Round 2, Vote 10 (HOH Top Centers)

thom

Registered User
Mar 6, 2012
2,261
8
Again what did Jacques Lemaire do for Guy Lafleur please explain.Out of all superstar wingers Jacques was the worse centerman.How is it possible Guy Lafleur had almost 400 more assists than Lemaire.How is it possible Lafleur led team in assists 8 times.How is it possible despite Lemaire being a better defencive player his plus minus is no where near.Lemaire had a good play-off in 1 season.Lemaire is a border line Hall of famer.In 1979 Lafleur had a 52 pts edge on his teamate Shutt despite Lamaire being hurt. (mod)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
I wouldn't mind seeing the breakdown of our inductees by era again if someone has it handy...

Here you go. I'm bolding sustained periods of four or fewer representatives or nine or more representatives

pre-1904: none
1904: one
1905-09: two
1910-11: three
1912-20: four

1921-22: five
1923: six
1924-27: five
1928-30: four
1931-33: three
1934-35: four

1936-37: six
1938: six
1939: five
1940: six
1941: five
1942-47: seven
1948: six
1949: five
1950-54: six
1955: five
1956-59: four
1960-61: five
1963-66: six
1967-68: seven
1969-70: eight
1971: nine
1972-74: eight
1975-1977: nine
1978-81: ten
1982: nine
1983: ten
1984-87: nine
1988-93: ten
1994: eleven
1995: ten
1996-99: nine
1997-99: ten
2000-03: nine
2004: eight
2005-06: seven
2007-09: five
2010-11: three
2012-13: two


Delvecchio getting in will help the 50s a little bit, and I guess that is going to just remain a low-represented era for centers because I don't even know who the next center of the era after Delvecchio was (probably Kelly actually, but he's already in as a defenseman).

I'm really not comfortable with Hooley Smith's awful playoff record. I also don't like adding him before mid-late 30s playoff hero Marty Barry is even an option. But he does come from a time that we aren't representing very well.

A lot of the representation for the late 90s come from guys in their mid-late 30s at the time. Seems that we as a group like centers who "came of age" during the 1980s and early-mid 90s.
 
Last edited:

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,882
16,617
Here you go. I'm bolding sustained periods of four or fewer representatives or nine or more representatives

pre-1904: none
1904: one
1905-09: two
1910-11: three
1912-20: four

1921-22: five
1923: six
1924-27: five
1928-30: four
1931-33: three
1934-35: four

1936-37: six
1938: six
1939: five
1940: six
1941: five
1942-47: seven
1948: six
1949: five
1950-54: six
1955: five
1956-59: four
1960-61: five
1963-66: six
1967-68: seven
1969-70: eight
1971: nine
1972-74: eight
1975-1977: nine
1978-81: ten
1982: nine
1983: ten
1984-87: nine
1988-93: ten
1994: eleven
1995: ten
1996-99: nine
1997-99: ten
2000-03: nine
2004: eight
2005-06: seven
2007-09: five
2010-11: three
2012-13: two


Delvecchio getting in will help the 50s a little bit, and I guess that is going to just remain a low-represented era for centers because I don't even know who the next center of the era after Delvecchio was (probably Kelly actually, but he's already in as a defenseman).

I'm really not comfortable with Hooley Smith's awful playoff record. I also don't like adding him before mid-late 30s playoff hero Marty Walsh is even an option. But he does come from a time that we aren't representing very well.

A lot of the representation for the late 90s come from guys in their mid-late 30s at the time. Seems that we as a group like centers who "came of age" during the 1980s and early-mid 90s.

Same applies for 2nd half of 30ies to a certain extent.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
I think the Larionov - Lemaire comparison is quite interesting... and if taken seriously is a pretty strong argument against Larionov going this round. Larionov does beat Lemaire rather easily in longevity as a productive player, even if Larionov himself was more of a secondary player in the NHL half of his career.
 

thom

Registered User
Mar 6, 2012
2,261
8
No problem with that line of thinking-Jacques was a very good player.And I would argue Igor was special
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
And in the NHL, outside his two peak|spike seasons, Fedorov has got some pedestrian regular season numbers. Bure was, consistently, better offensively than Fedorov in the NHL, so if you go Krutov →‎ Larionov you'll also have to go Bure →‎ Fedorov.

I disagree. Fedorov has a demonstrated level of defensive dominance (two Selkes) at the NHL level that Larionov simply doesn't have. Fedorov did things at the age of 29 and over that Larionov couldn't touch. Larionov has finishes of 7, 10, and 16 in Selke voting. Fedorov did heavy lifting in terms of penalty killing for a pseudo-dynasty ahead of Larionov. There's also the fact that Fedorov and Bure didn't play together in the NHL, where the meat of the resumes come from. Larionov's offensive resume comes mostly from his time in the Soviet Union, same as Krutov, where they played together. I'm not really seeing how this is relevant.

I keep hearing that Larionov "let Krutov and Makarov do their thing", but is this really a skill that is worth including among the top centers in the history of hockey? There is definitely something to be said for having his strong hockey IQ and intelligence to be able to keep up with them and set them up for success, but is backchecking well and being a smart player that rare of a skill, when his offense is good, but pretty far from the competition at this level?
 
