Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[seventieslord]

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

these are the actual numbers, I have no idea how matnor and mxd calculated them and if it works out the same.

Mathematically, I think the best way to calculate how much scoring went down in the playoffs during a player's career would be to divide the playoffs average by the season average for each season, then weigh by how many playoff games the player played in each season. Easy to do with a spreadsheet. Hooley's average is probably in the -22% range.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Non Playoff Teams

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

these are the actual numbers, I have no idea how matnor and mxd calculated them and if it works out the same.

Mathematically, I think the best way to calculate how much scoring went down in the playoffs during a player's career would be to divide the playoffs average by the season average for each season, then weigh by how many playoff games the player played in each season. Easy to do with a spreadsheet. Hooley's average is probably in the -22% range.

Factoring out the impact on regular season scoring by the non playoff teams could be rather useful.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Earlier I posted a study on Russell Bowie's statistical dominance over his peers. I left with these two questions, hoping to start a conversation, but it didn't happen. Here I'll post 2 sources that would agree with having Russell Bowie be the next pre-consolidation center on the list.

The 1925 MacLean's Magazine's All-Time All-Star Teams by Position

From the yahoo hockey history group:



First Team All-Star Center: Frank Nighbor
Second Team All-Star Center: Russell Bowie
Third Team All-Star Center: Newsy Lalonde

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/hockhist/conversations/topics/20402

Two things must be said for the MacLean's list:

1) It was heavily criticized in the press in Western Canada for barely representing players who made their names out West (in the PCHA or WCHL). Cyclone Taylor was basically a throw-in at 3rd Team Left Wing. But perhaps it is noteworthy that Russell Bowie ranked above fellow eastern players Newsy Lalonde and Joe Malone? Or perhaps not:

2) The list obviously treats the pre-1910 generation as equals to the 1910-1926 generation, something that we no longer do. (If you follow the link above, it is obvious). However, at worst, it shows that Bowie was considered the best center of his generation (better than Frank McGee) - if we didn't already know that.

Is it noteworthy how much respect the "experts" of 1925 gave the 1900-1910 generation of which Bowie was a part, while basically not recognizing any player who played before then?

The Trail of The Stanley Cup Vol 1. (1966)

At the end of Vol. 1 of The Trail of the Stanley Cup the author, Charles L. Coleman, selected his all-star team for 1893-1926. He considered Cyclone Taylor and Newsy Lalonde to be rovers, not forwards.

The nominees for forwards were: Russell Bowie, Harry Broadbent, Jack Darragh, Cy Denneny, Frank Foyston, Harry Hyland, Joe Malone, Frank Nighbor, Didier Pitre, Gordon Roberts, and Ernie Russell

He selected Russell Bowie, Joe Malone and Frank Nighbor.

I don't think Coleman knew anything we don't when he put together his all-star team. He simply made a judgment call that Bowie had a more impressive career than the likes of Cy Denneny and Frank Foyston.

From what I gather, Coleman was quite statistical-minded, and Bowie has those impressive goal scoring stats.

From the start of this round, I thought Malkin, Lindros and Bowie were the clear top 3.
I still see it that way. This certainly seems to suggest Bowie is qualified at this point (perhaps should have been earlier).

 

[seventieslord]

Factoring out the impact on regular season scoring by the non playoff teams could be rather useful.

That would probably be a truer calculation, yes. However, we would need to re-run the whole schedule without any games involving non-playoff teams, leaving us with a new league gpg average to compare with the playoff average on an apples-to-apples basis.

However, I think to do it right we would also need to know each player's points totals in these isolated regular season games (in order to compare their regular season to playoffs), and while technically possible, I don't think.It's a job anyone wants to take on.

 

[Canadiens1958]

O6

That would probably be a truer calculation, yes. However, we would need to re-run the whole schedule without any games involving non-playoff teams, leaving us with a new league gpg average to compare with the playoff average on an apples-to-apples basis.

However, I think to do it right we would also need to know each player's points totals in these isolated regular season games (in order to compare their regular season to playoffs), and while technically possible, I don't think.It's a job anyone wants to take on.

Starting in 1960-61 all the NHL teams were obliged to issue team guides which included by opponent breakdowns and individual player scoring vs each opponent, game scores, etc. Fairly extensive.

Do not have any but remember seeing them. Do not know how to access the info but someone else may.

 

[thom]

Some of the stats used about decrease scoring or increased scoring does not point to one important fact-How did coach use player-at particular point.Were points scored in blowout wins or blowout loses.Here is an example Scotty Bowman vs Glen Sathar both different styles of coaching.One a more d coach and one more o coach.Scotty hated 7 to 5 games or even 6 to 4 games

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay, thanks; much of what you say makes sense. Now, when I think of it, indeed there were Barber-Clarke-Leach, Shutt-Mahovlich-Lafleur, and Perreault played with Martin in the first games.

