Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

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.



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?



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.



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

The last part wasn't part of the awards voting but as an aside and something that gets forgotten when we are talking about forwards before Orr.

Pratt was still something like 15th in scoring and wasn't a great defensive guy either.

Sure it was a fluke but he has a Hart and Bourque and Lidstrom don't?

The same standards aren't applied equally over time to awards voting or criteria, this goes with the HHOF as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Neither argument should have a place here really should it?

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

I don't think leaving out someone with Hooley's Hart record should be "easy" at this point, especially when you consider that he spent some years with Nels Stewart holding him back.

In Dink Carroll's 1952 column quoting Dick Irvin calling Milt Schmidt, Sid Abel, and Ted Kennedy "driving type players" who "would not be classified as playmakers," Carroll specifically listed Frank Boucher, Neil Colville, Joe Primeau, Marty Barry, Hooley Smith, and Cooney Weiland as players who could "set up plays."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=4301,1318041&dq=lach+morenz+irvin&hl=en

If Smith was a classic type of playmaker (which back then seemed to involve controlling the puck through the neutral zone as much as actually passing the puck in the offensive zone), it really would have been an adjustment of his style of play to play RW with Nels Stewart while the S Line was together.

I think Smith's poor playoff record might be enough to leave him out of my top 4, but I have a hard time leaving him out of my top 8. (edit: but then I'll have a hard time leaving the rest of the 9 out, so who knows?) What does Datsyuk have on Smith, for example?

 

[seventieslord]

Neither argument should have a place here really should it?

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

No, Hooley is decidedly better than those two.

And yes, era coverage is an important thing to consider. If we are about to add our 11th 1981 center before we add our 5th 1958 center, then we should consider whether that's something we really want to do, or if it's a symptom of inadvertently being biased for or against an era.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The last part wasn't part of the awards voting but as an aside and something that gets forgotten when we are talking about forwards before Orr.

Pratt was still something like 15th in scoring and wasn't a great defensive guy either.

Sure it was a fluke but he has a Hart and Bourque and Lidstrom don't?

The same standards aren't applied equally over time to awards voting or criteria, this goes with the HHOF as well.

Who has ever tried to use a Hart Trophy argument to place Babe Pratt over Bourque or Lidstrom?

I don't think you need to preach these points to the people in here. I think everyone realizes that each award needs to be looked at in context. Voting trends change, league strength and depth at various positions has ebbed and flowed over time. But this isn't news, everyone in here is well aware of this as far as I can tell.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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?

On my original list I had him just behind Hawerchuk but easily ahead of Perreault and Ratelle. I have since moved him behind Perreault as well.

 

[seventieslord]

Who has ever tried to use a Hart Trophy argument to place Babe Pratt over Bourque or Lidstrom?

I don't think you need to preach these points to the people in here. I think everyone realizes that each award needs to be looked at in context. Voting trends change, league strength and depth at various positions has ebbed and flowed over time. But this isn't news, everyone in here is well aware of this as far as I can tell.

Yeah, hardy preaches the whole context piece as though we never heard the word before meeting him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Looks like we're on the same page this round except for Hawerchuk. Why so tough on him?

A prolific scorer like Stastny. Except Hawerchuk started as an 18 year old with a 45-58-103 season. In his first 8 seasons he scores 353 goals (over 44 a season) 495 assists (almost 62 a season) and 848 points (106 per season). No matter the era, that's quite a start for any player's career. And he too played for Canada (1987) in a more defensive role when he was only 23.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Looks like we're on the same page this round except for Hawerchuk. Why so tough on him?

A prolific scorer like Stastny. Except Hawerchuk started as an 18 year old with a 45-58-103 season. In his first 8 seasons he scores 353 goals (over 44 a season) 495 assists (almost 62 a season) and 848 points (106 per season). No matter the era, that's quite a start for any player's career. And he too played for Canada (1987) in a more defensive role when he was only 23.

I just don't think Hawerchuk's stats or awards record stands out in comparison to most of the other guys this round. I also think he's a small step down but definitely a step down from Stastny offensively (while playing in a more offensively oriented conference), and Stastny just went last round. There will be a time for Hawerchuk; I just find him easier to leave off than Oates, Perreault, or Ratelle.