Last edited:

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,882
16,617
The parallel withLemaire Is interesting, but I'm not sure I agree with the comment about longevity of productivity. As least not enough to make it an argument for Larionov. But let's talk about Lemaire in due time.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
On Ratelle's playoff history:


When Ratelle was on the Rangers, his playoff resume was underwhelming. Here it is:

66-67: 0 points in 4 games, had been hurt for a good bit of the season and the leader only managed 4 points
67-68: 4 points in 5 games, 2nd behind Gilbert
68-69: 1 point in 4 games, 5th behind leader Hadfield with 3 points
69-70: 4 points in 5 games, 2nd behind Gilbert
70-71: 11 points in 13 games, 2nd behind Hadfield
71-72: 1 point in 6 games, rest of team played 16 games, this was the year Ratelle was on track to win the MVP, and then he got hurt, I'm assuming he came back for the cup run, clearly still hurt
72-73: 9 points in 10 games, 1st(tied with 3 others; Vickers, Fairbairn, Tkaczuk)
73-74: 6 points in 13 games, 10th(leader Stemkowski had 12)
74-75: 6 points in 3 games, 1st(tied with Vickers)
Traded to Boston
75-76: 16 points in 12 games, 1st(second had 11)
76-77: 17 points in 14 games, 1st(second had 12)
77-78: 10 points in 15 games, 6th(leader Park had 20)
78-79: 13 points in 11 games, 1st(second had 12)
79-80: 0 points in 3 games, rest of the team played 10 games
80-81: 0 points in 3 games, leader had 4 points

By those last 2 years, Ratelle was 39/40 and clearly behind his prime. The important points here are that a) his playoffs in NY weren't all that bad, New York just wasn't that great of a team. He led them in playoff scoring twice, and was second three times. When you look at the four playoffs that could possibly be construed as "bad" he was hurt in the regular season and seemingly never got back on track(he never really got on track at all in 66-67, he was only 26, which is young in Ratelle terms) for two of them, one was a bad four game series where the team got swept, and the other one just wasn't a good playoff performance. Then, the pivot point in his career, being traded to Boston. Previously, the theory behind his playoff struggles was that New York didn't protect him enough in the playoffs, and he got beat up because he wasn't a physical player, despite having Vic Hadfield on his wing. Don Cherry, his coach in Boston, had another theory:

"They damned near ruined Jean in New York and it was pretty stupid," said Don Cherry. "They wore him out for the playoffs in New York. They never gave him a day off from practice. They had him on the ice every day and made him burn himself out before the playoffs. That's why he never did much in the playoffs with the Rangers. Look at how he changed in Boston: average more than a point a game in the playoffs."

"I told Jean once that if I saw him in practice the day after a game I'd fine him. I knew that he wasn't the strongest guy in the world and he was up there in years and still killing penalties and working the power play and taking all the important faceoffs. You've got to be crazy not to give a guy like that a day off, especially when you know he busts his tail and always keeps himself in shape.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Hooley Smith Traded

Hooley Smith was traded twice - October 7, 1927 from Ottawa to Montréal.

Ottawa report:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lFcuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rdkFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6735,1450863

Montreal report:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iX0uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=A4wFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6729,1022939

Key element seem's to be Smith's ability to play C, RW and D. Interesting tidbit about Nels Stewart. Reported to camp at 202 lbs. Stewart was 6' 1" tall. hardly fat. Small side for centers by todays standards.

Trade to Boston, October 26, 1936. Initially signed after being released by the Maroons following a hold-out eventually worked as a trade for cash and future considérations, December 4, 1936:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Q38tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_pgFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=5331,3239382
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
Perhaps it should be noted that when Ratelle was "on pace to win the MVP" (he actually did win the Lindsay Trophy, then called the Pearson), it was 1971-72, also Brad Park's breakout year offensively. That season, Park scored 73 points in 75 games, the highest scoring season by a non-Orr defenseman in history up until that point.

But yes, Ratelle was truly great that season. 109 points in 63 games (1.73 PPG). Art Ross winner Phil Esposito (helped by Orr) had 133 points in 76 games (1.75 PPG).

That season was quite the outlier for Ratelle, however. He would never again finish above 6th in PPG and would never again be Top 3 in All-Star voting.

I think you're doing a little too much sugarcoating of Ratelle's playoff record in NY though - it really was all-time bad - look at how many times Ratelle fell behind his linemates in playoff scoring in NY. But he certainly turned things around in Boston.
 
Last edited:

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,558
140,027
Bojangles Parking Lot
Gilbert Perreault vs. Jean Ratelle

I think it's worth comparing these two head-to-head since they spent the most important decade of their careers playing against each other. Here's one way to look at them:


Time spent together in the NHL

Perreault came into the league as an exceptional rookie in 1970-71. At the same time, Ratelle had just turned 30 and was established as a late-blooming PPG player.

Here are their PPG results per year, hopefully giving a sense of their respective arcs through the 1970s:

Player | 1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976 | 1977 | 1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1981 | Total
Perreault|.92|.97|1.13|.93| 1.41 | 1.41 |1.19| 1.13 | 1.08 | 1.33 | 1.05 | 1.15
Ratelle|.92| 1.73 | 1.21 | .99 |1.15|1.31| 1.21 |1.05|.90|1.09|.79|1.13

^ Most of these were complete seasons, but I decided to use PPG in order to compensate for a few 50-60 game seasons sprinkled in.

Overall, they are very close to even as scorers. Ratelle really exploded right around the time Perreault was breaking into the league, and Perreault countered with his two peak seasons not long after. If you mentally reorder their scoring from highest-to-lowest, it's evident that neither has a huge advantage over the other.

Here are their respective awards in each year.

Year | Perreault | Ratelle
1971|Calder|Masterton
1972||4th in Hart voting (15%), 2nd AS, Byng, Lindsay/Pearson
1973|5th in Hart voting (6%), 3rd AS, Byng|
1974||
1975|3rd AS|
1976||8th in Hart voting (2%), 2nd AS|6th in Hart voting (2%), Byng
1977|7th in Hart voting (5%), 2nd AS|8th in Hart voting (3%)
1978||marginal Selke votes
1979||marginal Selke votes
1980|3rd AS|
1981||


Playoffs


Year | Perreault | Ratelle
1971|none|13GP, 2-9-11
1972|none|6GP, 0-1-1
1973|6GP, 3-7-10|10GP, 2-7-9
1974|none|13GP, 2-4-6
1975|17GP, 6-9-15|3GP, 1-5-6
1976|9GP, 4-4-8|12GP, 8-8-16
1977|6GP, 1-8-9|14GP, 5-12-17
1978|8GP, 3-2-5|15GP, 3-7-10
1979|3GP, 1-0-1|11GP, 7-6-13
1980|14GP, 10-11-21|3GP, 0-0-0
1981|8GP, 2-10-12|3GP, 0-0-0
Total | 71GP, 30-51-81 | 103GP, 30-59-89

I can forgive Ratelle somewhat for his 1980s playoffs, since he was around 40 years old and playing a depth role. But even if you remove those 6 games, and the 6 in which he played through a fractured ankle in '72, he still falls way behind Perreault as a playoff scorer. Hell, you could even speculate that an uninjured Ratelle would have picked up a bunch of extra points in 1972, and he would STILL look bad by this metric. He just had that many weak playoff runs.