Still, I'm certain that Ratelle wouldn't have had the impact that Perreault had. Especially when Esposito was replaced with Perreault on the line with Hull and Dionne in the latter part of the tournament, Perreault was unstoppable. No disrespect to Milan Novy (very timely goal-scoring), but IMO it's a shame that Perreault wasn't named to the 1976 CC All-Star team; his play in the tournament made a huge impression on young Peter Stastny and it made a huge impression on me, when I purchased the 1976 DVD set and watched the games a few years back.

Right, it's not just that Perreault was selected for Team Canada, it's that he excelled for them.

Panel included Lou Marsh 1879, James Sutherland 1870, W.A. Hewitt 1875, birthdays.

Probably a few others.

In addition to those listed by C1958...

Lester Patrick, born 1883. Was in Montreal by the turn of the century. Should have been exposed to 1890s hockey to at least some degree during those formative years.

Tommy Gorman, 1886. Gorman was from Ottawa, should have had some exposure to and memories of the 1890's.

Art Ross, 1886. Appears not to have been in Montreal until 1902, so determining his exposure to pre-1900 players would require further digging.

Thanks. Maybe there was some kind of major change around 1900, even bigger than the one around 1910. I guess it would make sense. Look at the USSR - they first started playing hockey in the late 40s/early 50s, when they converted star players from other sports. But in 1963, there was a generational change and the USSR went from being even with Canada's amateur teams to kicking the snot out of Canada's amateur teams almost overnight. And my theory has been that 1963 is when the first group of Soviets who grew up playing competitive hockey came of age. 1900 would be approximately when the first group of Canadians who grew up playing competitive hockey came of age, and Bowie would be one of that group.

The talent pool definitely expanded quite a lot between Bowie's generation and the Taylor/Lalonde one (again, during Bowie's generation, the best players all came from the Montreal and Ottawa metro areas). But perhaps that wasn't as big a change as the one that came around 1900.

From the start of this round, I thought Malkin, Lindros and Bowie were the clear top 3.
I still see it that way. This certainly seems to suggest Bowie is qualified at this point (perhaps should have been earlier).

I already said Delvecchio and Lindros are definitely in for me. At this point, I'm leaning Malkin and Bowie for the other two spots.

Some of the stats used about decrease scoring or increased scoring does not point to one important fact-How did coach use player-at particular point.Were points scored in blowout wins or blowout loses.Here is an example Scotty Bowman vs Glen Sathar both different styles of coaching.One a more d coach and one more o coach.Scotty hated 7 to 5 games or even 6 to 4 games

I agree that looking at the context a player played in during the playoffs is much better than just looking at his career numbers. But when a player's numbers are unusually good (Delvecchio slightly increasing his scoring in the playoffs) or unusually bad (Hooley Smith underperforming even the normal decline in his era), it usually means something.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Reasons why Delvecchio should go this round

See This post from last round for more detailed versions of the first two points.

1. More top 10 finishes in NHL scoring (11) than any center but Wayne Gretzky (16) and Jean Beliveau (12).
Delvecchio played with Howe most of the time, but he did exactly what you'd expect a great player to do playing with Howe - racking up the top 10 finishes. Delvecchio also got two of his top 10 finishes without Howe as his even strength linemate.

2. Played in 13 All Star Games - only Howe (23), Bourque (19), Gretzky (18), Mahovlich (15), Coffey (15), and Messier (15) played in more.

3. Excellent defensively
In a 1958 coach's poll, Delvecchio did not finish 1st, but he was 1 of 4 players who received votes for "best defensive forward, checker."

4. Strong playoff record
Delvecchio scored 1281 points in 1549 regular season games (0.83 PPG). In the playoffs, he had 104 points in 121 career playoff games (0.86 PPG), a small increase (most players see slight drops in their scoring in the playoffs).

As late as 1970 (Delvecchio's last playoffs), he ranked 6th All-Time in playoff scoring behind Gordie Howe and 4 members of the Montreal Canadiens (Beliveau, Rocket Richard, Geoffrion, and Moore): http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points.

5. We may already be under-representing the late 50s on our list
See This Post

We only have 4 active centers on our list for every year between 1956-59, and for most of Delvecchio's career, we only have 5 or 6.

 

[MXD]

Reasons why Delvecchio should go this round

See This post from last round for more detailed versions of the first two points.