(Now if how impressive a player was as a teenager matters... Yeah, Hawerchuk owns there)

 

[MadArcand]

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?

I have underrated him on my initial list and going into this round (mostly due to his poor awards record). As of now I have him in a 4-way mix for the final 3 spots in the top-8 (Malkin and Datsyuk out for sure).

 

[seventieslord]

I believe the offensive difference, per game, between Datsyuk and Malkin is about 15%, correct?

something to think about:

- how much less would Malkin score if he put in as much effort as Datsyuk defensively?
- how much more would Datsyuk score if he put in as little effort defensively as Malkin?

the two are related. Some can be awesome both ways, some can't or choose to be more awesome one way or another (or team needs dictate). But it is clear that a more defensive focus by a player or team is very likely to show up in their offensive numbers. A certain degree of defensive excellence would and should overcome a 15% edge in offensive numbers. It's just that it's so difficult to quantify what that breaking point is, and whether Datsyuk exceeds it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I believe the offensive difference, per game, between Datsyuk and Malkin is about 15%, correct?

something to think about:

- how much less would Malkin score if he put in as much effort as Datsyuk defensively?
- how much more would Datsyuk score if he put in as little effort defensively as Malkin?

the two are related. Some can be awesome both ways, some can't or choose to be more awesome one way or another (or team needs dictate). But it is clear that a more defensive focus by a player or team is very likely to show up in their offensive numbers. A certain degree of defensive excellence would and should overcome a 15% edge in offensive numbers. It's just that it's so difficult to quantify what that breaking point is, and whether Datsyuk exceeds it.

I can't see Datsyuk scoring all that much closer to Malkin level even if he didn't play D - his shot just isn't good enough.

I also think that Datsyuk's greatest defensive skill - breaking up plays in the neutral zone - is also an offensive skill

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Some comparisons in terms of ice time and roles:

(using Malkin's two Art Ross seasons and Datsyuk's two 4th place point finishes for comparison)

07-08 Datsyuk:
Offensive zone start %: 56.2
PP time per game: 4:23
SH time per game: 1:47

08-09 Datsyuk:
Offensive zone start %: 51.1
PP time per game: 3:23
SH time per game: 1:36

08-09 Malkin:
Offensive zone start %: 63.7
PP time per game: 5:33
SH time per game: 1:04

11-12 Malkin:
Offensive zone start %: 65.9
PP time per game: 4:21
SH time per game: 0:02


Just in terms of role and opportunity I think it's fair to say a player like Datsyuk probably scores more if Babcock used him in a similar vein as Malkin or the Sedin's for example.

 

[Sturminator]

Worth noting about Hooley is that in addition to the broken thumb when the Maroons won the Cup, he played through a serious shoulder injury in 1927 when the Sens won the Cup. These constitute his worst and second worst playoff runs. The guy had bad luck with injuries late in the regular season.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not on board with Bowie at this point in the process, and I hope he doesn't get in without more detailed criticism of his career. Simply put, Bowie was a transcendent scorer for four seasons early in his career playing in a CAHL league which was, to all appearances, extremely shallow. When the talent pool started to expand a bit later as the league morphed into the ECAHA (starting in 1906, I believe, when Bowie was 26 years old), Bowie's former dominance disappeared.

Players like Harry Smith, Ernie Russell and Marty Walsh started matching Bowie's per-game and per-season offensive output, and this at an age when Bowie had no excuses for no longer being at his athletic peak (he was also remarkably healthy throughout his career). Bowie was probably still the best scorer, overall, from this new group, but the margin between him and the pack is much, much smaller than it had been before, when he was competing against no-names in a league which was populated almost exclusively by players from Montreal.

Were Smith, Russell and Walsh good hockey players? Yes they were, but I don't consider them top-60 all-time centers (all were centers, afaik), and if that is the baseline which Bowie only beats by a bit, I don't see why he should be in the top-40. Bowie was clearly an excellent offensive player, but there are still plenty of those left out there. Does anybody really believe that Gil Perreault would not have been ridiculously dominant in an Montreal-only league circa 1900? Does anyone think Adam Oates would not have easily outscored the likes of Smith, Russell and Walsh?

