G: Mike Merritt
D: Mike Grant
D: Harvey Pulford
RW: Jim Gardner
LW: Harry Watson
F. Frederickson,
C: Duke Keats
D: Art Ross
RW: Aurel Joliat
LW: Joe Malone
D: Ernie Johnson
G: Paddy Moran
D: Si Griffis
D: Lester Patrick
F: Tony Gingras

LW: Tommy Phillips is the near unanimous choice and with good reason. Not only was he an outstanding player, there's no one else worth naming! George Hay was making a name for himself by then; it's worth mentioning.

RW: If you believe these lists, Scotty Davidson was the best RW of all-time as of 1925, with Alf Smith getting some love and Babe Dye up-and-coming. Five others were named once, three of whom weren't right wingers. The list makers probably knew this and were just trying to fit on players they otherwise couldn't.

What to make of this? Not much that we don't already know. Davidson was a pretty good player when he played - he must have really passed the eye test for these guys. But at the same time, do I believe he was actually better than Didier Pitre, Punch Broadbent, Jack Walker, Jack Darragh or Harry Hyland, who had all played full careers by 1925? Or even Harry Oliver, who had played much of his prime? Or even Eddie Oatman? (to say nothing of Smith and Dye, who actually received votes) No, I don't. Not on a career basis for sure, and I'm pretty sure not at their respective bests either. I can only assume the votes cast for Davidson were meant as tributes to a fallen soldier and hero. Davidson, to me, still looks like an above average NHA player for two seasons.

C: Taylor, Bowie and Nighbor all top the list, followed closely by Lalonde, then by McGee. This, more than anything, matches ATD/HOH canon. In fact, if you assume two things - 1) that Nighbor, with six seasons still to play, had not completely cemented his reputation, and 2) that in 1925 they understandably lacked the historical perspective we have 90 years later to judge players of Bowie and McGee's generation by a slightly tougher standard - then you could say their assessment of the best centers of the day perfectly matches ours.

D: You've got Stuart with 8 mentions, Cleghorn with 6, Gerard with 4, Simpson and Boucher with 2, and then many of the usual suspects got a vote; in fact, almost no one was left out. Our HOH list has pre-merger defensemen as follows: Cleghorn, Gerard, Stuart, Johnson, Boucher, Cameron, Patrick, Pulford. Stuart is very understandable because: 1) he actually was a very good player, 2) he died young and gets some of the same benefit as Davidson, 3) same lack of historical perspective that might affect Bowie/McGee relative to newer, superior centers, and 4) they all got to name two defensemen so unlike C/LW/RW/D, there was room to name an old guy and a new guy. Simpson with 2 votes is a little surprising, but keep in mind he was in the middle of his WCHL heyday at the time. Most snubbed players? I'd select two for this honour. Johnson should have more than a vote. If Simpson/Boucher have 2 and Gerard 4, I'd have liked to have seen Johnson with 3. And Cameron not getting a single vote when Grant, Ross and Griffis each got one seems a little off.

G: Vezina the clear winner with 6, followed by the best eye test goalie of the previous generation, LeSueur. Benedict and Lehman with two votes each, with Roach, Moran and the completely-out-of-left-field Mike Merritt earning one vote. Vezina was by most accounts, the best of his time, however, it was not unanimous over Benedict, even with the "benefit" of an early tragic death. I'd use the "historical perspective" excuse for Benedict not getting as many votes as his predecessor Lesueur, but also one was the best of his generation and one was 2nd, putting him at a clear disadvantage. I'm more interested in who didn't pick up the last few remaining votes: Holmes shut out in favour of Lehman, and Lesueur cleaning up on Moran, Hern and Hutton, with only one defector going for Moran. These votes very closely match what we now know as canon, which makes me happy.

 

[jigglysquishy]

All about how high people put Bowie, because then based on Bowie's placement the 00s stars need to get ranked appropriately relative to him like Ernie Russell.

Wouldn't be shocked by people making a "Big-4" of pre-consolidation of Nighbor/Taylor/Lalonde/Bowie

However I assume most people's #4 will be either Vezina or Cleghorn

I am leaning towards Bowie in my top 5.

Nighbor/Taylor/Lalonde as my 1/2/3 has been that way for years (pretty much since I failed in getting a Round 1 list done for the 2018 project).

After that it's wide open. Cleghorn and Bowie are currently flip flopping at 4 and 5. Vezina, Benedict and Malone right up there too.