1. More top 10 finishes in NHL scoring (11) than any center but Wayne Gretzky (16) and Jean Beliveau (12).
Delvecchio played with Howe most of the time, but he did exactly what you'd expect a great player to do playing with Howe - racking up the top 10 finishes. Delvecchio also got two of his top 10 finishes without Howe as his even strength linemate.

2. Played in 13 All Star Games - only Howe (23), Bourque (19), Gretzky (18), Mahovlich (15), Coffey (15), and Messier (15) played in more.

3. Excellent defensively
In a 1958 coach's poll, Delvecchio did not finish 1st, but he was 1 of 4 players who received votes for "best defensive forward, checker."

4. Strong playoff record
Delvecchio scored 1281 points in 1549 regular season games (0.83 PPG). In the playoffs, he had 104 points in 121 career playoff games (0.86 PPG), a small increase (most players see slight drops in their scoring in the playoffs).

As late as 1970 (Delvecchio's last playoffs), he ranked 6th All-Time in playoff scoring behind Gordie Howe and 4 members of the Montreal Canadiens (Beliveau, Rocket Richard, Geoffrion, and Moore): http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points.

5. We may already be under-representing the late 50s on our list
See This Post

We only have 4 active centers on our list for every year between 1956-59, and for most of Delvecchio's career, we only have 5 or 6.

I was actually about to post something as to how Delvecchio could NOT be voted in this round. Think you covered it. I can't really hav him below Hooley either (Hooley was my tentative no 1 going in).

 

[MXD]

That would probably be a truer calculation, yes. However, we would need to re-run the whole schedule without any games involving non-playoff teams, leaving us with a new league gpg average to compare with the playoff average on an apples-to-apples basis.

However, I think to do it right we would also need to know each player's points totals in these isolated regular season games (in order to compare their regular season to playoffs), and while technically possible, I don't think.It's a job anyone wants to take on.

Yeah... I mean, take a look at 28-29. Teams out of the playoffs just couldn't score and this is the season where the gap between season scoring and playoff scoring was the lowest. There cannot not be some causal effect there.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah... I mean, take a look at 28-29. Teams out of the playoffs just couldn't score and this is the season where the gap between season scoring and playoff scoring was the lowest. There cannot not be some causal effect there.

Agree. Besides the old story about checking getting tighter (which it does), a big reason for scoring dropping in the playoffs is typically There are fewer bad teams and bad players to exploit. Higher competition level has almost always meant lower scoring.

Delvecchio and Bowie have to get in now. I'm leaning towards Lindros and Smith for the other two.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But especially for earlier eras, right?

No I have posted in this thread about Dats and his being in the mix for the Hart trophy, voters aside, for the 08, 09 and 13 seasons but his defensive advantage was obviously discounted by the Hart voters IMO.

Context needs to be considered for all eras of course and all voting results should be scrutinized as well, with any available information that we have.

Some of the more obvious glaring examples jut happen to be in earlier times but AO last year over Sid is pretty close as well IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I dunno HV, we just saw Alex Ovechkin elected to an all-star team at a position he didn't even play. Doesn't get much stranger than that.

What results do you consider weird from small league eras? The Ted Kennedy retirement gift Hart Trophy notwithstanding.

Perhaps I should have bolded when I typed for every era as you are the 2nd guy to miss it?

Yes AO for the all star selection is an obvious goofup, as was his Hart but to a lesser degree.

as for earlier Harts I would suggest the above mentioned Kennedy along with tom Anderson and Babe Pratts for starters.

But as I suggested in my previous post, don't get caught up in the era but make your own evaluation for each year as well and that's what I try to do.

 

[MadArcand]

Delvecchio and Bowie have to get in now. I'm leaning towards Lindros and Smith for the other two.

That's almost certainly gonna be my top-4 as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Some of the stats used about decrease scoring or increased scoring does not point to one important fact-How did coach use player-at particular point.Were points scored in blowout wins or blowout loses.Here is an example Scotty Bowman vs Glen Sathar both different styles of coaching.One a more d coach and one more o coach.Scotty hated 7 to 5 games or even 6 to 4 games

I brought this point up in the first round reguarding Mario and his scoring in blowout games but it was generally dismissed IMO.

In reguards to this round players who have game breaking ability would include, for large portions of their careers, Bowie, Lindros, Malkin and probably Hawerchuk and maybe Perreault (especially with the last 2 guys considering their team mates).

to a different extent, ie 2 way Dats had a similar impact for some time as well.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Am I the only one on the Oates bandwagon? He's the best regular season offensive producer left. I don't have anything comparative, but he seems to have been pretty good in the playoffs too. He finished 5, 8, 9, 10 in playoff scoring and finished 2nd in points per game in the 1991 playoffs when he played 13 games. He was the best penalty killer of these offensive types.