I'm just not impressed by Bowie's years in a tiny, Montreal-only league. What he did later against real competition is impressive, but not impressive enough for induction at this point. I don't see any reason to seriously consider him before the rest of the high-end modern offensive centers (Oates, Perreault, Hawerchuk, Ratelle, and Savard, at least) are in.

Here, some old discussion of Bowie:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=47300955&postcount=646

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=48320455&postcount=13

Our judgment of Bowie is essentially a judgment of his era, of the size and strength of the talent pool in which he competed. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't just smaller than that of the other players in this project, but exponentially smaller. Bowie is, for this reason, probably the single hardest player in this project to peg. Let's have a real conversation about Bowie and his era before just putting him in.

 

[ted2019]

Some comparisons in terms of ice time and roles:

(using Malkin's two Art Ross seasons and Datsyuk's two 4th place point finishes for comparison)

07-08 Datsyuk:
Offensive zone start %: 56.2
PP time per game: 4:23
SH time per game: 1:47

08-09 Datsyuk:
Offensive zone start %: 51.1
PP time per game: 3:23
SH time per game: 1:36

08-09 Malkin:
Offensive zone start %: 63.7
PP time per game: 5:33
SH time per game: 1:04

11-12 Malkin:
Offensive zone start %: 65.9
PP time per game: 4:21
SH time per game: 0:02


Just in terms of role and opportunity I think it's fair to say a player like Datsyuk probably scores more if Babcock used him in a similar vein as Malkin or the Sedin's for example.

Where did You find the offensive zone stat at?

 

[ted2019]

Voted

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I just don't think Hawerchuk's stats or awards record stands out in comparison to most of the other guys this round. I also think he's a small step down but definitely a step down from Stastny offensively (while playing in a more offensively oriented conference), and Stastny just went last round. There will be a time for Hawerchuk; I just find him easier to leave off than Oates, Perreault, or Ratelle.

(Now if how impressive a player was as a teenager matters... Yeah, Hawerchuk owns there)

Eight seasons averaging 44-62-106 is pretty close to Stastny's first 8. Hawerchuk was the better goal scorer. And Stastny was 24 when he started, not 18. He also played on much better offensive teams.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Eight seasons averaging 44-62-106 is pretty close to Stastny's first 8. Hawerchuk was the better goal scorer. And Stastny was 24 when he started, not 18. He also played on much better offensive teams.

Yeah I think the narrative has really downplayed Hawerchuk.

I get that he is easy to dismiss due to his lack of recognition but things like he played in the more offensive conference are pretty weak arguments when he was playing on the Jets. Not the Oilers.

Until the Flames really got rolling the Smythe was a pretty weak division outside of the Oilers.

Hawerchuk was very highly regarded at the time and if he'd had more support he could have done even better. If he is a step down from Stastny it would be a baby step if anything.

 

[MXD]

Do se have a consensus For Delvecchio in top4?
Cause if we don't... We really should. TDDM post contains all we need to know in that regards.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

from what i saw, though i saw more of prime hawerchuk than prime stastny due to geography, they were very similar impact-wise. denis savard too; those three guys were often spoken of in the same breath as the "other" top centers in the league. i'm young enough that i only really caught these guys in the late 80s though, so my impression of their reputations is they were the guys that yzerman passed/replaced.

i think talking peak ability you would probably go stastny > hawerchuk > savard, but the difference wouldn't be much.

the one overwhelming factor, however, is stastny has good showings in multiple playoff runs (and savard is a magnitude better in that regard), while hawerchuk (whose playoff numbers look fine if you ignore the GP column) has almost no playoff significant resume at all, certainly no performances that anyone remembers.

on the other hand, hawerchuk was miles away the most important player on the jets. stastny was the best nord, but you could at least make an argument about bouchard, goulet, or even hunter. which is to say, at least he had help. and savard wasn't even the clear-cut best player on his team, though obviously he had a very good argument for that title.