 

[overpass]

@ResilientBeast the list credited to Sandy Hook was actually from Lou Marsh, longtime referee and writer for the Toronto Star.

“Mr Young” is O.F. Young of Port Arthur (now Thunder Bay) and he listed Doc Gibson and Roy Brown at defence.

Thanks for posting the Macleans list. It’s unique as a source for this project. We’re obviously not going to take it as gospel, but it’s a must-read.

I wonder what the voting would look like if you broke it down by region.

 

[Professor What]

All about how high people put Bowie, because then based on Bowie's placement the 00s stars need to get ranked appropriately relative to him like Ernie Russell.

Wouldn't be shocked by people making a "Big-4" of pre-consolidation of Nighbor/Taylor/Lalonde/Bowie

However I assume most people's #4 will be either Vezina or Cleghorn

I've got Bowie in my top 10, but unless something drastically changes, he won't be in contention for my top 4. I actually found that I had very little disagreement with the order results of the pre-consolidation players that have made the previous top lists.

 

[overpass]

Only 3 lists were included from Canada’s western provinces. These 3 lists included the only 2 votes for Joe Simpson and the only vote for Ernie “Moose” Johnson. So I think it’s fair to question whether the eastern list-makers were able to give WCHL and PCHA stars a fair evaluation.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I've got Bowie in my top 10, but unless something drastically changes, he won't be in contention for my top 4. I actually found that I had very little disagreement with the order results of the pre-consolidation players that have made the previous top lists.

I am leaning towards Bowie in my top 5.

Nighbor/Taylor/Lalonde as my 1/2/3 has been that way for years (pretty much since I failed in getting a Round 1 list done for the 2018 project).

After that it's wide open. Cleghorn and Bowie are currently flip flopping at 4 and 5. Vezina, Benedict and Malone right up there too.

I'll be interested to see how your placements on Bowie (1880) affect the placement of players like Ernie Russell (1883), Frank McGee (1882), Marty Walsh (1884) and Herb Jordan (1884) who were born a couple of years later and stuck around into the NHA enough and weren't so staunchly against professional sports (besides McGee).

I'm fairly confident in Bowie > Russell > McGee > Walsh > Jordan but have never really full explored the rest of Bowie's contemporaries and contrasted them

I also for some reason never realize McGee retired at 23.....

 

[Professor What]

Only 3 lists were included from Canada’s western provinces. These 3 lists included the only 2 votes for Joe Simpson and the only vote for Ernie “Moose” Johnson. So I think it’s fair to question whether the eastern list-makers were able to give WCHL and PCHA stars a fair evaluation.

I can be convinced to move guys. The little disagreement is more the initial gut instinct that I talked about earlier. I'm not making my deep dives yet.

I'll be interested to see how your placements on Bowie (1880) affect the placement of players like Ernie Russell (1883), Frank McGee (1882), Marty Walsh (1884) and Herb Jordan (1884) who were born a couple of years later and stuck around into the NHA enough and weren't so staunchly against professional sports (besides McGee).

I'm fairly confident in Bowie > Russell > McGee > Walsh > Jordan but have never really full explored the rest of Bowie's contemporaries and contrasted them

I also for some reason never realize McGee retired at 23.....

I think McGee for peak has to be viewed well, but yeah, that early retirement... I haven't added him yet, and I'd be lying if I said I knew where I'm going to plug him in initially.

 

[Sanf]

Dude. If you have nothing better to do than step into someone's conversation simply to crap all over it for your own jollies, do the decent thing and mind your own business and just continue engaging in something you enjoy in life. Fleas.

I´m not sure what your goal is. Honestly even in History forum this project would be amongst minority. Why are you keen to want them/us to join your project or your way to rank players? I don´t know, but I do not believe that there are any restriction that you can start your own project here. To be honest your might be more "popular". If you want to cut the historical aspect out of it then you might need to start it on the main forum?

But then you might have difficult time to orchestrate your project. People may have different opinions of when the "real hockey" started. Often it seem to be roughly at the time when they started to watch hockey.

And I do not mean to be offending. I do not know you. Just wondering what is the point of this.

 

[ResilientBeast]

These sorts of arguments have come up before and I'm not sure who would've been voting at the time (regarding having actually watched these players first hand) but should we lend much credence to HHOF induction order?

Ignoring 1945 which was for posthumous induction, by my eyes I get this list.