The lack of Hart or All-Star team recognition is definitely concerning though.

I see him as a cut above Perreault, Ratelle, and Hawerchuk. How does everyone else see him?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Perhaps I should have bolded when I typed for every era as you are the 2nd guy to miss it?

Yes AO for the all star selection is an obvious goofup, as was his Hart but to a lesser degree.

as for earlier Harts I would suggest the above mentioned Kennedy along with tom Anderson and Babe Pratts for starters.

But as I suggested in my previous post, don't get caught up in the era but make your own evaluation for each year as well and that's what I try to do.

I agree every result needs to be examined closely, but you did specifically mention "weird results" from small leagues. I'd say the weird results have become more common with larger leagues, and are especially biased towards Eastern Conference players. In a six team league, every voter would have witnessed every player in the league no fewer than 6 or 7 times, often many more times. So I think those results are probably more reliable than current ones. Fortunately we've all witnessed the modern players for ourselves so we know a fishy result when we see one.

The two examples you use, Pratt and Anderson, are war years so that needs to be considered. Pratt set the record for defenseman scoring that wouldn't be broken until the late 60's, smashing the previous record. So I don't think it was too strange he'd win the Hart. Anderson also set the record for defenseman scoring in his Hart year, and did so on a terrible team. Decent players that had career years in a war-weakened NHL.

I think the key context required in examining Hart wins is whether or not the trophy was being treated as a "most valuable" award, or "best player" award. It's mainly been best player in the post-expansion era. More of a "most valuable" in earlier times.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Am I the only one on the Oates bandwagon? He's the best regular season offensive producer left. I don't have anything comparative, but he seems to have been pretty good in the playoffs too. He finished 5, 8, 9, 10 in playoff scoring and finished 2nd in points per game in the 1991 playoffs when he played 13 games. He was the best penalty killer of these offensive types.

The lack of Hart or All-Star team recognition is definitely concerning though.

I see him as a cut above Perreault, Ratelle, and Hawerchuk. How does everyone else see him?

Oates is the best NHL* regular season points producer left if you look at a period of 7 or more years. If you look at best 5 years, then Malkin is the best. If you look at best 200 or 300 games not necessarily in the same season, then Lindros is the best.

*so no Bowie

I definitely prefer Oates to Ratelle or Hawerchuk. In fact, Hawerchuk is an easy "not top 8" for me at this point along with Larionov.

Oates vs Perreault? I guess I like Oates (I had Oates 8th on my ballot last time and Perreault off) - the production gap is probably too high to be made up for with Perreault's superior recognition.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Am I the only one on the Oates bandwagon? He's the best regular season offensive producer left. I don't have anything comparative, but he seems to have been pretty good in the playoffs too. He finished 5, 8, 9, 10 in playoff scoring and finished 2nd in points per game in the 1991 playoffs when he played 13 games. He was the best penalty killer of these offensive types.

The lack of Hart or All-Star team recognition is definitely concerning though.

I see him as a cut above Perreault, Ratelle, and Hawerchuk. How does everyone else see him?

I see him as a cut above the 4 guys you mentioned but have him behind Lindros, Malkin and Dats who all were in the mix for top players in the world for a considerable time frame.

Bowie too but his era context is hard to read and compare fairly.

Oates lack a bit of the wow factor but I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about him as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The value of Hart and All-Star voting data is higher with fewer teams.

Let me explain - in the Original 6 period, every team played each other 14 times and writers often traveled with the team. So they should have been very familiar with every player in the league.

In modern times, it would be literally impossible for every writer to watch every team that often - and's quite obvious that most writers know very little about what is happening in the other Conference. So they rely more on statistics and hearsay in their voting.

I agree every result needs to be examined closely, but you did specifically mention "weird results" from small leagues. I'd say the weird results have become more common with larger leagues, and are especially biased towards Eastern Conference players. In a six team league, every voter would have witnessed every player in the league no fewer than 6 or 7 times, often many more times. So I think those results are probably more reliable than current ones. Fortunately we've all witnessed the modern players for ourselves so we know a fishy result when we see one.

The two examples you use, Pratt and Anderson, are war years so that needs to be considered. Pratt set the record for defenseman scoring that wouldn't be broken until the late 60's, smashing the previous record. So I don't think it was too strange he'd win the Hart. Anderson also set the record for defenseman scoring in his Hart year, and did so on a terrible team. Decent players that had career years in a war-weakened NHL.

I think the key context required in examining Hart wins is whether or not the trophy was being treated as a "most valuable" award, or "best player" award. It's mainly been best player in the post-expansion era. More of a "most valuable" in earlier times.