it seems like history has separated these guys a distance that significantly exceeds their reputations when they played. and i think a lot of that is brownie points stastny gets for being a trailblazer, and the misleading 2nd in scoring in the 80s stat. but then i don't know that stastny maybe doesn't deserve those brownie points, though i'm too young to really remember whether he had a much rougher go of it than hawerchuk or savard.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Worth noting about Hooley is that in addition to the broken thumb when the Maroons won the Cup, he played through a serious shoulder injury in 1927 when the Sens won the Cup. These constitute his worst and second worst playoff runs. The guy had bad luck with injuries late in the regular season.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not on board with Bowie at this point in the process, and I hope he doesn't get in without more detailed criticism of his career. Simply put, Bowie was a transcendent scorer for four seasons early in his career playing in a CAHL league which was, to all appearances, extremely shallow. When the talent pool started to expand a bit later as the league morphed into the ECAHA (starting in 1906, I believe, when Bowie was 26 years old), Bowie's former dominance disappeared.

Players like Harry Smith, Ernie Russell and Marty Walsh started matching Bowie's per-game and per-season offensive output, and this at an age when Bowie had no excuses for no longer being at his athletic peak (he was also remarkably healthy throughout his career). Bowie was probably still the best scorer, overall, from this new group, but the margin between him and the pack is much, much smaller than it had been before, when he was competing against no-names in a league which was populated almost exclusively by players from Montreal.

Were Smith, Russell and Walsh good hockey players? Yes they were, but I don't consider them top-60 all-time centers (all were centers, afaik), and if that is the baseline which Bowie only beats by a bit, I don't see why he should be in the top-40. Bowie was clearly an excellent offensive player, but there are still plenty of those left out there. Does anybody really believe that Gil Perreault would not have been ridiculously dominant in an Montreal-only league circa 1900? Does anyone think Adam Oates would not have easily outscored the likes of Smith, Russell and Walsh?

I'm just not impressed by Bowie's years in a tiny, Montreal-only league. What he did later against real competition is impressive, but not impressive enough for induction at this point. I don't see any reason to seriously consider him before the rest of the high-end modern offensive centers (Oates, Perreault, Hawerchuk, Ratelle, and Savard, at least) are in.

Here, some old discussion of Bowie:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=47300955&postcount=646

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=48320455&postcount=13

Our judgment of Bowie is essentially a judgment of his era, of the size and strength of the talent pool in which he competed. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't just smaller than that of the other players in this project, but exponentially smaller. Bowie is, for this reason, probably the single hardest player in this project to peg. Let's have a real conversation about Bowie and his era before just putting him in.

While I think the competition increased during the second half of the decade, I think you're selling the competition of the later CAHL short. From 1903-1906, Frank McGee, a legendary player who was considered the superstar of a legendary team, played in the same league as Bowie, and Bowie dominated him statistically, as indicated in my earlier post.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah I think the narrative has really downplayed Hawerchuk.

I get that he is easy to dismiss due to his lack of recognition but things like he played in the more offensive conference are pretty weak arguments when he was playing on the Jets. Not the Oilers.

Until the Flames really got rolling the Smythe was a pretty weak division outside of the Oilers.

Hawerchuk was very highly regarded at the time and if he'd had more support he could have done even better. If he is a step down from Stastny it would be a baby step if anything.

And you know what? This is the Greatest Centers of All-Time, not the Greatest Centers of the 1980s. We need to slot guys in who played before and after the 1980s, and if Hawerchuk is a small but clear step below Stastny (and the statistics make it clear that he is IMO), then that means that other guys whose careers didn't perfectly overlap with them need to be slotted between them.

VsX 7 year scores
Stastny 88.3
Hawerchuk 85.9

They are practically equal in 10 year scores, but that is as much about Stastny getting a late start in the NHL as it is about anything else.

Top 10 finishes
Stastny: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6
Hawerchuk: 3, 4, 7, 9

Just look at post 51; I can't see anything that stands out about Hawerchuk this round (other than the very young age at which he was an impact player). `

And I do think MXD and overpass have a point when they point out that Stastny played in a more defensive conference. Even if it's just a small factor, I think it's not totally meaningless.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And you know what? This is the Greatest Centers of All-Time, not the Greatest Centers of the 1980s. We need to slot guys in who played before and after the 1980s, and if Hawerchuk is a small but clear step below Stastny (and the statistics make it clear that he is IMO), then that means that other guys whose careers didn't perfectly overlap with them need to be slotted between them.

I don't think the stats make that clear at all.

Also don't see why so many other players need to be slotted between them.

 

[overpass]

Worth noting about Hooley is that in addition to the broken thumb when the Maroons won the Cup, he played through a serious shoulder injury in 1927 when the Sens won the Cup. These constitute his worst and second worst playoff runs. The guy had bad luck with injuries late in the regular season.

Good point. Hooley was rolling at the beginning of those playoffs. He scored two goals in Ottawa's final regular season game, and he was also a star in Ottawa's first playoff game.

Montreal Gazette, April 4, 1927

And leading in the play of those hockey opportunists were Hooley Smith and King Clancy, the former through his fighting game and consistent efforts to rock the Canadiens defence...

Smith scored a goal, and also took a shot on which a rebound goal was scored, for which he would have received an assist under modern rules.

Hooley Smith, who starred for Ottawa as he always does on Forum ice, drove along right boards where there was little opposition. He whistled a cross-fire shot at the Canadien goal. Hainsworth swept it to the opposite side with one motion - but right onto the stick of Cy Denneny, who was loafing unmarked. As far as Canadiens were concerned, he was the worst player to give the puck to at that time. Before Hainsworth could get settled to handle the return fire, the veteran Ottawa winger had sniped the puck into the corner of the net.

But the hustling Hooley Smith and Dame Fortune had still to be reckoned with. Smith drove a fast one. It caromed off Gardiner's leg into the net for Ottawa's third goal.

The Senators came close again when Hooley Smith rang the goal post and Finnigan skimmed it with a return snipe on the rebound...

Having taken a 4-1 lead on goals in the first game of a two-game total goals series, the Senators parked the bus and played defensive hockey in the second game. Smith didn't score, and also suffered a shoulder injury on a check from Albert Leduc.

Montreal Gazette, April 11, 1927

Ottawa players admitted they were not going right in the first game at Boston. Hooley Smith was suffering from an injured shoulder, received when he was spilled by Leduc in the final game between Ottawa and Canadiens.

Hooley did not score a goal or receive an assist in the four game final against Boston. But in the second game, a 3-1 Ottawa win, he could easily have been awarded an assist on Ottawa's final goal.

Montreal Gazette, April 11, 1927

Less than four minutes remained. Four and five men rushed the Ottawa defence at a time. The Senators were not to be caught in another scramble, however, and their reorganized defensive held tight. With but seconds to go and with the entire Bruin outfit, with the exception of Winkler, swarming around enemy territory, the clever Hooley Smith broke away, followed by Denneny.

Big Lionel Hitchman dashed back to help the lone Winkler stave off the impending danger. The goalie rushed out and managed to prevent Smith from getting a clear shot on goal. Smith, however, passed over to Denneny, who easily eluded Hitchman, who was off balance, to go in to clinch the game beyond all doubt for the visiting players.

Four of Ottawa's seven goals against Boston were power play goals, and two others came on the counter-attack while Boston was pressing to tie the game. Clancy was the individual star for Ottawa in the series.

Anyway, we can see that Smith really had one goal and two assists in six games. Not too bad, considering that he played most of those with a shoulder injury and that his team won the Stanley Cup and only scored twelve goals and allowed four in those six games

 

[overpass]

Yeah I think the narrative has really downplayed Hawerchuk.

I get that he is easy to dismiss due to his lack of recognition but things like he played in the more offensive conference are pretty weak arguments when he was playing on the Jets. Not the Oilers.

Until the Flames really got rolling the Smythe was a pretty weak division outside of the Oilers.

Hawerchuk was very highly regarded at the time and if he'd had more support he could have done even better. If he is a step down from Stastny it would be a baby step if anything.

I posted an article in the Top Defencemen project about Phil Housley being traded from Buffalo to Winnipeg for Dale Hawerchuk. The writer, Winnipegger Gary Loewen writing in the Globe and Mail, seemed to think the move from the tighter-checking Adams division to the wide open Smythe division would be significant for Housley.

Phil Housley's quick hands and feet have been freed of the shackles imposed by the cramped rinks and smothering defensive style of the Adams Division of the National Hockey League.

Housley is a Jet now, in a supersonic division. So far, the fit is just fine.

