Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's a chart of the number of players in the top 52 by career span, with trendline added. Note: I've used the career start & end dates in TDMM's master listing of the players but I haven't attempted to verify the numbers.

Thank you. I would be posting graphs like this if I knew how to make them.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Background

The Shutt/Lafleur line was called the "Donut Line" because they didn't have a regular center. I don't think it's out of the ordinary to be missing the #1 center from a particular dynasty if center was the least strong part of the team. We didn't have the #1 defenseman from the 40s Leafs dynasty (Jimmy Thomson) on our defensemen list.

And if NJ had won game 7 in 2001... 3 Cups in 4 years would probably be considered a dynasty in the modern era, and we sure as hell wouldn't have any of the centers from that team.

Origins of the Shutt/Lafleur line go back to the 1973-74 season when they were centered by Henri Richard.

After Frank Mahovlich left for the WHA, Pete Mahovlich became the main center with the combo until his knees wore down.

Basic issue was that starting in the fall of 1975 the Canadiens would be rolling upwards of six centers - 1978-79 featured Lemaire, Larouche, Jarvis, Risebrough, Mondou, Houle with Mark Napier getting some time as well. Allowed for injuries, RHS/LHS, situational match-ups, etc. So with 3-4 LW/RW combos there was a bit of juggling.

Also depressed individual center scoring.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Looked through some mid-70's Hockey Digests for Jacques Lemaire info, as there appears to be some split opinions on him...here's another opinion to throw in from the time...excuse the quality, this magic wand scanner thing is tricky to work with on small magazines that don't stay open...if it's unreadable at any point, let me know, I have them handy, I can type something up for anyone...

[snip]

Lemaire considered overrated here in 1975 and 1976. And referred to as weak defensively. I uploaded the whole "overrated" article (Lemaire is #6, split over two images) so people can compare the thoughts on other players (not just Lemaire) so people can decide how meritorious it is or is not...

C1958, thom, Killion, others...this seems right in or around your bowling alley...perhaps you and others will wish to opine...

interesting. missed this the first time around but went back to look for it after tarheel mentioned it. seems from a cursory glance that lemaire is being called overrated here because he didn't become the next beliveau.

out of curiosity, i just did a google search for scotty bowman quotes on lemaire's two-way ability and found this:

Lemaire shows he learned his defensive lessons well
Author(s):Larry Wigge
Source:The Sporting News. 219.26 (June 26, 1995): p46.


It happened 30 years ago. A day Jacques Lemaire and Scotty Bowman will never forget.

A star center in junior hockey, Lemaire had aspirations to play for the Montreal Canadiens. But his coach took him aside one day in 1965 and told him he had no chance to make it to the NHL. His checking wasn't good enough.

Whoa! Wait just a minute. Didn't Lemaire win eight Stanley Cup titles playing for the Canadiens? And didn't he make the Hall of Fame?

The answer is yes. And what makes this story even more interesting is that Lemaire helped Bowman, the coach who told him he would never make it to the NHL, win five Stanley Cups in Montreal.

Now, the two are facing each other as coaches in the Cup finals.

This is one of those stories where the pupil teaches the learned professor a lesson or two -- and Lemaire can thank Bowman for the shock treatment he needed to become a great all-around player with the Canadiens and an even better coach with the Devils.

"It's funny that he's so defense-minded now as a coach because he always led his team in scoring when I coached him in junior hockey," Bowman says. "He wasn't much of a checker at that time and didn't become a great two-way player until later in his career."

That fateful day in 1965 helped speed the process.

"Later that day, his mother phoned me and said, `You know, Jacques is almost in tears because you told him he wasn't going to make the NHL' I told her, `Good, that means he's listening. That's exactly what I wanted."

After assuring Mrs. Lemaire that he meant only; to motivate the head-strong teen, Bowman began to get through to Lemaire.

"He'd break down games and pick up on things a lot of people wouldn't think of," Bowman says. "He was always innovative in his thinking. Still is. You can see that with his Devils team."