International

Ratelle played in only one international series, but it was an important one. In the 1972 Summit Series, he scored 1-3-4 in 6 games.

Perreault was a frequent international competitor. In '72 he scored 1-1-2 in two games. In the 1977 Canada Cup he played 7 games and tallied 4-4-8, then picked up 1-1-2 in three games in the 1979 Challenge Cup. Unfortunately his 1981 Canada Cup was cut short by an ankle injury after he had scored 3-6-9 in only 4 games.

Since the '72 Summit Series against the Soviets was both their only shared tournament AND the highest-profile, here are the granular details of their performances:

Game 1 - USSR 7, Canada 3
Ratelle played and did not score.
Perreault scratched.

Game 2 - Canada 4, USSR 1
Both scratched.

Game 3 - Canada 4, USSR 4
Ratelle scored to make it 2-1 Canada in the first period, jumping into transition on a turnover and executing a give-and-go with Cournoyer to break in alone and roof it on Tretiak.
Perreault scratched.

Game 4 - USSR 5, Canada 3
edit: Perreault played and scored on a beautiful rush the entire length of the ice, deking past Martynyuk and Anisin, going wide on Paladiev and banking the puck off Vasiliev and into the net.
Ratelle scratched.

Game 5 - USSR 5, Canada 4
Perreault made a brilliant assist to Parise for the opening goal, deking through Viktor Kuzkin's feet and then making a perfect backhand pass to the slot.
Ratelle played but did not score.

Game 6 - Canada 3, USSR 2
Ratelle played and did not score.
Perreault scratched.

Game 7 - Canada 4, USSR 3
With the game tied 2-2 early in the 3rd period, Ratelle got a stick on Boris Mikhailov's pass behind the net, slowing it down just enough for Rod Gilbert to pick it off and bring it in front for a go-ahead goal.
Perreault scratched.

Game 8 - Canada 6, USSR 5
Trailing 2-1 late in the first period, and in transition off a Soviet turnover, Ratelle played the pivot on a give-and-go with Brad Park that ended in a point-blank tying goal.
Trailing again midway through the game, Ratelle cleanly won an offensive draw that led directly to Bill White's tying goal.
Perreault scratched.

NOTE: Ratelle was being used primarily in a defensive role. I don't know for certain, but given the timing of the series in his career I doubt very much that Perreault was expected to play a two-way game. Keep that in mind when considering who was being scratched, and how they were producing offensively.




Two-way games


Perreault was notorious early in his career for neglecting defense, but it was well demonstrated upthread that he matured into a more well-rounded game as time passed.

Ratelle on the other hand was known as an excellent defensive player, more on the level of a Delvecchio or Francis in terms of playing a clean two-way game.


Time spent apart in the NHL

Ratelle
He came into the league at about the same time as Rod Gilbert, but Gilbert made the Rangers' lineup more quickly while Ratelle spent some extra time getting AHL seasoning. When called up, Ratelle quickly became Gilbert's center and the two looked promising. This scheme was derailed when both suffered serious back injuries in 1966, leading to essentially a lost season for Ratelle as he worked his way back from spinal fusion surgery. When he finally got healthy, the league had expanded and Ratelle spent the next 3 years as a PPG scorer. Among centers, he was behind only Esposito, Mikita and Beliveau, and slightly ahead of Delvecchio during this period (1968-70).

Perreault
Perreault led the Sabres in scoring all the way up to 1985. He was only eclipsed on his team in his penultimate season, and even at that he scored 60-in-72 in 1986. Only Dionne and Robinson played so well at a comparable age. He also continued to be a reliable playoff scorer during this period. I think it's been pretty well demonstrated in this thread that he also matured into a respectable defensive player at the same time, which flatters his scoring consistency. It's perhaps also noteworthy that Perreault was the veteran center presence alongside emerging offensive talents in the form of a young Dave Andreychuk and Phil Housley.



Summary

The biggest arguments for Perreault are:
- The playoff comparison, where he was quite easily the more reliable offensive presence.
- Despite having perhaps a very slightly lower peak, he was more consistent throughout a nearly equal body of work (I was surprised that their GP were so close, considering Ratelle's legendary longevity as a good player).
- Ratelle was getting more team help, as evidenced by the Rangers'/Bruins' team and goal-scoring finishes compared to the Sabres in nearly any given year.

The big arguments for Ratelle:
- Truly exceptional longevity as a contributor. His GP numbers are hurt by injuries as a young player -- he was still a pretty solid player at nearly age 40. He was close to Jagr/Chelios type territory, at a time when that simply didn't happen.
- A very strong defensive game that exceeds Perreault's late-career conversion. One could argue that Ratelle was the more valuable overall player once you look beyond scoring figures.
- His peak around 1972 was really, really high when you compare it to other guys who have similar longevity.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
Tarheel, first off great post, and it brings up another argument for Perreault over Ratelle, one that you didn't even include in your summary: Perreault was a fixture on Team Canada for quite some time, and had a generally large role, while Ratelle only played in the 1972 Summit Series and was used as a depth player. (When talking about the Summit Series, note that Perreault was a 21 year old who had just completed his 2nd season in the NHL while Ratelle was in his prime).