In moving from the Buffalo Sabres to the Winnipeg Jets of the Smythe Division, the 26-year-old defenceman has found a team and division suited to his agility, hell-bent style and speed.

Housley, long regarded as one of the NHL's premier defencemen, was one of the centrepieces of a blockbuster off-season trade. After eight seasons as a Sabre, he was dealt with Scott Arniel and Jeff Parker to the Jets for Dale Hawerchuk.

Ironically, Hawerchuk had felt shackled by the Jets' new team approach and asked for a trade.

The Sabres became a defence-oriented team last season, as is the trend in the Adams Division, with its small ice surfaces in Buffalo and Boston.

But putting a rein on Housley may be likened to having Wayne Gretzky centre a checking line.

"They really wanted him to give up some of his offensive game and they criticized him for his defensive play," said Kevin Maguire, Housley's former teammate.

"He's definitely a world-class player. There's no other defenceman, except maybe Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey, who can wheel like he can. Everytime he made a wrong move, though, the reaction was negative, negative."

Nonetheless, Housley managed a career-high 81 points on a checking team in a checking division and he expresses no animosity toward the Sabres.

However, Housley is, suffice to say, happier in Winnipeg.

"I'm not happy we lost the last seven years (in Buffalo)," Housley said. "I have a lot of pride in myself and I tried the best I could.

"Nobody likes to be traded, but it's good for me. It's a new lease on life.

"The Smythe is freewheeling and faster. Teams still play well defensively, but games are more open. In the Adams, you sit back, dump it in and play defence."

Winnipeg general manager Mike Smith is excited by Housley's penchant for taking gambles and his ability to read the opposition and jump into the attack. And Smith is sure Housley will meld more smoothly than Hawerchuk into the Jets' team concept. Smith and coach Bob Murdoch began implementing it last season. One change involved the use of four lines.

"It wasn't fair to Dale," Smith said. "He grew in a star system - he was anointed the star at 18.

"When the organization didn't have success with a star system, we decided to adjust to a team system."

Hawerchuk demanded a trade because his ice time - and his star - was diminished. But, as Smith pointed out, Hawerchuk still averaged 19 minutes a game, 2 minutes more than the other forwards.

It seems pretty clear that there was a perception around the league that the Smythe division was more wide-open.

Bolded the specific comments on Hawerchuk. Note that his high-scoring seasons took place outside of a four-line system, and his points dropped when the Jets implemented four lines. In Buffalo, his scoring was primarily driven by playing big minutes on the point for Buffalo's strong power play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good point. Hooley was rolling at the beginning of those playoffs. He scored two goals in Ottawa's final regular season game, and he was also a star in Ottawa's first playoff game.

Montreal Gazette, April 4, 1927


Smith scored a goal, and also took a shot on which a rebound goal was scored, for which he would have received an assist under modern rules.





Having taken a 4-1 lead on goals in the first game of a two-game total goals series, the Senators parked the bus and played defensive hockey in the second game. Smith didn't score, and also suffered a shoulder injury on a check from Albert Leduc.

Montreal Gazette, April 11, 1927

Hooley did not score a goal or receive an assist in the four game final against Boston. But in the second game, a 3-1 Ottawa win, he could easily have been awarded an assist on Ottawa's final goal.

Montreal Gazette, April 11, 1927


Four of Ottawa's seven goals against Boston were power play goals, and two others came on the counter-attack while Boston was pressing to tie the game. Clancy was the individual star for Ottawa in the series.

Anyway, we can see that Smith really had one goal and two assists in six games. Not too bad, considering that he played most of those with a shoulder injury and that his team won the Stanley Cup and only scored twelve goals and allowed four in those six games

First off, I do have to say that I appreciate the work you've done on Hooley Smith's playoffs; I certainly don't think he was a great playoff player, but I no longer think he was the worst playoff player to come up so far.

To sort of play Devil's advocate however, you are going through his playoff game logs to find assists that would have been awarded under modern rules; couldn't you also do that during his regular season games? If he (like all players at the time) was being denied a certain number of assists because of the way they were counted, there is no reason to believe he was being denied them at a higher rate in the playoffs than the regular season, right? In other words, it doesn't affect his % decline from the regular season to playoffs.