Lemaire's team may be boring to some because of the stifling neutral-zone trap defense it plays to perfection. But the Devils'3.4 goals per game in the playoffs through last Saturday's Game 1 compared with 3.14 for the high-flying offense of the Red Wings

"Some say they are programmed to play defense like robots, but their instinctiveness to create offensive chances after a turnover is pretty innovative, if you ask me," Red Wings defenseman Paul Coffey says. "They really force the play, offensively and defensively."

Larry Robinson, Lemaire's former teammate and current assistant coach, remembers Lemaire the player always being an obvious candidate to coach.

"He'd always ask the right questions after a game -- and remember we were winning most nights," Robinson says. "He'd wonder why a certain checking system worked one night and not the next. He was kind of like having an extra coach on the ice. He'd be creating little wrinkles to the game plan on the power play or penalty killing that he thought might work better than the way we were doing it

"He was usually right, He was a perfectionist then and still is."

Says Lemaire: "I always thought I was a pretty good player defensively, even when I was in Pee Wees. But Scotty made me think about it more."

And now the pupil is teaching the professor a few lessons.

fwiw (not much), lemaire was #38 on bowman's top 100 list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The only point of that "metric" is to pump up whichever player you are using it for, since very few players will share the exact career span of the player you are looking at.

This has been explained many times already.

When OJ was looking at "total points during the dead puck era among centers," at least he was defining his terms by era, not by the career of the player he wanted to pump.

Actually you are incorrect try comparing players with a large number of games over any time period, you will find only the best offensive guys will be in the top in points, assists goals ect...

The "he is only there because he hung around argument is overblown big time and BTW it happens to be a career metric so one would expect a guy under consideration for top 60 center to do quite well in such a metric right?

I mean if you are looking at the best forwards in the NHL this season you would look at the scoring leaders right? Ie, the guys who produced the most in the season. It's a season metric just like my metric is a career one.

Why the likes of yourself and Lord get twisted over it is beyond me.

The VsX metric has a "flaw" in that it doesn't account for injuries, and heck now to think of it it rewards guys for playing 7 years as well right? but that's a side point, it's still a use full metric if one uses it with PPG and season by season and other metrics to gauge any players worth.

It's funny though because you would probably find a really strong correlation on the VsX scores and my metric anyways (if I used to do a quick look at a guys 7 year peak for instance, which I have done as well).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's the elephant that is constantly in the room, came up during or after the Dman project and one very respected guy even came out and said that he did indeed treat eras as basically the same (paraphrasing here as I don't have the exact quote handy)..

Before it can be described as an "elephant in the room" I would say the onus is on you to provide definitive reasoning as to why a player from one era would be so much better or worse relative to his competition if he were born at a different time. So far all I've seen are arguments revolving around the population of Canada, hypothetical (non-existent) players from other countries, and participation estimates. I'm not personally convinced players of old should be downgraded for these reasons. Evidently some of the project voters are (Russell Bowie outside of the top 40, for example).

It's also the silence on the subject that speaks volumes as well, sure their is some lip service to it but very few people here ever discuss their voting criteria or the process they use to vote.

You're confusing silence with people not expressly agreeing with your suppositions. This topic has been extensively debated on this board.

I'm of the understanding that voting results of individual participants will be released and discussed at the project's conclusion. Debating voting criteria (in other words, trying to convince people to change their voting patterns) mid-project would produce a flawed list.

the thing is, is one even shares the best are always the best line, one would expect a lot more modern guys on these lists, basically because of the obvious elite talent produced post expansion by non Canadian countries, never mind the huge explosion in talent (both in numbers and quality form provinces like BC and the maritimes).

And there are a lot more modern guys on this particular list, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Almost 60 posts later and I can assure you that the next round won't be allowed to turn into all-Sundin-all-the-time if he's still available.

Well any discussion is better than no discussion right?

Either way I doubt you will have to worry about him for next round but surely you weren't going to censor discussion were you?

Thank you. Nice to see that at least one other person is interested in reading about players he didn't see play, rather than just bickering about players from the last 20 years.