Combined with the enormous advantage Perreault has in All Star records (2 2nd Teams, 3 3rd Teams vs just 1 2nd Team), and it's quite obvious to me that Perreault was more highly regarded during his career than Ratelle was.

Also again, note that 1971-72 is when Brad Park emerged as an all-time great offensive defenseman. There are also some years when Ratelle's linemate, HHOFer Rod Gilbert outscored Ratelle. Rick Martin was good, but was never really close to Perreault in scoring. Gilbert only played with Ratelle in NY, however. Again, Park came with Ratelle to Boston.

Why am I making so much of a deal of Ratelle's help compared to Perreault? It seems obvious to me that people who saw them both play thought Perreault was better. Yet Ratelle has moderate advantage in raw statistics. Once you account for the moderate advantage that Ratelle has (and I think you could argue that Brad Park alone can do that), then I really think the case for Ratelle over Perreault falls apart.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,306
4,359
Bowie was a part of the first generation of hockey players to actually grow up at a time when competitive hockey was a thing. So I do have much more respect for their talents than the previous 1890s generation, none of whom played competitive hockey as children because there was no competitive hockey. Still, we have reasons to believe his generation was significantly weaker than the one that followed; those will be discussed after the study.

What would these reasons be? It's generally assumed to be the case by most people, but I haven't actually seen a comprehensive argument that backs up the assumption.

From 1899 to 1908, Bowie scored 239 goals in 80 games (2.99 GPG). Blair Russell, the next closest scorer, had 109 goals in 67 games (1.62)

It should be noted that Blair Russell was Bowie's linemate on the Victorias. So Bowie's dominance over the best non-linemate during the era would be even greater.

Bowie's most dominant season was 1901, when he scored 24 goals despite missing one of his team's eight games. The next highest scorer had 10 goals. Bowie scored more goals in seven games than the entire Quebec team did in eight games. However, competition was still pretty weak in 1901. Most of the HHOFers of the era didn't really get going until a couple years later. Bowie continued to dominate the HHOFers, but not by quite as ridiculous a margin.

Agree on the iffy competition offered up in 1901, though a great many players had between 5 and 10 goals. HOFers Trihey, Russell, Westwick, Scanlan, Farrell all fell within that range. The fact that Bowie outscored Trihey by such a huge margin is notable. It looks to have been a pretty balanced league outside of Bowie blowing the doors off everyone.

Even if you cherrypick the absolute best years of the best players of the decade, Bowie easily beats them - and remember, Bowie's prime lasted much longer than these guys

Frank McGee vs. Russell Bowie (1903-1906)
McGee = 71 goals
Bowie = 106 goals
Bowie beat McGee by 33% over the entire course of McGee's career

In fairness to McGee, he lost a pro-rated 12 goals in 1904 after Ottawa withdrew from the league mid-season. He missed three games in 1906, which isn't insignificant since he was averaging 4 goals per game that season. (Bowie missed one game as well). On a per game basis, Bowie and McGee are pretty close during their contemporary years.

However, you must also consider McGee didn't have to play against Ottawa, who was the best team during his career. Harvey Pulford was seemingly the best defensive player during McGee's career, with Art Moore of good reputation as well. Goaltender Bouse Hutton (up to 1904) is in the HOF. Ottawa was definitely the best defensive team during McGee's career, while the Victorias were generally weak in that regard. They did not seemingly produce any defense players or goaltenders of historical note during Bowie's career. Grant and Drinkwater were finished by about 1900.

So overall, the 33% advantage may be statistically misleading, but is probably an accurate representation of relative dominance when those other factors are taking into account.

Tommy Phillips vs. Russell Bowie (1905-1908)
Phillips = 94 goals
Bowie = 127 goals
This is not quite comparable because these are different leagues, but is worth noting that Bowie, while probably not quite in his prime anymore, scored 26% more goals than Tommy Phillips during Phillips absolute prime.

It's tough to compare these two, but that's about the best we have. Bowie edged out Phillips in the scoring race in the only season they played in the same league. Bowie retired after that season (1908), while Phillips continued on for a few more seasons. Both players were the exact same age. What helps Bowie's case for being voted in here is that Phillips was considered in some circles to be the best player in the game in those prime years of his, and it appears that at worst Bowie was his equal as a goal scorer, and likely a bit better.

SIHR counted assists based off the detailed newspaper accounts in the era. This data suggests that Bowie could get the puck to his teammates better than most other players in the era.

No players have assists recorded for them in 1901, 1902, or 1905.

These are the only 5 seasons of his career for which we have assist data.
  • His finishes: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 7th
  • His VS2 scores: 100, 100, 100, 75, 60
  • His VS1 scores: 100, 89, 75, 56, 33

At 0.50 assists per game, Bowie would be second to Alf Smith's 0.72 in reconstructed assists for the era, and he didn't have star linemates to pass to like Smith did (Smith took kind of a Wayne Cashman or Bert Olmstead role to Frank McGee and later Marty Walsh)
vast majority of hockey's top talents of the time were playing in these leagues.

Interesting find. I suspected Bowie must have been a strong playmaker in addition to his goal scoring due to the high goal output from Blair Russell, these numbers help back that up. While crediting assists a century after the fact based on newspaper accounts is hardly an exact measure, it at least demonstrates that Bowie was not a one-trick pony offensively.

Bowie's league/competition
Bowie played in the CAHL and the ECAHA, which were actually the same league under different names, between 1899 and 1908, which were not the only leagues in the world, but they were certainly the best leagues in the world. This line of leagues would eventually change its name to the NHA. The majority of hockey's top talents of the time were playing in these leagues.

The Stanley Cup was usually controlled by these leagues.

The question of course becomes "How strong was the overall hockey world before 1910?"

Bowie likely played in the top league available in all years except 1905. Ottawa and Wanderers were both in the FAHL for 1905, and those were arguably the two best teams in hockey (Ottawa was no doubt the best).