1947 - Bowie, Taylor, Nighbor, Bain & Ross
1950 - Davidson, Drinkwater, Grant, Griffis, Lalonde, Malone , Richardson & Trihey
1952 - Boon, Johnson, MacKay
1958 - Cleghorn, Foyston, Fredrickson, Gardiner, Hay, Irvin, Keats, Lehman, McNamara, Moran
1959 - Adams, Denneny
1960 - Boucher, Walker
1961 - Hall, LeSueur, Stuart
1962 - Broadbent, Hyland, Maxwell, Noble, Smith
1963 - Cameron, Crawford, Darragh, Gardner, Gilmour, Hern, Hooper, Laviolette, Hutton, McGimsie, Pitre, Simpson, Walsh, Stanley, Westwick, Watson, Whitcroft
1965 - Benedict, Farrell, Marshall, Russel, Russell, Scanlan
1970 - Dye
1971 - Roberts
1972 - Holmes
1973 - Smith
1974 - Dunderdale

Edit: Some can be explained like Cleghorn & Hall being assholes didn't help. But why would someone like Pitre have to wait so long

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'll be interested to see how your placements on Bowie (1880) affect the placement of players like Ernie Russell (1883), Frank McGee (1882), Marty Walsh (1884) and Herb Jordan (1884) who were born a couple of years later and stuck around into the NHA enough and weren't so staunchly against professional sports (besides McGee).

I'm fairly confident in Bowie > Russell > McGee > Walsh > Jordan but have never really full explored the rest of Bowie's contemporaries and contrasted them

I also for some reason never realize McGee retired at 23.....

I have Bowie high and Russell somewhere in my top half. I'm starting with forward/ Defenseman/ goalie rankings separately before throwing it all together. I have Russell in my top 20 forwards.

McGee has a huge legend and peak, but I struggle to actually rank him.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I have Bowie high and Russell somewhere in my top half. I'm starting with forward/ Defenseman/ goalie rankings separately before throwing it all together. I have Russell in my top 20 forwards.

McGee has a huge legend and peak, but I struggle to actually rank him.

1904 Ottawa leaves the CAHL mid season and McGee is on pace for 24 goals in 8 games if they stayed compared with Bowie's 27.

1906 in ECAHA is an interesting comparison point because the Victoria's are not an offensively deep team while Ottawa has 3 in the top 10. Bowie and McGee wind up quite close in scoring and then promptly retires.

It's also not helped that McGee's team was legendarily good and the Victoria's were kinda crap outside of Bowie in terms of high end talent.

He wins a single cup in 1899 with McDougall, Grant & Drinkwater on the team. Then never plays in a cup challenge again. The team could score as evidenced by 1907 where they almost scored the same amount of goals as the undefeated Wanderers (105 vs 101) but they gave up nearly 3 goals against per game more than the Wanderers.

 

[kaiser matias]

1904 Ottawa leaves the CAHL mid season and McGee is on pace for 24 goals in 8 games if they stayed compared with Bowie's 27.

1906 in ECAHA is an interesting comparison point because the Victoria's are not an offensively deep team while Ottawa has 3 in the top 10. Bowie and McGee wind up quite close in scoring and then promptly retires.

It's also not helped that McGee's team was legendarily good and the Victoria's were kinda crap outside of Bowie in terms of high end talent.

He wins a single cup in 1899 with McDougall, Grant & Drinkwater on the team. Then never plays in a cup challenge again. The team could score as evidenced by 1907 where they almost scored the same amount of goals as the undefeated Wanderers (105 vs 101) but they gave up nearly 3 goals against per game more than the Wanderers.

That's what Coleman largely said as well in Trail: Bowie and McGee were very similarly ranked during their era, the only difference being McGee won the Cup (and has his 14 goal game), while Bowie didn't (not sure why Coleman doesn't consider Bowie a winner in 1899).

They were neck and neck in scoring the few years they played directly against each other though.

 

[seventieslord]

My god. Has anyone tried to make a list yet? The names that there simply can't be room for are plenty.

Are we sure we don't want to just make this a top-100? We don't have to make the project any longer, we could just vote in more players each round.