Well don't worry there will be plenty of "bickering" or as I like to call it "discussion" next round about all players no doubt as the further we go on in this process the more divergent the opinions will become IMO.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The Shutt/Lafleur line was called the "Donut Line" because they didn't have a regular center. I don't think it's out of the ordinary to be missing the #1 center from a particular dynasty if center was the least strong part of the team. We didn't have the #1 defenseman from the 40s Leafs dynasty (Jimmy Thomson) on our defensemen list.

I stated Lemaire was the #1 C on the team, no comment made towards his linemates. (Though I am assuming Lafleur/Shutt played with him most often). Would you contest Lemaire was the #1 center/best center on that team though? That's what I meant to imply.

There are several examples of the #1 d-man on a multi-Cup team not being on the defenseman list; Thomson is the only omission from a full-blown dynasty, yes.

And if NJ had won game 7 in 2001... 3 Cups in 4 years would probably be considered a dynasty in the modern era, and we sure as hell wouldn't have any of the centers from that team.

Good point, but at the end of the day they didn't win multiple Cups with any core group of forwards that includes a top center, Arnott being traded away before 2003. There are probably other examples of woulda, coulda teams as well.

 

[MXD]

Here's a chart of the number of players in the top 52 by career span, with a trend line added. Note: I've used the career start & end dates in TDMM's master listing of the players but I haven't attempted to verify the numbers.

If I was asked to draw a curve that represents the total talent in the hockey world over time, it would probably look a lot like this (though with a more pronounced dip during the World War II era). The big exception is that the line would have a small dip after the mid nineties (instead of plummeting, as it does in that chart) but that can be explained because the list will generally concentrate on players with at least 5-10 years' experience. If the list were re-done in another decade, I'm sure that many players currently active would appear on the list (perhaps Stamkos, Getzlaf, Toews, etc) after they've had a chance to cement their legacies, bumping up the number of top 60 centres currently active.

If the best players in each era were being treated as equals, the chart would not show such a large increase in the 1960s, peaking in the 1990s. That large increase is exactly what I would have expected given that it coincided with 1) the NHL rapidly expanding in size, allowing many veterans who otherwise would have had to retire at a younger age continue to take on scoring-line or depth roles and 2) the rapid emergence of elite European talent.

Thanks again HO -- I'd bring a two-fold, small caveat to this, that I'm sure you'll totally agree with.

This graph captures the number of players that we voted in, and who were still playing in the corresponding year.

The numbers must not be taken totally at face value, for these reasons :

- Some players were clearly post-prime for some years, and while they could still be legit contributors, their career defining-era was ended. Two very specific cases of that are Bryan Trottier (89-94), Hooley Smith (36-41). I could even add two others with Nels Stewart (basically, the NYA era) and Peter Stastny (92-95). While still valuable players (especially the last two -- Hooley Smith is tricky, as he played quite a bit at D), those four players were nowhere close to where they one were in the Centers pecking order. A good case can be made that Nels Stewart was, at the very best, the 8th best center in the game during his NYA days, and that he has been passed by Apps, Schmidt, Barry, Cowley and the whole Rangers centerline. That is certainly not why Stewart was voted in. As I see it, those two eras might actually be underrepresented in the end, even if, on a purely numerical basis, they might look overrepresented.

- Position changes : One would think that, if Red Kelly would have played his whole career at center, well, he'd have ended up somewhere on this list. A guy like Ebbie Goodfellow did the reverse move (Goodfellow would have been an extremely fringe candidate anyways for C, unless he would somehow have picked up his game, like he did on D later on). Both players were voted in as D-Men in the D-Men project. What does this mean? Two players good enough (well, potentially) to be on this list are just unavailable.

- I'm sounding like somebody who has something on his mind? ... Absolutely. Not relevant this round though.

 

[Killion]

Basic issue was that starting in the fall of 1975 the Canadiens would be rolling upwards of six centers - 1978-79 featured Lemaire, Larouche, Jarvis, Risebrough, Mondou, Houle with Mark Napier getting some time as well. Allowed for injuries, RHS/LHS, situational match-ups, etc. So with 3-4 LW/RW combos there was a bit of juggling.

Also depressed individual center scoring.