Bowies overall scoring finishes
  • Bowie led the major hockey world in goals 5 times: He led the CHL/ECHA in 1901, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1908.
  • He finished 2nd in goals 3 times: 1902, 1906, 1907.
  • If you add in reconstructed assists for all players, Bowie led the major hockey world in points 7 times. He finished a close 2nd in goals in 1906 and 1907 to 2 different players, but reconstructed assists for every player would give him enough to finish 1st in points both seasons. He would still finish 2nd in points for 1902.

Ranking Bowie

It should be clear why I would call Bowie the "Wayne Gretzky of pre-1910 hockey." His statistical dominance over his peers is staggering. The cream of the pre-1910 crop can be broken down into Star Scorer (Bowie), Star Defenseman (Hod Stuart), Star Two-Way Forward (Tommy Phillips, a who will come up in the winger project). Bowie had the best longevity of the three of them.

Hod Stuart ranked within the top 40 in the defenseman project (#36). So this voting round would seem like an ideal time to add Bowie based on that.

Two important questions remain:

1) How impressive was it actually to dominate pre-1910 hockey?
2) Should Russell Bowie be the next pre-consolidation center we add, or should we wait until the 2nd tier of 1910-1926 guys (MacKay, Fredrickson, Keats IMO) shows up?

Evidently it is not considered very impressive on an absolute scale, for as you say, Bowie's dominance of his position is on a level somewhere in between Gretzky and Lemieux, yet he has only come up for voting for 37th-40th spot.

The question is, how much worse was early 1900's hockey than 1910-1920 hockey? Cyclone Taylor (12), Newsy Lalonde (14), and Joe Malone (23) are all well ahead of Bowie on the list, even if he were to get elected in this round. Bowie was born in 1880, Taylor in '84, Lalonde '87, and Malone '90, so there isn't a huge generational gap between them. Those three were basically the next wave after Bowie, McGee, and Walsh.

I think Taylor and Lalonde are a solid step ahead of Bowie. I think that's fair. They were the two best players pre-Morenz, and that was established at a time when tons of people had seen all of them play. The improvement in quality from 1900 to say 1915 seems to have been accounted for by the people that lived through the formative years of hockey. I'm not sure the gap between Malone and Bowie should be very large. Malone was a fantastic scorer, right up there with Bowie, but seemingly rather one-dimensional. There really isn't much of a case that he was actually better than Bowie beyond better competition arguments. And the competition difference between 1908 (Bowie's final scoring title) and 1913 (Malone's first) surely can't be that enormous.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,558
140,027
Bojangles Parking Lot
Why am I making so much of a deal of Ratelle's help compared to Perreault? It seems obvious to me that people who saw them both play thought Perreault was better. Yet Ratelle has moderate advantage in raw statistics. Once you account for the moderate advantage that Ratelle has (and I think you could argue that Brad Park alone can do that), then I really think the case for Ratelle over Perreault falls apart.

I agree -- but the one thing that gives me pause is that Ratelle was known as an excellent defensive player as well. How much do you want to discount his statistics against a guy who was notoriously one-dimensional through most of his career?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
I agree -- but the one thing that gives me pause is that Ratelle was known as an excellent defensive player as well. How much do you want to discount his statistics against a guy who was notoriously one-dimensional through most of his career?

I don't think Ratelle was known as an excellent defensive player. My read on him is "responsible defensively" or "good defensively for an offense-first guy"
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
Hod Stuart ranked within the top 40 in the defenseman project (#36). So this voting round would seem like an ideal time to add Bowie based on that.

Keep in mind that we had more centers than defensemen on the HOH Top 100 list, so it's possible there have simply been more great centers than defenseman. That said, there is certainly an argument that we should add the best center before 1910 over yet another 1980s scorer.


The question is, how much worse was early 1900's hockey than 1910-1920 hockey? Cyclone Taylor (12), Newsy Lalonde (14), and Joe Malone (23) are all well ahead of Bowie on the list, even if he were to get elected in this round. Bowie was born in 1880, Taylor in '84, Lalonde '87, and Malone '90, so there isn't a huge generational gap between them. Those three were basically the next wave after Bowie, McGee, and Walsh.

I think Taylor and Lalonde are a solid step ahead of Bowie. I think that's fair. They were the two best players pre-Morenz, and that was established at a time when tons of people had seen all of them play. The improvement in quality from 1900 to say 1915 seems to have been accounted for by the people that lived through the formative years of hockey. I'm not sure the gap between Malone and Bowie should be very large. Malone was a fantastic scorer, right up there with Bowie, but seemingly rather one-dimensional. There really isn't much of a case that he was actually better than Bowie beyond better competition arguments. And the competition difference between 1908 (Bowie's final scoring title) and 1913 (Malone's first) surely can't be that enormous.

Yeah, there really wasn't much gap in time there. Bowie and pre-prime Cyclone Taylor in particular actually shared a season in the same league.

The thing is that there was something of a major shift between 1908 and 1913: The NHA was formed, later to be joined by the PCHA. For much of Bowie's career, hockey was primarily an amateur sport (Bowie was a life amateur), which basically meant you had to be rich enough to afford to devote yourself to hockey without being compensated for it - something that would severely limit the talent pool. During the second half of Bowie's career, there were quite a few paid players he competed against (and he still outscored them) - as an example, Tommy Phillips was famous as a "high priced ringer." The ECHA (the NHA's predecessor and the league that Bowie primarily dominated) was a strange mix of amateurs and professionals.

And Sturminator brought this up on the ATD board - the Taylor/Lalonde generation really seems to be the first generation to take talent from a large region of Canada. During Bowie's time, the talent pool seemed centered around the Montreal and Ottawa regions.