My initial response was to the claim that somehow All star voting is more reliable in smaller leagues.

Not really sure this is true or not, War years were still small numbers of teams.

Also there is more chance of variance in a larger league say 30 teams to 6 teams and some things just aren't constant.

For instance top Dmen of the past, ie Shore (10,10), Harvey (zero times), Kelly (9,8,6 his other 6th place as a center) don't show up as often on top 10 scoring lists as Dmen form Orr onwards.

Obviously this impacts one group of centers more than another and taken with the smaller number of teams needs to considered in some sort of context as well but is often overlooked.

Now to Alex Delvecchio, there are arguments for him this round (he is in my top 8) but the "look at how many guys from his era are in (or aren't in yet)" shouldn't really be one that we are looking at IMO.

When the first American center comes up should his place of birth matter?

 

[seventieslord]

Now to Alex Delvecchio, there are arguments for him this round (he is in my top 8) but the "look at how many guys from his era are in (or aren't in yet)" shouldn't really be one that we are looking at IMO.

When the first American center comes up should his place of birth matter?

Do you really think those two arguments are even close in terms of validity?

.................

Btw, I'm in agreement with Tdmm about Larionov and Hawerchuk being the two easy outs here. The third one will be painful.

 

[seventieslord]

Now that's easy Hooley Smith #1.

Everyone new except maybe Ratelle goes ahead of the already-worst Malkin, too.

Can you elaborate on this piece? Or advise if/why you still feel this way? I know how you feel about Malkin and short career guys, that's fine. But looking at guys like oates, Hawerchuk and perreault (comparable full career nhl scorers), what is it about Ratelle that makes him possibly behind Malkin but they're all apparently comfortably ahead?

It seems he's right there in offensive numbers (and as good a goal scorer as any of them) and is the best defensively. If he's last, sure, that's defensible. But can there really be a Malkin sized gap there?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My initial response was to the claim that somehow All star voting is more reliable in smaller leagues.

Well it just seems logical that voting would be more reliable in an era where the voters got to see every team play several times and would have been quite familiar with every top player in the league. I mean, I've watched about 20-25 Blackhawks games this year, and about 3 Rangers games. If I were to rank the top 5 players on each team so far this year, would you trust my opinion of the Rangers rankings just as much as you'd trust it for Blackhawk rankings?

The counter argument to smaller league/more accuracy would be the fact that a couple rogue voters would have much more impact in the past than they would today. We see wacko votes all the time today (Kris Draper with a 5th place Hart vote type of thing), but it obviously doesn't have any real impact.

Not really sure this is true or not, War years were still small numbers of teams.

What do you find so strange about the awards voting during the war years? You cited Pratt and Anderson. Do you really find it strange that a defenseman setting a new record for points at his position was considered MVP-caliber?

Also there is more chance of variance in a larger league say 30 teams to 6 teams and some things just aren't constant.

This seems like a good argument that it would have been easier to keep track of all the top players and make accurate, informed votes in a six team era.

For instance top Dmen of the past, ie Shore (10,10), Harvey (zero times), Kelly (9,8,6 his other 6th place as a center) don't show up as often on top 10 scoring lists as Dmen form Orr onwards.

Obviously this impacts one group of centers more than another and taken with the smaller number of teams needs to considered in some sort of context as well but is often overlooked.

Now to Alex Delvecchio, there are arguments for him this round (he is in my top 8) but the "look at how many guys from his era are in (or aren't in yet)" shouldn't really be one that we are looking at IMO.

When the first American center comes up should his place of birth matter?

None of this seems relevant to the accuracy of awards voting. (Maybe you didn't intend for it to be)

 

[MXD]

When the first American center comes up should his place of birth matter?

I don't know if that was a serious question or a rhetorical question.

If it was a serious question, no. Absolutely not. Besides, first to come up is somewhat of an arbitrary criteria (there might have been quite a few americans in the league by then, not to mention there has been non-centers in the league since, well, nearly its very creation). Considering no "bonus" was given to the first French Canadian to come up, and considering those technically had more "obstacles" to their career (you know... language?), absolutely no reason to give any, any, any bonus whatsoever for being first american to come up... especially since that guy probably started its career, like, 65 years or so after TAffy Abel ended his.

Was Taffy Abel the first american to play in the NHL?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Do you really think those two arguments are even close in terms of validity?

.................

Btw, I'm in agreement with Tdmm about Larionov and Hawerchuk being the two easy outs here. The third one will be painful.

Neither argument should have a place here really should it?

Hooley can easily join Igor and Hawerchuk next round can't he?