Ya, the Habs did roll their Centers a bit. Napier, a Right Winger seeing spot duty at times. I actually played against him a lot growing up & he did play Center back then as well. Hell of a shot from basically Pee Wee to Junior. Take your arm clean off if you werent careful & laugh about it. Frickin Punk.... but yes, depressed Montreals' Centers #'s a bit as their primary job was to feed, not eat.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yvan Cournoyer

I stated Lemaire was the #1 C on the team, no comment made towards his linemates. (Though I am assuming Lafleur/Shutt played with him most often). Would you contest Lemaire was the #1 center/best center on that team though? That's what I meant to imply.

There are several examples of the #1 d-man on a multi-Cup team not being on the defenseman list; Thomson is the only omission from a full-blown dynasty, yes.



Good point, but at the end of the day they didn't win multiple Cups with any core group of forwards that includes a top center, Arnott being traded away before 2003. There are probably other examples of woulda, coulda teams as well.

Yvan Cournoyer easily doubled Guy Lafleur's playing time as Lemaire's RW. LW is kind of tough since Lemaire played LW at times plus the Canadiens played a steady rotation of LWs but Shutt and Frank Mahovlich would be the top two.

 

[MXD]

Almost 60 posts later and I can assure you that the next round won't be allowed to turn into all-Sundin-all-the-time if he's still available.

I hope it does not, because, let's face it...

If Sundin doesn't make it this round (I think it'll be close either way), then he's a slam dunk to make it next round, if last round results and MadArcand's comments are a valid indicator of this.

As such, I HOPE we won't spend 132 posts on Sundin next round (if he doesn't make it).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Yvan Cournoyer easily doubled Guy Lafleur's playing time as Lemaire's RW. LW is kind of tough since Lemaire played LW at times plus the Canadiens played a steady rotation of LWs but Shutt and Frank Mahovlich would be the top two.

Interesting, wasn't aware. Pokes a bit of a hole in the Lafleur pumping up Lemaire's point totals theory that has been tabled.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lemaire and Cournoyer

Interesting, wasn't aware. Pokes a bit of a hole in the Lafleur pumping up Lemaire's point totals theory that has been tabled.

Lemaire and Cournoyer(2 hockey years older) played together on the 1963-64 Junior Canadiens. Even though Cournoyer was mentored by Jean Beliveau initially, after expansion, with injuries and roster changes Cournoyer played more and more with Lemaire, post 1971 into 1976 they were regular linemates.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Before it can be described as an "elephant in the room" I would say the onus is on you to provide definitive reasoning as to why a player from one era would be so much better or worse relative to his competition if he were born at a different time. So far all I've seen are arguments revolving around the population of Canada, hypothetical (non-existent) players from other countries, and participation estimates. I'm not personally convinced players of old should be downgraded for these reasons. Evidently some of the project voters are (Russell Bowie outside of the top 40, for example).

It's not that hard or complex really over time more parts of Canada, specifically the Maritimes and BC produced both qauility and quanity of NHL players that they didn't do before expansion (for the Canadian example).

Throw in that Canada is still the NHL standard, ie the best country in the world in hockey and that now Russia, Sweden, US, Finland ect... also produce NHL talent, some of it elite, it's not hard to see how it would be much harder to sand out in say Sundin's time than for Frank McGee who played when what, maybe 30000 adult men in the world played hockey at any level maybe?

Competition tends to raise the bar as well,and I think it would be more fair and more accurate a list if we at some point divide eras because at some point the level of competition has increased so dramatically that it behooves us to do so, to be fair to all parties involved.

You're confusing silence with people not expressly agreeing with your suppositions. This topic has been extensively debated on this board.

Actually no, there have only been several people who have discussed the process and criteria on how and why they vote. In this case I'm more concerned about the process than the actual results

I'm of the understanding that voting results of individual participants will be released and discussed at the project's conclusion. Debating voting criteria (in other words, trying to convince people to change their voting patterns) mid-project would produce a flawed list.

yes I would agree but like I said above it would be nice to know what kind of criteria people are using wouldn't it?

I think it would enhance discussion and make the process much more transparent.

There is the obvious example of the peak for Sid and Malkin not being enough then the same guy saying Sundin who was extremely very good and consistent also not meeting that voters bar. One obviously has to wonder what criteria is being used.