All that said, I am also skeptical as to whether there should be a huge gap between Bowie and Joe Malone, but then I am also skeptical as to how high Malone ended up being ranked.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,558
140,027
Bojangles Parking Lot
I don't think Ratelle was known as an excellent defensive player. My read on him is "responsible defensively" or "good defensively for an offense-first guy"

I'm stealing openly from Billy's ATD bio here:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Lege...er.jsp?mem=p198504&type=Player&page=bio&list=

Later that year, the classy forward was an important component of Team Canada when it defeated the USSR in the 1972 Summit Series. He scored four points in six matches while playing chiefly a defensive role, and his overall skill and calm temperament impressed the Soviet players and coaching staff.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...235,4619306&dq=ratelle+rangers+|+boston&hl=en

In his 20 year career, Ratelle blended his own graceful style with an uncanny ability at both ends of the arena as a scorer and a tough defensive checker.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...199,4292869&dq=ratelle+rangers+|+boston&hl=en

"Ratelle means as much to the Rangers as Jean Beliveau did to the Canadiens," says Vancouver coach Phil McCreary.

Ratelle is difficult to check when he has the puck, and he does as much checking himself as any centre, McCreary notes.

A big plus on Ratelle's side is the way he plays in the faceoffs. "He must win 80% of his faceoffs," McCreary says. "There wasn't anything I could do to stop him."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zx...=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=jean ratelle&f=false

"Some people noticed Ratelle's effectiveness with the puck," former teammate Gregg Sheppard explained, "but they didn't see what a great positional player he was. I very rarely saw an opposing center score a goal from the slot with Jean on the ice."

Cherry: "Jean was terrific at picking passes off in front of our net."

Credit for Ratelle's success late in his hockey life belongs to Bruins boss Harry Sinden for having the wisdom to perceive Jean's potential. "I knew he was a good player," reflected Sinden, "but I had no idea how good he was until he joined our team. I always recognized his offensive ability but I hadn't realized that he was such an excellent defensive player, too."

I knew that he wasn't the strongest guy in the world and he was up there in years and still killing penalties

Players: The Ultimate A-Z Guide Of Everyone Who Has Ever played In the NHL said:
A paragon of hard work and determination... happily resigned himself to a checking role in the Summit Series...tall, elegant, and a true leader.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Uj...=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=jean ratelle&f=false

He was a very steadying influence on the team and did some great work killing penalties. When Hadfield left the team, Dennis Hull of Chicago was placed in his spot and the Blackhawk winger seemed to fit right in with the Rangers' stars. The line scored some very important goals and gave Team Canada another steady trio they could count on for offence or defence.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XV...CD0Q6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=jean ratelle&f=false

"It was a little different playing with Denins," Ratelle acknowledged. "We weren't as offensive as we had been with Vic, but I think that's why we were put together. We were more defensive."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=1043,2149172&dq=jean+ratelle&hl=en

"He (Ratelle) is superb at faceoffs, does an awful lot of work on defence and passes like Beliveau," added Francis in reference to the now retired Montreal centre star Jean Beliveau.

http://www.nhl.com/intheslot/read/impact/2003_04/march/espo2.html

"Jean Ratelle got almost 100 points in both his first two years with us," Sinden recalled. "You know, I've often used his name as players have come along since and pointed out what a great defensive player he was without being an aggressive type of forward. He was a terrific checker. A lot of players who don't have an aggressive nature think you're talking body-checking, but Ratelle is a great example of how you can check so well without necessarily being a body-checker. He brought a lot to this team. He was an excellent faceoff man and more of a creative playmaker than a shooter.


Anecdotally, I've always had the impression of Ratelle as an excellent two-way player. The contemporary comparisons seem to gravitate toward Beliveau, and I think Ron Francis is a good modern comparable. Extremely effective on defense while also playing a completely clean game, strong on faceoffs, able to excel in any situation. I would have to think that his selection to the Summit team was based primarily on his abilty to play a checking role while also providing offense?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
So a bunch of quotes from former teammates or his GM in Boston (Sinden) and some more quotes about how he played a defensive role in the Summit Series.* Meh. I like Billy's dedication to research, but there's a reason he's known on the ATD board for sometimes really overselling guys.

*Hawerchuk played a defensive role in the 1987 Canada Cup

The strongest of those quotes is definitely the one from Vancouver coach Phil McCreary (at least he's an unbiased source), though the fact that McCreary also said that Ratelle "must win 80% of his faceoffs" shows that McCreary was clearly in the mood for hyperbole. The quote from Ratelle's retirement article calling him a "tough defensive checker" is nice too.

Maybe we should go so far as to say "very good for an offensive player," but I don't see Ratelle competing for the Selke or anything. In fact, when he was likely at his defensive best in Boston, the Selke was around, and he didn't come close (though he got a handful of votes a few times)

Ratelle had 4 seasons (3 of them as a productive player) after the Selke came around. This is his record:

  • Tied with 2 other players for 14th in 1978 with 5 points (winner Gainey had 159 points). This is the first time the Selke was ever awarded.
  • 11th in 1979 with 6 points (winner Gainey had 170 points)

Too bad he had so few seasons with the Selke in existence. Though it should be noted that it seems most of the above quotes praising Ratelle's defensive ability come from Boston, and Ratelle was traded to Boston only 2 seasons prior to the introduction of the Selke. (The McCreary quote however is from 1973 in NY)
 
Last edited:

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,306
4,359
Keep in mind that we had more centers than defensemen on the HOH Top 100 list, so it's possible there have simply been more great centers than defenseman. That said, there is certainly an argument that we should add the best center before 1910 over yet another 1980s scorer.

Yep, good point.

And yeah, that's definitely where I'm coming from.

Yeah, there really wasn't much gap in time there. Bowie and pre-prime Cyclone Taylor in particular actually shared a season in the same league.