 

[seventieslord]

I believe there are 81 players eligible for this project who are in the HHOF. On that basis alone, they are all worthy of discussion, even if categorically dismissed:

Graham	Drinkwater	C	D
Harvey	Pulford	D
Mike	Grant	D
Dan	Bain	C
Alf	Smith	RW	LW
Harry	Westwick	C
Hod	Stuart	D
Russell	Bowie	C	Rover
Bruce	Stuart	C
Blair	Russell	LW
Jack	Marshall	D	C/LW/RW
Tommy	Phillips	LW	RW
Si	Griffis	D	C
Joe	Hall	D	RW
Frank	McGee	C
Ernie "Moose"	Johnson	D
Lester	Patrick	D
Didier	Pitre	RW	D
Percy	Lesueur	G
Newsy	Lalonde	C
Art	Ross	D
Ernie	Russell	C	RW
Cyclone	Taylor	C	D
Tommy	Smith	C	LW
Hugh	Lehman	G
Tommy	Dunderdale	C
Marty	Walsh	C
Eddie	Gerard	D	LW
Rusty	Crawford	LW	C
Joe	Malone	C
Hap	Holmes	G
Gord	Roberts	LW
Eddie	Oatman	RW	D
Sprague	Cleghorn	D
Georges	Vezina	G
Jack	Darragh	RW
Frank	Foyston	C	LW
Frank	Nighbor	C	LW
Clint	Benedict	G
Punch	Broadbent	RW
Harry	Cameron	D
Reg	Noble	LW	D/C
Jack	Walker	RW	C/LW
Cy	Denneny	LW
Mickey	MacKay	C	LW/RW
Georges	Boucher	D	C
Duke	Keats	C
Babe	Dye	RW
Harry E.	Watson	LW
Jack	Adams	C	LW
Herb	Gardiner	D
Frank	Fredrickson	C
Joe	Simpson	D
Harry	Oliver	RW	C
George	Hay	LW
Dick	Irvin	C
Paddy	Moran	G
Billy	McGimsie	C
Harry	Trihey	C
Allan "Scotty"	Davidson	RW
George	McNamara	D
Fred	Scanlan	LW
Moose	Goheen	LW	D
Billy	Gilmour	RW	D
Dickie	Boon	D
Hobey	Baker	C	D
Bouse	Hutton	G
Phat	Wilson	D
Jimmy	Gardner	LW
Arthur	Farrell	RW
Frederick	Whitcroft	C
Tom	Hooper	D	RW
Shorty	Green	RW
George	Richardson	LW
Barney	Stanley	RW	D
Jack	Laviolette	D	RW
Harry	Hyland	RW
Frank	Rankin	Rover
Jack	Ruttan	D
Steamer	Maxwell	Rover
Oliver	Seibert	C

Here are 100 others not in the HHOF. Not all are that worthy of consideration. A good 50-60 of these will likely make at least a single list, and probably 30-40 of them will end up being discussed in round 2 debates.

Harry	Smith	C	LW
Hamby	Shore	D
Bobby	Rowe	D	RW
Ken	Randall	RW	D/C
Odie	Cleghorn	RW	C
Smokey	Harris	LW
Cully	Wilson	RW
Alf	Skinner	RW
Bernie	Morris	C	RW
Lloyd	Cook	D
Bert	Corbeau	D
Art	Duncan	D
Frank	Patrick	D	RW
Billy	Boucher	RW
Carson	Cooper	RW
Corb	Denneny	C	RW/LW
Leo	Reise Sr.	D
Herb	Jordan	C
Allan	Cameron	D
Walter	Smaill	D	C/LW
Gord	Fraser	D
Art	Gagne	RW
Harry	Mummery	D
Howard	McNamara	D
Louis	Berlinguette	LW
Billy	Coutu	D
Tom	Paton	G
Slim	Halderson	D	LW
Weldy	Young	D
Clarence	McKerrow	C
Skene	Ronan	C	D
Percy	Traub	D
Bob	McDougall	RW
Billy	Nicholson	G
Tony	Gingras	RW
Haviland	Routh	C	RW
Jack	Marks	RW	LW/D
Ran	McDonald	RW
Don	Smith	LW	C
Dolly	Swift	C
Bert	Lindsay	G
Billy	Breen
Charles	Tobin	RW	D/LW
Art	Moore	D
Jim	Riley	LW
Cecil	Blachford	C	LW/RW
Jack	Campbell	D
Bob	Trapp	D
James	Stewart	D
Bruce	Ridpath	RW
Harry	Meeking	LW
Bert	McCaffrey	D	RW
Barney	Holden	D
Atty	Howard	RW	D
Jack	Armytage	C	Rover
Fred	Lake	D
Riley	Hern	G
Art	Hooper	Rover
Goldie	Prodgers	D	LW
Clem	Loughlin	D
Billy	Barlow	C	LW/RW
Cam	Davidson	C
Herbert	Russell	LW	D
Jack	Arnton	D
Jack	McDonald	LW
Mickey	Roach	C
Hal	Winkler	G
Jack	Findlay	C	LW/RW
Jack	Brannen	C	LW/RW
Skinner	Poulin	C
Lorne	Campbell	C
Ken	Mallen	RW
Hec	Fowler	G
Roy	Rickey	D
Rocket	Power	D
Red	Green	LW
Herbert	Collins	G
Roxy	Beaudro	RW
Fred	Higginbotham	D
Rod	Flett	D
Jake	Forbes	G
Oren	Frood	LW
Horace	Gaul	RW
Abbie	Newell	D
Shirley	Davidson	LW	C/RW
Ernie	McLea	C
Eddie	Carpenter	D
Billy	Stuart	D
Frank "Coddy"	Winters	D
Archie	Briden	LW
Joe	Matte	D
Eddie	Giroux	G
Art	Throop	LW
Bobby	Genge	D
Steve	Vair	C
George	Merritt	G
Ty	Arbour	LW
Amby	Moran	D
Billy	Bell	RW
Joe	Power	LW

I'm going to try to sort these lists out by decade and start to make some preliminary lists before combining them all into one.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think Top 100 is too much. Makes the Round 1 list too prohibitive. Also, adding more players per round risks stretching the discussions too thin.

Top 60 seems like a good balance.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Brought my spreadsheet to work because if I'm going to do hockey research on company time may as well have my tools.

Dominant scorer pre-Bowie is a difficult one.

During Routh's stretch as the dominant scorer 93-95 Montreal AAA scored a total of 96 regular season goals based on SIHR's data Routh is responsible for 46 of them ~48%.

MacDougall never cracked 40% in a single season of his teams goals. Over his best 4 year stretch the Victoria's scored 177 goals 43 of them scored by MacDougall accounts for ~24%

The advantage MacDougall has is "longevity". He played 4 full quality seasons vs Routh really having 2 by his own standards (94 is a bit of down year).

MacDougall did play slightly later in the advent of organized hockey so that is absolutely worth something

 

[Michael Farkas]

My god. Has anyone tried to make a list yet? The names that there simply can't be room for are plenty.

Are we sure we don't want to just make this a top-100? We don't have to make the project any longer, we could just vote in more players each round.

I don't think "names there [are no] room for" is exclusive to this list/era...I'd stay the course, personally. A longer list doesn't necessarily make it better...there's going to be a lot of inferring done to read into the quality of the game I feel like, or at least, die trying...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Frank McGee vs Russell Bowie, overlapping seasons (1902-03 through 1905-06)

McGee - 23 GP 71 G (Playoffs 22 GP 63 G) Total: 45 GP 134 G
Bowie - 32 GP 106 G (Playoffs 2 GP 0 G) Total: 34 GP 106 G

Very very close on a per game basis.

The two key differences I see.

Bowie's career extends both before and after McGee's. He finished first in goals (by more than double) in 1901, and a close second in 1902. I can't find any record of McGee's stats while playing for the Ottawa Aberdeens. Bowie finishes a close second to Russell in 1907 and first in 1908. In an era of limited longevity, Bowie can say he played elite hockey both before and after McGee's career.

The Ottawa Silver Sevens were a much stronger team. In the 1906 season, they scored 90 goals as a team, with McGee scoring 28 (31%), though he did miss three games. Teammate Harry Smith scored 31. Alf Smith also helped out with 13 goals. They were the strongest offensive team in the league, second best defensive team, and had the best goal differential (+48).

That same season the Victorias scored 76 goals, with Bowie scoring 30 (39.5%), while missing one game. No other Victoria scored more than 11 goals. The Victorias were the second strongest offensive team that season, but only had a goal differential of +3.

The point being, Ottawa was a much stronger team than the Victorias. So while McGee posted a higher GPG this year than Bowie, he did so with more help across the club. The club owned the Stanley Cup from March 1903 until March 1906.

How much do we take the most dominant run of the Challenge Cup era as a result of McGee's offensive dominance? How much do we take from them being the deepest team, including possibly the best defender of the era, Harvey Pulford?

For me, ranking Bowie much higher than McGee is easy due to longevity. But McGee is absolutely with him peak-for-peak.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Frank McGee vs Russell Bowie, overlapping seasons (1902-03 through 1905-06)

McGee - 23 GP 71 G (Playoffs 22 GP 63 G) Total: 45 GP 134 G
Bowie - 32 GP 106 G (Playoffs 2 GP 0 G) Total: 34 GP 106 G

Very very close on a per game basis.

The two key differences I see.

Bowie's career extends both before and after McGee's. He finished first in goals (by more than double) in 1901, and a close second in 1902. I can't find any record of McGee's stats while playing for the Ottawa Aberdeens. Bowie finishes a close second to Russell in 1907 and first in 1908. In an era of limited longevity, Bowie can say he played elite hockey both before and after McGee's career.

The Ottawa Silver Sevens were a much stronger team. In the 1906 season, they scored 90 goals as a team, with McGee scoring 28 (31%), though he did miss three games. Teammate Harry Smith scored 31. Alf Smith also helped out with 13 goals. They were the strongest offensive team in the league, second best defensive team, and had the best goal differential (+48).

That same season the Victorias scored 76 goals, with Bowie scoring 30 (39.5%), while missing one game. No other Victoria scored more than 11 goals. The Victorias were the second strongest offensive team that season, but only had a goal differential of +3.

The point being, Ottawa was a much stronger team than the Victorias. So while McGee posted a higher GPG this year than Bowie, he did so with more help across the club. The club owned the Stanley Cup from March 1903 until March 1906.

How much do we take the most dominant run of the Challenge Cup era as a result of McGee's offensive dominance? How much do we take from them being the deepest team, including possibly the best defender of the era, Harvey Pulford?

For me, ranking Bowie much higher than McGee is easy due to longevity. But McGee is absolutely with him peak-for-peak.

It's interesting looking at the numbers. Using Iain's method of calculating marginal goals and expected win percentage here's what the Victorias look like during Bowie's career.

Based on their underlying numbers they performed worse than marginal goals would expect in terms of win percentage. And in their best season in 1904-05 they were denied a cup challenge against Ottawa, which would've been a useful data point.

To give context to the table below (tables I'll keep posting as we talk teams)

% offense - How much of a team's points can be explained by their offense
e WP% - Expected win percentage of a team with these GF & GA in their league
a WP% - Actual win percentage

	GP	W	L	T	GF	GA	Points	% Offence	e WP%	a WP%	Diff
1898-1899Montreal Victorias	8	6	2	0	44	23	12	58.1%	85.7%	75.0%	-10.7%
1899-1900Montreal Victorias	8	2	6	0	44	55	4	94.7%	35.4%	25.0%	-10.4%
1900-1901Montreal Victorias	8	4	3	1	45	32	9	66.0%	70.7%	50.0%	-20.7%
1901-1902Montreal Victorias	8	4	4	0	36	25	8	50.7%	68.2%	50.0%	-18.2%
1902-1903Montreal Victorias	8	6	2	0	48	33	12	60.7%	71.3%	75.0%	3.7%
1903-1904Montreal Victorias	8	5	3	0	75	48	10	73.6%	80.3%	62.5%	-17.8%
1904-1905Montreal Victorias	10	9	1	0	64	32	18	48.0%	82.2%	90.0%	7.8%
1905-1906Montreal Victorias	10	6	4	0	76	73	12	68.0%	52.4%	60.0%	7.6%
1906-1907Montreal Victorias	10	6	4	0	101	70	12	59.2%	70.5%	60.0%	-10.5%

It should be noted that despite winning the league the Victorias according to expected win percentage were actually just barely worse than the 8-2 Quebec Hockey Club.

The 1904-05 Ottawa Hockey Club in the FAHL were ludicrously good, they have an expected win percentage over 100% because their underlying numbers were so good.

Despite being a one man show, the Vics probably should have won even more than they actually did in real life based on the underlying numbers. Likely because the team outside of Blair Russel will probably not come up in this project at all

Edit: And when I say ludicrously good in the FAHL 60 GF 19 GA. That's crazy

 

[seventieslord]

Frank McGee vs Russell Bowie, overlapping seasons (1902-03 through 1905-06)

McGee - 23 GP 71 G (Playoffs 22 GP 63 G) Total: 45 GP 134 G
Bowie - 32 GP 106 G (Playoffs 2 GP 0 G) Total: 34 GP 106 G

Very very close on a per game basis.

The two key differences I see.

Bowie's career extends both before and after McGee's. He finished first in goals (by more than double) in 1901, and a close second in 1902. I can't find any record of McGee's stats while playing for the Ottawa Aberdeens. Bowie finishes a close second to Russell in 1907 and first in 1908. In an era of limited longevity, Bowie can say he played elite hockey both before and after McGee's career.

The Ottawa Silver Sevens were a much stronger team. In the 1906 season, they scored 90 goals as a team, with McGee scoring 28 (31%), though he did miss three games. Teammate Harry Smith scored 31. Alf Smith also helped out with 13 goals. They were the strongest offensive team in the league, second best defensive team, and had the best goal differential (+48).

That same season the Victorias scored 76 goals, with Bowie scoring 30 (39.5%), while missing one game. No other Victoria scored more than 11 goals. The Victorias were the second strongest offensive team that season, but only had a goal differential of +3.

The point being, Ottawa was a much stronger team than the Victorias. So while McGee posted a higher GPG this year than Bowie, he did so with more help across the club. The club owned the Stanley Cup from March 1903 until March 1906.

How much do we take the most dominant run of the Challenge Cup era as a result of McGee's offensive dominance? How much do we take from them being the deepest team, including possibly the best defender of the era, Harvey Pulford?

For me, ranking Bowie much higher than McGee is easy due to longevity. But McGee is absolutely with him peak-for-peak.

I don't know if peak numbers between McGee and Bowie are comparable as apples to apples. Bowie was always in the league recognized as the best one, while at least a couple of McGee's years were spent in the noticeably lower quality fahl.

 

[ResilientBeast]

It's interesting looking at the numbers. Using Iain's method of calculating marginal goals and expected win percentage here's what the Victorias look like during Bowie's career.

Based on their underlying numbers they performed worse than marginal goals would expect in terms of win percentage. And in their best season in 1904-05 they were denied a cup challenge against Ottawa, which would've been a useful data point.

To give context to the table below (tables I'll keep posting as we talk teams)

% offense - How much of a team's points can be explained by their offense
e WP% - Expected win percentage of a team with these GF & GA in their league
a WP% - Actual win percentage

	GP	W	L	T	GF	GA	Points	% Offence	e WP%	a WP%	Diff
1898-1899Montreal Victorias	8	6	2	0	44	23	12	58.1%	85.7%	75.0%	-10.7%
1899-1900Montreal Victorias	8	2	6	0	44	55	4	94.7%	35.4%	25.0%	-10.4%
1900-1901Montreal Victorias	8	4	3	1	45	32	9	66.0%	70.7%	50.0%	-20.7%
1901-1902Montreal Victorias	8	4	4	0	36	25	8	50.7%	68.2%	50.0%	-18.2%
1902-1903Montreal Victorias	8	6	2	0	48	33	12	60.7%	71.3%	75.0%	3.7%
1903-1904Montreal Victorias	8	5	3	0	75	48	10	73.6%	80.3%	62.5%	-17.8%
1904-1905Montreal Victorias	10	9	1	0	64	32	18	48.0%	82.2%	90.0%	7.8%
1905-1906Montreal Victorias	10	6	4	0	76	73	12	68.0%	52.4%	60.0%	7.6%
1906-1907Montreal Victorias	10	6	4	0	101	70	12	59.2%	70.5%	60.0%	-10.5%

It should be noted that despite winning the league the Victorias according to expected win percentage were actually just barely worse than the 8-2 Quebec Hockey Club.

The 1904-05 Ottawa Hockey Club in the FAHL were ludicrously good, they have an expected win percentage over 100% because their underlying numbers were so good.

Despite being a one man show, the Vics probably should have won even more than they actually did in real life based on the underlying numbers. Likely because the team outside of Blair Russel will probably not come up in this project at all

Edit: And when I say ludicrously good in the FAHL 60 GF 19 GA. That's crazy

I was curious so here's the Victorias expected win% tracked with actual win% from MacDougall's first full season to Bowie's last in top level hockey.

Victoria's win the cup in 1899, MacDougall and Drinkwater retire and the team craters as one would expect losing two great players. Bowie also is only in his second full season and scores a paltry 15 goals in 7 games. The Vics rebound eventually but are never quite as dominant as during MacDougall's peak until near the end of Bowie's career.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Nothing quite hits right like a morning cup of coffee while looking at an Excel graph of expected goals of 1900s hockey.