And there are a lot more modern guys on this particular list, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

One would expect that the problems usually come down to specific players or the big push for a lot of the earlier guys playing in extremely small divided leagues and then guys that haven't come up or guys in this round for not standing out in much larger and many more countries producing elite talent as well.

To put it in different terms there is a divergence on how "historic" we should be finishing out this round and "how great" the list should be.

and don't get em wrong this, and many other things, is what the discussion should be about, a presentation of ideas and not a shooting of the messenger (which sadly has escalated to guys who should know better, ya I know it's stirring the pot a bit but I say that receptively as they often give great posts and obviously are almost alwasy well thought out on the ideas presented)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Hardyvan - as a non-participant looking in on this project, that's exactly what I see. The voters obviously are taking era into account. The results show that there are more modern players, which is what one would expect. If you compare, say, Fredrickson's awards & top ten finishes to Sundin's, without taking era into account, Fredrickson would probably finish 20-30 spots ahead of the great Swede. The voters have appropriately discounted Fredrickson's numerous all-star nods and top-ten scoring finishes compared to Sundin's, because the Leaf played in a tougher, deeper league. If the voters haven't been doing this all along, the list would be dominated by players who peaked before WWII, which just isn't the case.

MXD, both points that you made are correct (and helpful).

TDDM, I've found a way to more or less automate the graph, so it will be quick to update for the last two rounds of this project, and the future winger project.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Accurate

It's not that hard or complex really over time more parts of Canada, specifically the Maritimes and BC produced both qauility and quanity of NHL players that they didn't do before expansion (for the Canadian example).

Throw in that Canada is still the NHL standard, ie the best country in the world in hockey and that now Russia, Sweden, US, Finland ect... also produce NHL talent, some of it elite, it's not hard to see how it would be much harder to sand out in say Sundin's time than for Frank McGee who played when what, maybe 30000 adult men in the world played hockey at any level maybe?

Throwing out random numbers hoping they sneak by so Frank McGee gets further disparaged.

So now the measure is adult hockey players. So you benefit from the overlap at the intermediate level between junior and senior without having have to contend with the feeder numbers leading to adult.

Problem you have is that your numbers do not balance with the economics of industrial production.

Hockey boots suitable for attachable skates retailed for well under $5.00 in 1915.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=76443575&postcount=45

Going back a few years did not make them more expensive. The attachable blades lasted quite a long time. 30,000 as you allege over a few years is far from sufficient to sustain an industry that had been around from the 1860's. Unless the random, unknown, pre adult numbers are adjusted to compensate for the shortfall.Skates were also an <$5.00 item.$300,000 in retail revenues from your core of adult wage earners does not drive an industry.

Kindly stop with the random numbers which do not contribute at all and only further delay getting an accurate read on the issues, eras and players

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's not that hard or complex really over time more parts of Canada, specifically the Maritimes and BC produced both qauility and quanity of NHL players that they didn't do before expansion (for the Canadian example).

Throw in that Canada is still the NHL standard, ie the best country in the world in hockey and that now Russia, Sweden, US, Finland ect... also produce NHL talent, some of it elite, it's not hard to see how it would be much harder to sand out in say Sundin's time than for Frank McGee who played when what, maybe 30000 adult men in the world played hockey at any level maybe?

Competition tends to raise the bar as well,and I think it would be more fair and more accurate a list if we at some point divide eras because at some point the level of competition has increased so dramatically that it behooves us to do so, to be fair to all parties involved.

I'm well aware of the theory of players coming from further reaching parts of the world contributing to a stronger talent base. I don't disagree with the general premise either, it does make sense, I just disagree about how pronounced the effect should be at the absolute top of the talent pool, which is players being discussed in this project.

McGee was FAR more dominant in his era than Sundin was in his, but they are up for voting in the same round. Evidently the voters realize it is tougher to stand out today than 110 years ago, or McGee would have come up for discussion with Crosby.

Actually no, there have only been several people who have discussed the process and criteria on how and why they vote. In this case I'm more concerned about the process than the actual results

I believe the aim of the project was to gather a variety of opinions. Not convince each other who's voting criteria was best and should be the template going forward.