The thing is that there was something of a major shift between 1908 and 1913: The NHA was formed, later to be joined by the PCHA. For much of Bowie's career, hockey was primarily an amateur sport (Bowie was a life amateur), which basically meant you had to be rich enough to afford to devote yourself to hockey without being compensated for it - something that would severely limit the talent pool. During the second half of Bowie's career, there were quite a few paid players he competed against (and he still outscored them) - as an example, Tommy Phillips was famous as a "high priced ringer." The ECHA (the NHA's predecessor and the league that Bowie primarily dominated) was a strange mix of amateurs and professionals.

And Sturminator brought this up on the ATD board - the Taylor/Lalonde generation really seems to be the first generation to take talent from a large region of Canada. During Bowie's time, the talent pool seemed centered around the Montreal and Ottawa regions.

All that said, I am also skeptical as to whether there should be a huge gap between Bowie and Joe Malone, but then I am also skeptical as to how high Malone ended up being ranked.

All good points. Formation of NHA and PCHA was definitely a key moment in the game's history, and certainly could have been the catalyst for greater competition and higher level of play.

The only point I disagree with is that you had to be "rich enough to devote yourself to the game" if you played as a amateur. I'm not sure about the financial backgrounds of Bowie or the other great amateurs. I would assume most must have been fairly well off to decline money being offered. However, the hockey season was little more than 2 months long, and the schedule consisted of just 8-10 games during Bowie's career. One game per week, typically, on a Saturday night I would suspect. A player would have easily been able to work a full-time job year round (with some occasional time off during the 2 month season) and still play hockey. I've always just assumed most players from the pre-NHA/PCHA era worked regular jobs even while the season was underway.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,558
140,027
Bojangles Parking Lot
So a bunch of quotes from former teammates or his GM in Boston (Sinden) and some more quotes about how he played a defensive role in the Summit Series.* Meh. I like Billy's dedication to research, but there's a reason he's known on the ATD board for sometimes overselling guys.

That's an awful lot of different people using words like "great", "terrific" and "superb" to just wave off as being too biased to know better. Especially in light of the fact that the stakes are in the realm of discounting his point totals compared to a guy who was well known to play a one-way game.

I'd be MUCH more inclined to dismiss the body of evidence here if there was some kind of counter-evidence to suggest that Ratelle was just mediocre in his own zone.

Maybe we should go so far as to say "very good for an offensive player," but I don't see Ratelle competing for the Selke or anything. In fact, when he was likely at his defensive best in Boston, the Selke was around, and he didn't come close (though he got a handful of votes a few times)

It strikes me as completely unfair to discount his defensive ability because, as a 37+ year old, he couldn't steal Selke votes from a prime Bob Gainey.

Honestly, I think you need to take a second look at the way you're characterizing this guy. Edit: and I don't mean that to sound disparaging, which it kind of did when I read it again.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
That's an awful lot of different people using words like "great", "terrific" and "superb" to just wave off as being too biased to know better. Especially in light of the fact that the stakes are in the realm of discounting his point totals compared to a guy who was well known to play a one-way game.

For just about post-expansion forward who was a plus player in terms of some kind of intangibles, you can find quotes from his own teammates, coach, or GM lavishing praise on him if you look hard enough. Such commentary is basically loaded with bias and is essentially worthless, once we have already established that a player had said defensive ability or intangibles.

I'd be MUCH more inclined to dismiss the body of evidence here if there was some kind of counter-evidence to suggest that Ratelle was just mediocre in his own zone.

You're not going to find evidence to suggest Ratelle was just mediocre in his own zone, because he was clearly a competent defensive player during the course of his career. But I think it's noteworthy that it required a career season for him offensive to finish top 3 in All-Star voting. 70s writers were not shy about giving recognition to actual elite defensive players like Bobby Clarke.

It strikes me as completely unfair to discount his defensive ability because, as a 37+ year old, he couldn't steal Selke votes from a prime Bob Gainey.

Honestly, I think you need to take a second look at the way you're characterizing this guy.

What about all the other players who finished ahead of Ratelle?

1977-78:

SELKE: (486/486)
1. Bob Gainey, Mtl LW 159
2. Craig Ramsay, Buf LW 79
3. Don Marcotte, Bos LW 60
4. Bobby Clarke, Phi C 28
5. Don Luce, Buf C 20
6. Walt Tkaczuk, NYR C 19
7. Doug Jarvis, Mtl C 16
8. Bill Clement, Atl C 14
9. Clark Gillies, NYI 13
10. Ross Lonsberry, Phi LW 12
11. Bill Harris, NYI RW 7
T12. John Marks, Chi LW 6
T12. Terry O’Reilly, Bos RW 6
T14. Gary Dornhoefer, Phi RW 5
T14. Jean Ratelle, Bos C 5
T14. Bryan Trottier, NYI C 5
T17. Ron Ellis, Tor RW 3
T17. Bob Kelly, Phi LW 3
T17. Danny Gare, Buf RW 3
T17. Darryl Sittler, Tor C 3
T17. Paul Woods, Det LW 3
T17. Butch Goring, LA C 3
T17. Grant Mulvey, Chi RW 3

1978-79:

SELKE: (459/459) Bob Gainey, Mtl LW 170; Don Marcotte, Bos LW 92; Craig Ramsay, Buf LW 66; Don Luce, Buf C 25; Mike Polich, Min C 16; Clark Gillies, NYI LW 12; Nick Libett, Det LW 8; John Marks, Chi LW 7; Doug Jarvis, Mtl C 7; Bobby Clarke, Phi C 7; Jean Ratelle, Bos C 6; Butch Goring, LA C 5; Gregg Sheppard, Pit C 4; Dave Taylor, LA RW 4; Paul Woods, Det C 3; Bill Harris, NYI RW 3; Walk Tkaczuk, NYR C 3; Reggie Leach, Phi RW 3; Jean Pronovost, Atl RW 3; Orest Kindrachuk, Pit C 3; Bill Clement, Atl C 3; Terry O'Reilly, Bos RW 3;

IMO, the evidence shows that Ratelle was a good defensive player, not a great one.