There is the obvious example of the peak for Sid and Malkin not being enough then the same guy saying Sundin who was extremely very good and consistent also not meeting that voters bar. One obviously has to wonder what criteria is being used.

It's not an exact science, everyone has certain preferences and biases, stated or subliminal. I'm sure inconsistencies will be found in everyone's voting record when it's all said and done.

One would expect that the problems usually come down to specific players or the big push for a lot of the earlier guys playing in extremely small divided leagues and then guys that haven't come up or guys in this round for not standing out in much larger and many more countries producing elite talent as well.

Is it possible there is a bit of a push for older guys because...wait for it...a large portion are available for voting this round? Is nobody from the PCHA supposed to get any consideration? Because as it stands, there is exactly one guy in the top 50 that is primarily associated with that league, a league that housed approximately half the elite players in the game for an entire generation.

To put it in different terms there is a divergence on how "historic" we should be finishing out this round and "how great" the list should be.

Nostalgia is not the reason players like Keats and Fredrickson are being (potentially) added. They are the top of the 2nd tier after the transcendent stars of that era. The 2nd tier players from other eras were added a long time ago.

and don't get em wrong this, and many other things, is what the discussion should be about, a presentation of ideas and not a shooting of the messenger (which sadly has escalated to guys who should know better, ya I know it's stirring the pot a bit but I say that receptively as they often give great posts and obviously are almost alwasy well thought out on the ideas presented)

I don't disagree with this, but you seemed to get rather uppity yourself crying pro-oldtimer bias when I presented information on Bowie and McGee and reasons why I felt they were deserving of votes in their respective rounds.

 

[seventieslord]

So now the comparisons include hypotheticals and background noise, yet fail to include playoff PPG ratings. Not exactly a balanced presentation.

OK. Lemaire was 1st in playoff points over his career, and 15th in PPG. Zetterberg is also 1st in playoff points over his career, and 11th in PPG. Balanced enough for ya?

Back to the #1 center question. It is still on the table. Jacques Lemaire playing mainly center - which you do not deny, led the team in scoring over that stretch. This is the expectation from a #1 center which he fulfilled in a fashion that further placed him 6th overall in league scoring as well. Granted certain seasons other centers may have scored more - happens. Yet over a twelve year stretch Jacques Lemaire easily contributed as a #1 center offensively for app eight seasons and brought near elite defense for all twelve seasons.

No other source says that he brought near elite level defense at all.

And leading the team in scoring over 12 seasons is really just symptomatic of being there the entire 12 seasons when superior offensive players were not. His best few individual seasons occurred in the gap between Beliveau's retirement and Lafleur's emergence.

This is not the case for Henrik Zetterberg. Pavel Datsyuk, ranked, has outperformed Henrik Zetterberg as the #1 center with the Wings. Data posted earlier. Plus Zetterberg does play with Datsyuk at times.

Datsyuk has 80 more points in 57 more games. They aren't far apart defensively and Zetterberg has been noticeably better in the playoffs on the whole. Don't overstate how far apart these two are.

Looking at contemporaries, Jacques Lemaire compares favourably with elected centers - Esposito, Mikita, Ratelle,Clarke, better in many regards to Perreault, vastly superior to Sittler.

uh, favourable in what way?

there are players with consistently worse point totals that I would rather have on my team in a typical season - Joe Nieuwendyk and Rod Brind'Amour are two examples I threw out.

OK, the Brind'Amour thing is at least defensible because of defense, but why on earth would you prefer Nieuwendyk? Sundin played 89 more games and had 223 more points. in the playoffs Nieuwendyk needed 67 more games to score 34 more points. Neither was a defensive standout (both were ok). Nieuwendyk won 3 cups - mainly because it's easy to win a cup when you're so deep that Joe Nieuwendyk is your 2nd best center. That's not why you'd prefer him, is it?

Why the likes of yourself and Lord get twisted over it is beyond me.

because you don't use it fairly.

As I've demonstrated with the Marleau example, this statistic that you use to make him look impressive, if used for dozens and dozens of other players, makes them look even more impressive. Use this metric all you want, but recognize that it can be used for all players, including the one you're arguing against.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

OK, the Brind'Amour thing is at least defensible because of defense, but why on earth would you prefer Nieuwendyk? Sundin played 89 more games and had 223 more points. in the playoffs Nieuwendyk needed 67 more games to score 34 more points. Neither was a defensive standout (both were ok). Nieuwendyk won 3 cups - mainly because it's easy to win a cup when you're so deep that Joe Nieuwendyk is your 2nd best center. That's not why you'd prefer him, is it?

I find Nieuwendyk generally under-appreciated on this board. He was one of those guys that just did so many little things right over the course of a hockey game. A big face-off win here, a nice little defensive play there, intangible stuff...a guy a coach could depend on and feel comfortable with in any game situation. Penchant for scoring back-breaking goals against teams. An elite goal-scoring center upon entering the league who feasted on the PP, but changed into a more well rounded player later on. I wouldn't really use goals to rank him ahead of Sundin though, it was all the stuff that doesn't appear on the stat sheet. I could be convinced Sundin was better, it's close, but if I'm the coach I'd rather head into a playoff series with Nieuwendyk at my disposal than Sundin.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not sure where else this could go, so I'm putting it here for posterity. Mods, feel free to move it to a place that would make more sense.

This bio of Mickey MacKay was posted in the Calgary Herald but could likely have been reprinted from another paper. It's a bit fanciful and to an extent, more concerned with narrative than with fact. But it provides a contemporary perspective on a few items of interest:

- Mickey MacKay as a strong comparable to Ty Cobb, which I've seen in at least one other news column before. The emphasis is on MacKay's "heart and soul" style, as well as an almost childlike combination of humility and passion for the game.

- The whims and randomness of talent recruitment in the western leagues, where HHOF-quality players might be hidden away in leagues that you've literally never heard of. The "talent pipeline" in this story amounts to word-of-mouth from other players, and managers' willingness to take arbitrary risks.

- Similarly, the whims and randomness of the world in 1915, when a young man could be whisked off to an army camp and then abruptly sent back home like an undelivered piece of mail. One gets the impression that MacKay's chances of ending up dead in a trench were about equal to his chances of being one of the early Toronto superstars, but by sheer chance and luck ended up in western hockey instead.

Mickey MacKay Real Ty Cobb of Hockey
Graduate of Alberta Club Stars With Vancouver Club in Coast League -- Played Hockey From His Early Days and Has Developed Into Real Ice Marvel

Mickey MacKay, the Pacific Coast's marvel, former Edmonton player and now rover on the Vancouver team, is the Ty Cobb of the great Canadian winter game. If baseball and hockey and the players who play them can be compared with any considerable degree of similarity and a student of both were asked to name the hockeyist who holds the same place in his own game as the famous Georgia peach does in the American national pastime, probably nine out of ten coast fans at least would pick out Mickey MacKay.

Not only does Mickey play hockey in much the same way as Cobb plays ball -- with his head, heart and soul as well as his hands and feet -- but the two are alike in other ways. And the way they came into the big league in each case is in many respects similar.

Christened Duncan MacKay

Mickey Mackay was born in Kincardine, Ont. on May 22, 1897, and his Scottish-Canadian parents gave him the Presbyterian name of Duncan. Mickey is, therefore, one more added to the list of men who have come from the county of Bruce and attained fame in the golden west. At the tender age of six years Mickey's parents moved to Chesley, still in Bruce county, where they younger was destined to lay the foundations for a hockey career.

In his teens Mickey (Duncan became Mickey and has remained so since) played the game of hockey. He was so enthusiastic over it that he missed meals and sleep to cavort on the ice. At sixteen he was playing in two leagues at the same time -- the Northern and a group of the Ontario Hockey Association. Some players will hardly play in one league without being coaxed, but MacKay's indomitable energy, now displayed so prominently against players twice his size, put him in a different class.

Stanley Brings Him West

One of the other ambitious players of that time and place was Barney Stanley, now the hard-checking right wing man of the Millionaires. Stanley heard the call of the west and hit upon Edmonton as a good place to settle. Barney, by the way, has made good in business in the Alberta capital. Sport was booming in Edmonton then and they wanted the best in hockey, so when they saw Stanley perform they wanted to know if there were any more like him down east.

It wasn't long before Barney had the wires hot after Mickey MacKay, and in the winter of 1912-13 Stanley and MacKay showed the natives of Alberta new wrinkles in hockey, and to this day the fans of the foothill province talk of the great year when MacKay and Stanley, with two or three others now in coast league hockey, enthused the multitudes with their brilliant performance.

Play in Boundary League

MacKay came to, saw and conquered new field the next hockey season, that of 1913-14. That winter saw him in Grand Forks, B.C., playing in the semi-pro Boundary League. Many a coast fan might never have known there was a Grand Forks or a Boundary League, but for the fact that they have heard that Mickey MacKay played there the year before he came to the Vancouver Millionaires.

In August, 1914, the former kaiser of Germany threw his legions into France and Belgium in his mad desire to lay the world at his feet. Canada, in quicker time than it takes to tell it, arrayed herself against the Huns, and her first contribution was 25,000 men. Duncan MacKay of Chesley, Ont., was one of the 25,000, and he got as far as Valcartier, Quebec, but was turned back because he was too young, they said.

Out of a Job

So instead of a free trip across the big pond, with $1.10 a day thrown in, Mickey got a free trip back to Chesley, Ont., and was struck off the payroll. But the lure of the ice game was strong and before the first signs of cold weather Mickey wrote to Frank Patrick, president of the P.C.H.A. and manager of the Vancouver club, asking not for tryout, but for permission to try out with Toronto in the east. The agreement between the two big leagues giving[?] the P.C.H.A western territory for recruiting young players and the N.H.L.[sic] the territory east of Port Arthur was then in effect, and as Mickey had been in Grand Forks the year before, he was western material.

"I don't think I'm good enough for pro hockey," wrote Mickey to Frank, "but I would like your league to allow me to try out in the east, and if I don't make good the expenses won't be so much."

Frank Thinks It Over

Frank answered the letter and gladly gave him permission to try out with Toronto. It takes several days for a letter to go from Vancouver to Chesley, Ont., and while it was going Frank got to thinking. In due time Mickey got his letter and at once prepared to go to Toronto.

Of course, there were always numerous players wanting to get tryouts with the pros, some of them living nearby, but this might be an exception, and Frank thought of what the poet said:

Gem of Purest Ray

"Full many a gem of purest ray serene," etc., or words to the effect that some of the finest gems lie on the bottom of the ocean, never to be seen by human eyes. Also of the roses that are born to blush unseen.

Something told Frank to rush over to the telegraph office and wire this Chesley fellow, though he didn't know him from a load of hay, and not take a chance -- an outside chance, it seemed, but a chance nevertheless -- on Toronto's grabbing a good player from him. On the very day Mickey was to go to Toronto to try out with Murphy's team, he got Patrick's wire -- with transportation and expenses to the coast.

Sized Up in Five Minutes

That year the Millionaires had their first workout one night and everybody was invited to come down and see them. The newspapermen were present, just like a league game, and about five minutes after practice started, with MacKay present, Frank Patrick skated over to the press box with a broad smile on his face.

"Greatest player I ever saw," he said to the writer, in speaking of the new recruit.

Some of them thought he was kidding or just handing out a line of publicity talk -- but they say Frank Patrick hasn't changed his mind yet. And the newspaper men present had to admit that at least Mickey looked good in practice, though he might be but a flash in the pan.

Did He Guess Wrong?

The thousands in the east and west who have seen the youthful marvel perform will no doubt answer for themselves whether Frank Patrick guessed right or not, when he took a chance on an unknown player, and when he stamped him as the game's premier performer after seeing him for but five minutes in a practice.

They say Ty Cobb is the monarch of the diamond game. Who is the greatest player of baseball or any other game is a matter of opinion and always will be, but the Georgia Peach has a hockey prototype in the fiery Bruce bullet whose bewildering performances so often thrill lovers of the grand Canadian sport.