And I guess I just can't get over how much better Perreault's All-Star record was, while playing in the same era. Likewise, if Ratelle was "excellent" defensively, why wasn't he chosen to play for Canada in a defensive role after 1972?
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,558
140,027
Bojangles Parking Lot
For just about post-expansion forward who was a plus player in terms of some kind of intangibles, you can find quotes from his own teammates, coach, or GM lavishing praise on him if you look hard enough. Such commentary is basically loaded with bias and is essentially worthless, once we have already established that a player had said defensive ability or intangibles.

I'm not saying there isn't bias involved, but it would seem strange to have people saying things like "he was superb on faceoffs" if he wasn't actually pretty good on faceoffs. Maybe the language gets a bit more flowery, but all these different sources aren't going to just invent a myth that the guy was good defensively.


You're not going to find evidence to suggest Ratelle was just mediocre in his own zone, because he was clearly a competent defensive player during the course of his career. But I think it's noteworthy that it required a career season for him offensive to finish top 3 in All-Star voting.

Well he finished behind a combination of Esposito, Beliveau, Mikita, Clarke and Keon every year. We've already judged those players to be better than him, so I don't see why he would have had AS recognition over them without a career year.


What about all the other players who finished ahead of Ratelle?

He was 37! How is that a fair judgment on the rest of his career?

IMO, the evidence shows that Ratelle was a good defensive player, not a great one.

Even if he take that for granted, why are we reducing his credit for offensive output compared to Perreault who was a notoriously terrible defensive player?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
I'm not saying there isn't bias involved, but it would seem strange to have people saying things like "he was superb on faceoffs" if he wasn't actually pretty good on faceoffs. Maybe the language gets a bit more flowery, but all these different sources aren't going to just invent a myth that the guy was good defensively.

No, they aren't going to invent a myth that Ratelle was good defensively. But they are going to exaggerate how good. We already know Ratelle was good defensively anyway. You called him "excellent," which is where the disagreement lies. Perhaps it is just an argument of semantics, but I don't see Ratelle in, or really even close to, the class of Datsyuk, Delvecchio, or Smith in terms of defensive ability.

Well he finished behind a combination of Esposito, Beliveau, Mikita, Clarke and Keon every year. We've already judged those players to be better than him, so I don't see why he would have had AS recognition over them without a career year.

AND BEHIND PERREAULT!

Perreault was a 2nd Team All Star in 1976 and 1977. He was a "3rd Team" All Star in 1973, 1974, and 1980.

Ratelle's statistical prime looks to have been from 1968 to 1977 (his age 27-36 seasons; Ratelle was a famous late bloomer): http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/ratelje01.html. That's 4 All-Star nods for Perreault when Ratelle was in his prime!

Ratelle was a 2nd Team All Star (and Lindsay winner) in 1972. No more top 3s.

He was 37! How is that a fair judgment on the rest of his career?

See above. Offensively, at least, Ratelle's age 37 season was the first year of his decline, and he didn't decline much yet - he still had 84 points after several seasons in the 90s and a few in the 100s. Combined with the fact that much of the praise of Ratelle's defensive abilities that has been offered comes from his time in Boston (where he was traded when he was 35) and the fact that usually (not always), a player's offense declines before his defense does, and I think it's likely that Ratelle was as good defensively as he ever was in 1978.

Even if he take that for granted, why are we reducing his credit for offensive output compared to Perreault who was a notoriously terrible defensive player?

Because people who saw them play thought Perreault was better. This is evidenced by the All-Star Teams (Perreault was a 2nd or 3rd Team All Star 4 times when Ratelle was in his prime), selections to Team Canada, and the THN Top 100 list, where Perreault snuck into the very bottom of the top 50.

That's a pretty big consensus for Perreault over Ratelle by 3 different groups of the hockey establishment.

That's the main thing. Then the next question is - Why did the hockey establishment prefer Perrault so much? There are some not-so-good reasons - he was flashier, his skillset might have worked better on the big ice of international play. But also good reasons too IMO - Ratelle had MUCH more offensive help (Brad Park is a top 10 all-time offensive defenseman, plus Rod Gilbert on the Rangers); Perreault's playoff record is quite a bit better than Ratelle's, which was good in Boston but truly terrible in NY.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
30,111
18,876
Connecticut
For just about post-expansion forward who was a plus player in terms of some kind of intangibles, you can find quotes from his own teammates, coach, or GM lavishing praise on him if you look hard enough. Such commentary is basically loaded with bias and is essentially worthless, once we have already established that a player had said defensive ability or intangibles.



You're not going to find evidence to suggest Ratelle was just mediocre in his own zone, because he was clearly a competent defensive player during the course of his career. But I think it's noteworthy that it required a career season for him offensive to finish top 3 in All-Star voting. 70s writers were not shy about giving recognition to actual elite defensive players like Bobby Clarke.


1977-78:



1978-79:



IMO, the evidence shows that Ratelle was a good defensive player, not a great one.

And I guess I just can't get over how much better Perreault's All-Star record was, while playing in the same era. Likewise, if Ratelle was "excellent" defensively, why wasn't he chosen to play for Canada in a defensive role after 1972?

Looks like Ratelle is right there with Trottier in the voting.

Almost all of the players ahead of Ratelle on that list are defensive forwards.

The fact that Terry O'Reilly got more votes than Ratelle tells me some voters knew little about what they were doing. O'Reilly was not even average defensively.

Ratelle was very good defensively. You are somewhat underrating him.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,984
Brooklyn
Looks like Ratelle is right there with Trottier in the voting.

Almost all of the players ahead of Ratelle on that list are defensive forwards.

The fact that Terry O'Reilly got more votes than Ratelle tells me some voters knew little about what they were doing. O'Reilly was not even average defensively.

Ratelle was very good defensively. You are somewhat underrating him.

Trottier barely got Selke recognition until the 1980s himself. This is late 70s version of Trottier.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad