Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

[Sturminator]

One small note to add on Mickey MacKay.

9.3.1920 - Calgary Daily Herald:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ywZkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4noNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2790,1030811&dq

Whether the team is as strong as the one last year that included Lehman, Johnson, Rowe, Mackay, Morris, Wilson and Harris is questionable. The defense looks more formidable, but Mackay, on last year's form, was better than any man who showed in the same position this season.

Sounds like MacKay's 1918-19 season was top-notch before he took that slash to the face.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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...













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...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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...













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...

From what I recall about the Hockey Digest, the modern term "Rag" may apply.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Certainly. It's the National Enquirer of hockey essentially...but there's some quotes from hockey people, there's some articles in there taken from papers (guys like Red Fisher, etc.) and what not...it can't hurt...better than The Sun...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lafontaine didn't get to play 99% of his hockey life with his equally talented twin brother.

I do think it's a fair point of criticism for Sedin that he has the ultimate "linemate argument" against him. He's probably second to Primeau in terms of guys whose results seem inextricably connected to the guys skating on their wings.

That said, Sedin has had some mighty strong results lately. Even a weak Hart trophy is still a Hart trophy, and against fairly stiff competition in the form of a healthy Crosby, 50-goal Ovechkin and Olympic-year Miller. How differently do we think of Henrik if the Canucks win that Game 7 against Boston?

That also brings up the issue of playoffs. Sedin isn't a spectacular playoff performer, but he's been solidly point-per-game since 2009. He was also the #1 center and leading scorer on a team that came 1 game from a Cup.

LaFontaine was good in his limited playoff exposure... but it was so limited. After 1987, when the Isles became "his" team, he never played more than 7 games in the postseason again. That isn't his fault, and I don't see it as a negative, but it doesn't provide much in the way of positives either.

To sort of paraphrase what Hardy said above, I think Sedin is in the process of eclipsing Lafontaine. At this exact moment in time they seem extremely close but I'm inclined to give Sedin a slight edge. It seems likely that, barring ill fortune, he's going to widen that gap as time passes.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I do think it's a fair point of criticism for Sedin that he has the ultimate "linemate argument" against him. He's probably second to Primeau in terms of guys whose results seem inextricably connected to the guys skating on their wings.

That said, Sedin has had some mighty strong results lately. Even a weak Hart trophy is still a Hart trophy, and against fairly stiff competition in the form of a healthy Crosby, 50-goal Ovechkin and Olympic-year Miller. How differently do we think of Henrik if the Canucks win that Game 7 against Boston?

That also brings up the issue of playoffs. Sedin isn't a spectacular playoff performer, but he's been solidly point-per-game since 2009. He was also the #1 center and leading scorer on a team that came 1 game from a Cup.

LaFontaine was good in his limited playoff exposure... but it was so limited. After 1987, when the Isles became "his" team, he never played more than 7 games in the postseason again. That isn't his fault, and I don't see it as a negative, but it doesn't provide much in the way of positives either.

To sort of paraphrase what Hardy said above, I think Sedin is in the process of eclipsing Lafontaine. At this exact moment in time they seem extremely close but I'm inclined to give Sedin a slight edge. It seems likely that, barring ill fortune, he's going to widen that gap as time passes.

The Sedin's are 33 years old. Their production has gone down each year since the 2010-2011 season. Not sure what they have left to enhance their careers.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Sedin's are 33 years old. Their production has gone down each year since the 2010-2011 season. Not sure what they have left to enhance their careers.

Considering Lafontaine retired at 32, any significant season they put up would widen the gap.

 

[Killion]

Looked through some mid-70's Hockey Digests for Jacques Lemaire info, as there appears to be some split opinions on him...

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 old find, and though a bit blurry your "magic wand" seems to have done the trick sufficiently enough to be legible. For sure the Hockey Digest leaned towards hyperbole & controversy, a bit shallow at times but it had its moments. The odd nugget buried in its stories. I can certainly see where the authors coming from, as all of the players he's named were hyped and or much more expected of them than they actually delivered to varying degree's, however, there are some inclusions that IMO dont belong and were likely inserted to draw eyeballs to the piece; and the article on Lemaire more a series of question marks as he was as enigmatic a player as he's been a Coach and Executive since retiring.

All of the players mentioned in the 2nd article did then and still today retrospectively give rise to questions about their total game, all with weaknesses of one kind or another but in some cases over-come. The criticism leveled in the article against any one of them non contextual, out of time, deliberately Im sure in order to as I said, create controversy & interest in the publication. If not done consciously then perhaps subconsciously....

For example, Bernie Parent does not belong in that discussion insofar as Im concerned. Ya, the Flyers were a great team but the fact is they werent that great defensively nor offensively for that matter, yet the author suggests Parents been over-hyped as being more important than he should be playing behind so excellent a defense as what the Flyers iced. Thats just dead wrong. No Parent, no Cups. He was their Defence more often than not and always the last line. Acted like a 3rd Defenseman, barking out orders, controlling traffic, slowing things down, playing the puck himself.

The other three guys that dont belong in that discussion includes Lemaire who gets an article all to himself & Honorable Mention in the broader piece, along with Serge Savard and Phil Esposito. The rest of them though, ya, can take their games apart and or even then a certain recognition that "you know what?, this guys not as good as he was projected to be" or has holes in his game, over-rated. Poster Boy of the lot is Dale Tallon.

In varying degrees and for various reasons the rest of them do belong on that list. It would take some time to break each & everyone of them down as to why theyd be on it but sure, Doug Favell, Gilles Gilbert, Tony Esposito & even the much venerated Ken Dryden had holes in their games & either were or still are over-rated. Koarb, Magnusson, Vadnais, Marotte, Tkcaczuk, Billy Harris & yes even Marcel Dionne lacking in one way or another. Dave Schultz hugely over-rated as a pugilist, fighter. 90% Show. Psych job. Useful player absolutely, made room for the more talented players on the Flyers but still. Over-hyped even in that one dimension.

As for Lemaire. The article starts out with an anti-thesis, counter argument yet by conclusion, the author coming full circle in admitting he doesnt quite "get" Jacques Lemaire. That he's an "enigma". Well, not quite. Not to me, not to 10's of 1000's of others he wasnt. He was like a Quarterback who even in a Blitz didnt freak out, held onto the ball for a lot longer than you'd ever think safe or prudent, side-stepping & totally faking out 250lb Linesmen, calmly waiting for that perfect throw to an uncovered pair of open arms. He was beyond patient. Used his linemates speed to every advantage, had a shot himself that he could rip right through the net & the boards behind it. Serious shooter & deadly accurate. He played it simple which is hard to do when youve got a Hockey IQ off the charts & the skills to go with. He was just very economical. No wasted moves, burning energy needlessly. Paced himself. Wasnt holding back but it did appear he might be & thats why Bowman would sometimes get frustrated & annoyed with him, and why observers who had not played against players like that at an elite level failed to understand that particular type of player. Highly utilitarian. A thinker.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Duke Keats Part 1 of 3

This is my attempt at going through a season-by-season outlook of Keat's career, similarly to how Stuminator is going through Fredrickson's and MacKay's.

Keats is a difficult player to evaluate for 2 reasons:

1) He lost a serious chunk of his prime due to World War 1
2) Much of his prime was spent in the WCHL, which is less documented than the PCHA or early NHL.

Excellent start to his career in the NHA (1915-17)

According to the book Ultimate Hockey, "In 1915-16, his rookie season, the tall and muscular lad was stuffed in between Corb and Cy Denneny, a unit that would become the highest scoring in the NHA that season."

Keats had a very strong rookie season at the age of 21, finishing 4th in scoring in the NHA, behind 3 Hall of Famers who were in their prime.

1915-16 NHA
1. Didier Pitre 39
2. Joe Malone 35
3. Newsy Lalonde 34
4. Duke Keats 29
5. Cy Denneny 28
6. Gord Roberts 25
7. Frank Nighbor 24

There is evidence that Keats was already a strong two-way player as early as his rookie year:

Keats, playing centre, showed the Toronto crowd a brilliant performance. His stick-handling was superb, and he pestered everybody in sight with backchecking.

1916-17 NHA
Keats was 5th in points per game, but only played 2/3 of the season before leaving for military service during World War 1. He finished 12th in scoring at the end of the year.

Summary: Keats was a top 5 scorer in the NHA in his first two seasons of professional hockey before leaving to fight the first World War. There is evidence he was already a strong back checker by this point.

Keats in World War I (1917-1919)

Keats missed the end of 1917, and all of the 1918 and 1919 seasons to fight in World War I. Unlike World War II, professional hockey players were treated just like any other soldier in World War I. Multiple professional hockey players died during this war, including several Hall of Famers.

Keats would join the 228th Battalion, part of the Royal Canadian Expeditionary Force. I didn't find where Keats himself was stationed, but source indicate that the battalion had troops stationed in both England and France.

The "Big-4" (1919-1921)

After World War I, Keats was recruited as the centerpiece of the new the "Big-4" league.

By 1919, the Stanley Cup was no longer awarded to the top amateur team in Canada, reserved instead for the professional National and Pacific Coast leagues. The Allan Cup had been established as new the amateur championship in its place.[1] The Big-4 was established in 1919 with the intention of bringing the Allan Cup to Alberta.[2]

Keats settled in Edmonton, Alberta after the war and joined the Edmonton Eskimos of the Big-4 League in 1919, leading the league in scoring in both 1919–20 and 1920–21. Officially an amateur league, there were rumours that Keats and several other players were secretly being paid a professional salary to play in the Big-4.[3] The

1919-20 Big 4
1. Duke Keats 32
2. Barney Stanley (Keats' RW) 22
3. Archie Briden (Keats' LW) 18
4. Herb Gardiner 17

Keats did as expected, dominating the fledgling league in scoring, almost doubling the scoring of any non-teammate.

Keats' Edmonton Eskimos won the league championship in both the regular season and playoffs, defeating Calgary 8-2 in a 2 game total goals series in the playoffs. Keats led the way with 2 goals and 2 assists.

This is the year Mickey MacKay took off from the PCHA to play in the Big-4, possibly to rehab his injury. He only scored 11 points, but was awarded the Gordon Efficiency Medal, which may have been a form of MVP (although the criteria for the award isn't clear).

During this season, the Toronto St. Pats, predecessors to the Maple Leafs offered Keats $2000, an enormous sum at the time, to play for Toronto. Seems Keats turned them down (likely because he was being paid under the table by the "amateur" Edmonton squad).

For comparison's sake, the highest paid member of Toronto's 1918 Stanley Cup winning squad was Harry Cameron, at $900.

Duke Keats, the much touted Eskimo player, who is wanted so badly by the St. Patrick Toronto pros

The feature of the game from an Edmonton standpoint was the work of the two thousand dollar kid, "Duke" Keats, the Eskimos centre. Two thousand bucks is a paltry figure to link up with "Duke" after his showing yesterday. It's a cinch he looked like two million to Deacon White and Barney Stanley. His reputation of being a burly wolf in the vicinity of the nets was worthily borne out, three of the Eskimo counters being from his stick. Boring in close whenever an opportunity presented itself, Keats gave Reid an anxious thought every time he came near the citadel, and on the three occasions he burled the twine the Calgary custodian never had a chance. After the first two or three minutes of play he was closely checked, and there were generally a couple of the Wanderers close to his elbow when he was given the puck. But the fact he scored three tallies was not the main reason why he looked so good to the fans. Throughout the game he gave an exhibition of stickhandling that has never been equalled, let alone excelled, in this city, and he had the Calgary defence tied in a knot on several occasions. Worming his way through three or four of the opposition was the easiest thing he did. His command of the puck smacking of wizardry. This gent is going to be a lot handful for every team in the league before "many" games have been played. A little more disposition to pass the rubber at critical times would have been more helpful to his team, but this is the only criticism that can be made of his display, and seeing that the game was the first serious effort of the Eskimos, Keats can be relied upon to work in a lot of nice combination later on. The goals he got were the kind that brought the fans to their feet, and all scored from such short range that nothing but a barricade could have kept them out.

Apparently, Keats' stickhandling was that good.

"Duke" Keats was the star of the encounter and it is no wonder that the Toronto pro team is after this "bird" as it was worth the price of admission alone to see this player perform. His stick handling was marvellous. How he did it the way he was hooked and checked during the encounter is a mystery

In the 1920 offseason, several players defected from the PCHA to the Big-4, leading to charges that the Big-4 was paying players under the table. Regardless of whether this was true, the Big-4 had some serious talent in it in 1920-21. Keats again led the league in scoring, but not be the same margin he did the previous season.

Following the defection of some players to the Big-4, PCHA president Frank Patrick wrote a letter to the CAHA charging that the Big-4 was operating as a semi-professional league, paying many of its players in secret. He asked that the CAHA declare the Big-4 as a professional circuit and disqualify it from competing for the Allan Cup.[6] Alberta Amateur Hockey Association (AAHA) president Frank Drayton responded to the charges by stating that the Alberta league was one of few in the country operating as true amateurs, and attacked other associations, arguing that both Saskatchewan and Manitoba had submitted illegally professional teams to the Allan Cup tournament.[7]

Although it was facing growing criticism over the accusations, the Big-4 ignored requests to offer evidence in its defence, arguing it had no right to compel its players to testify.[8] The CAHA sided with Patrick and declared the Big-4 professional.[7] The league, while publicly continuing to defend itself against the charges, chose not to appeal and operated as an independent league in 1920–21.[9]

1920-21 Big 4
1. Duke Keats 29
2. Archie Briden (Keats' LW) 25
3. Barney Stanley 21
4. Harry Oliver 20
5. Rube Brandow 20

There appear to have been no playoffs in 1921, as the league collapsed under accusations that some teams were paying players under the table. Keat's Edmonton team and the team from Calgary would join two other teams and form the professional WCHL the following season to compete for the Stanley Cup.

Summary: What to make of Keats' time in the Big-4? It was obviously a weak league, but Keats seems to have been something of a "ringer" who was likely paid under the table by the Edmonton team. And he did exactly what you'd expect from a great player in a weaker league - he dominated the league in scoring. And Toronto was willing to shell out the big money to bring Keats back east to the NHL.

So how good was Keats during these years? Is there any reason to suspect he was any worse than he was before the first World War, when he was a top 5 scorer in the NHA in his first two years of professional hockey? His subsequent performance in the professional WCHL supports this idea.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Duke Keats Part 2 of 3

The WCHL years (1921-1926)

The WCHL was formed from the remnants of the Big-4 and immediately was put into competition for the Stanley Cup:

In 1921, the Edmonton Eskimos (TDMM - Keats' team) and Calgary Tigers of the Big Four League saw their league collapse on allegations of pay for amateurs. Together with the Regina Capitals and Saskatoon Sheiks the teams organized the openly-professional Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL) ... The league, like the NHL, played six-man hockey, without the old 'rover' position.[1] The new league was recognized as a comparable league to the existing Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA). The winner of a series between the champions of the two leagues would go on to face the winner of the National Hockey League (NHL) for the coveted Stanley Cup.

According to Keat's Legends of Hockey bio, he was the 1st Team All Star center in the WCHL in all 5 years of existence. The information we have from Total Hockey indicates that he may have been the All-Star spare behind Frank Fredrickson for the final year of this period (1925-26).

1921-22

Keats absolutely obliterated the WCHL in its first year of existence:

1. Duke Keats 56
2. George Hay (24 yo) 34
3. Joe Simpson (29 yo) 34
4. Ty Arbour (Keat's LW) 33
5. Barney Stanley 31
6. Dick Irvin (30 yo) 27
7. Art Gagne (Keats' RW) 21
7. Charley McVeigh 21

Hay, Simpson, and Irvin were all HHOFers in their primes and Keats destroyed them.

Here's a single-game summary that Keats was a strong two-way player, at least for this game, although he did get into penalty trouble:

Duke Keats was dangerous both on attack and defense although he somewhat marred his record by continual holding and tripping. He was penalized twice during the fray. He was checked closely all night for it would not do to let him run wild. He is too dangerous a shot. -

Keats' Eskimos won the regular season title, but were upset in the playoffs.

1922-23

By 1922-23, the WCHL was approaching parity with the PCHA but wasn't there yet. The two leagues played an interlocking schedule (and the inter-league games counted in the standings!), and the WCHL teams appear to have had a 8-15-1 record vs the PCHA . Keats finished behind only his winger in scoring, but there was an injury involved (see quotes later on).

1. Art Gagne (Keat's RW) 43 in 29 games (1.48 PPG)
2. Duke Keats 37 in 25 games (1.48 PPG)
3. George Hay (25 yo) 36 in 30 games (1.20 PPG)
4. Newsy Lalonde (35 yo) 35
5. Harry Oliver 32
6. Joe Simpson 29
7. Ty Arbour (Keats' LW) 28
8. Bill Cook (28 yo) 25

1922-23 was Bill Cook's first professional season (at the age of 28).

Major praise for Keats' strong all-round game:

Of all the positions in The Leader's All-star prairie hockey team, none caused us more profound meditation than the center ice job. We weighed the pros and cons of our two best bets - Duke Keats and Dick Irvin - until we were beginning to order Keats sandwiches and Irvin pie along with our coffee at the restaurant across the way. First we thought Irvin would be our ultimate choice; then the Duke popped up with an overlooked asset. Barney Stanley crossed their path for a minute; then Irvin again looked like a winner, until finally we had the merits and demerits of the two candidates trimmed down to such a nicety that we knew exactly where we stood. And we gave Keats the call. Both Keats and Irvin are pretty much invalids right now, but this fact was entirely overlooked in selecting the best man for the job. What turned the balance in favor of the Edmonton bad man was his back-checking ability. He is a two-way man, while Dickenson has a tendency toward a one-way ticket. Irvin is a better shot than the Duke and a better stick-handler, but Keats himself is far from being a slouch on the attack; he is an ideal pivot man, plays his position to perfection and knows all there is to know about combination. And his vigorous back-checking adds all kinds of strength to his team. There is no better shot in professional hockey than Dick Irvin. The Regina boy is a wizard at finding the treasured spot in the net. And his wonderful manipulation of the puck had won him friends wherever he has played. It is unfortunate that such a star as Dickenson should have to be passed up in favor of another; but backchecking is an invaluable asset to a hockey team, and just as we were on the point of awarding the position to Irvin, we recalled this very important factor and could do nothing else in fairness but to give Duke the job. Keats originally played hockey in the east but acquired little prominence until he burst into the limelight with the Eskimos last year. Ever since he has been one of the biggest noises in prairie hockey. The Duke is an ideal type of athlete, of husky build, quick on his skates, and possessing a good abundance of grey matter. He has one fault and that is temperament. ... There are man who will think Barney Stanley deserves the call. The General has been playing wonderful hockey lately while Irvin has been resting up. He is the most unselfish player in the league and one of the most effective. But he can't shoot like Irvin or check back like Keats.

Keats missed 5 games with injury, and during that period, his team was totally lost:

The Calgary Tigers' victory over the Eskimos was not entirely unexpected. The Esks have hit a bad slump ever since their defeat at Saskatoon, and they haven't been playing anything like the hockey started out with. The injury to Keats is largely responsible for the poor showing of the team. When the Duke is back in harness, a different tale may be told.

The loss sustained by the leaders of the Western Canada Hockey League was their fourth in as many games, and that they are badly demoralized since their initial visit here about two weeks ago was evident. Duke Keats, their brilliant ice general, was not in the game, and without him the northerners were disorganized and at no stage of the play did they look dangerous.

Keats' Edmonton Eskimos would win the WCHL championship, and he was a hero:

The second chapter in the history of the Western Canada Hockey League championship struggle has been written. It has left Regina reeling under the shock of a championship lost on a penalty shot; it has left Edmonton the happiest and most jubilant city on the continent, and it has inscribed the names of Duke Keats and Bill Laird in letters of gold, for these peerless hockey stars were the heroes of a game that will never be forgotten. ... It was a revelation to see Keats play hockey on his home ice. He was a new and different Keats. Never once did he show any inclination to mix things; he played a cool, brilliant game, scarcely took any rests, and whenever he called upon a sub it was only because he was panting with exhaustion and streaming with perspiration. He was the iron man on hockey on Friday, and we know now why they call him the Iron Duke.

The Eskimos would reach the Stanley Cup finals against the Ottawa dynasty, led by Frank Nighbor, Eddie Gerard, and company. While Ottawa would win the finals and the Cup, Keats gave them trouble:

Edmonton scored several shots without Ottawa being able to retaliate. Keats' tricky stickhandling in centre ice was particularly annoying to the Ottawa forwards. -

I think it's noteworthy that Keats' stickhandling was "annoying" to even a Nighbor-led team.

1923-24

The WCHL had surpassed the PCHA as the NHL's biggest rival. The two leagues played an interlocking schedule and the WCHL dominated with a 17-5-2 record vs the PCHA.

1. Bill Cook 40
2. Harry Oliver 34
3. Duke Keats 31
3. George Hay 31
5. Barney Stanley 26
6. Laurie Scott 25
7. Bernie Morris (34 yo) 23
7. Cully Wilson 23
7. Dick Irvin 23

Keats was again among the leading players in the WCHL.

1924-25

The PCHA had disbanded in the offseason. Their two best teams (Vancouver and Victoria) joined the WCHL. AT this point, the WCHL was probably a little bit stronger than the NHL.

Keats was 1 point behind a tie for first place in the league.

1. Mickey MacKay 33
1. Harry Oliver 33
3. Duke Keats (29 yo) 32
4. Bill Cook (29 yo) 32 (missed 3 games)
5. Frank Fredrickson (29 yo) 30
6. Frank Boucher (24 yo) 28

Keats is right up there with Mickey MacKay and Frank Fredrickson in scoring in the first season after the WCHL absorbed the PCHA.

Keats seemed to have the star power to be compared with Fredrickson and Morenz: (Sturminator found this and posted in in the Fredrickson profile)

Which one of the following players is the best - please name them in the order they stand - Duke Keats, Howie Morenz, Frank Frederickson? Who is the best goaltender in the world?

- Anxious, Stoughton

Your questions, of course, cannot be answered finally. In my opinion Frederickson outshone either Keats or Morenz for the 1924-25 season. He was right at the top of the W.C.L. scoring list and starred when the Victoria Cougars outclassed the Canadiens in the Stanley Cup final, Morenz being the pick of the Montreal team. Vezina was recently picked for an all-star team but on last season's play Happy Holmes, of Victoria, would be my selection as the best goaltender.

1925-26

1. Bill Cook 44
2. Dick Irvin 36
3. Corb Denneny (32 yo) 34
4. Keats' RW 33
5. George Hay 31
6. Duke Keats 29
7. Harry Oliver 25
8. Frank Fredrickson 24
9. Frank Boucher 22

Keats is now 30 years old and falls out of the top 5 for the first time in his career. He still finishes ahead of Fredrickson, however.

From this season, we have an example of Keats' smarts. Apparently he had a nice dirty trick - In these days of long shifts, when Keats needed a rest, he would pick a fight with a member of the opposing team and get them both sent off:

When the Edmonton Eskimos come here next Thursday to meet the Tigers, Calgary fans will see one of the shrewdest ice generals in hockey - Duke Keats. They will also see the "badman" of the section, but to the close observer it will be noticeable that that foxy performer seldom goes to the cooler without taking someone with him. It usually happens at a time when Keats has run his stretch of endurance without a rest, and he accepts this as an opportunity for respite. It is feared that too many teams in the league fall for the tactics of this calculating wizard. ... He is dangerous at all times, even though he does not squander much time tearing around, and showing the crowd fancy skating. ... He endeavours to arouse an opponent's ire in all sorts of ingenious ways, and he usually makes things appear as though the other fellow is quite as much to blame as himself, and the double penalty is inflicted

. -

Summary: Keats was a star in all 5 seasons of WCHL play. In 1922, he absolutely dominated the league and may have been the best player in the world. In 1923, he was only outscored by one player (a teammate) because of injury, and the press indicates that his team was absolutely lost without him. By 1924, the WCHL had clearly surpassed the PCHA, and Keats finished 3rd in scoring in the league. The best PCHA players joined the WCHL in 1925, and Keats scored at a similar level to Mickey MacKay and Frank Fredrickson. In 1926, a 29 year old Keats finished 6th in the WCHL, which probably translates into 10th in the world, since the WCHL was probably a little stronger than the NHL by this point.

Keats was a notoriously physical player and well-known as an "on ice general" and difference maker this whole time. There is also evidence that he was a strong backchecker, as well. His only weakness was lack of footspeed (which was more evident later in his career in the NHL).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Duke Keats Part 3 of 3

The NHL years (1926-1929)

The WCHL folded after 1926 and NHL teams bid for their best players.

Former WCHL players dominated the NHL. In 1926-27, the first year that all the best talent was consolidated in the NHL, 6 of the top 10 and 10 of the top 20 scorers were all players who had played in the WCHL the previous season. In fact, that top 4 in Hart voting were all players who had spent 1925-26 in the WCHL. When I say the WCHL was probably a little stronger than the NHL in 1924-25 and 1925-26 (after it had absorbed the PCHA), this is what I mean.

Keats was 31 years old when he joined the NHL. He would be a top 10 scorer for the next two seasons.

1926-27 Consolidated NHL
1. Bill Cook*-NYR 37
2. Dick Irvin*-CBH 36
3. Howie Morenz*-MTL 32
4. Frank Fredrickson*-TOT 31
5. Babe Dye*-CBH 30
6. Frank Boucher*-NYR 28
Ace Bailey*-TOR 28
8. Billy Burch*-NYA 27
9. Harry Oliver *-BOS 24
Duke Keats*-TOT 24

1927-28 Consolidated NHL
1. Howie Morenz*-MTL 51
2. Aurele Joliat*-MTL 39
3. Frank Boucher*-NYR 35
George Hay*-DTC 35
5. Nels Stewart*-MTM 34
6. Art Gagne 30
7. Bun Cook*-NYR 28
8. Bill Carson-TOR 26
9. Frank Finnigan-OTS 25
10. Bill Cook*-NYR 24
Duke Keats*-TOT 24

I bolded the top 10 NHL scorers in the first two seasons after consolidation who played with Keats in the WCHL/WHL. It is more than half of them.

Duke Keats was still getting a great deal of praise in the press, even as an NHLer who was likely past his prime.

Duke" Keats, rated as one of the foxiest centre ice men in the game.

The wise boys who made hasty guesses about the uselessness of the Fredrickson-Keats trade got a rude jolt as the Detroit Cougars stopped the Americans in New York last night. "Duke" Keats, the veteran for whom Art Duncan sacrificed the services of his big centre ice star, broke up a gruelling game by scoring the only goal of the night in the third period. And we'll gamble that it was tallied in typical Keats style, the result of a bit of the former Edmonton skipper's brainy hockey. The Duke has a habit of doing just such a trick - he gets his goals when they count most.

Seems Keats was still a determined backchecker late in his career:

Hap" Holmes would never have been able to hold the fort but for the determined checking of the Cougar forwards, who came to the rescue of the crippled defense. Foyston, Walker, Sheppard, Gordon, Keats and Briden starred in this department as well as on the attack.

During the 1926-27 season, Keats was traded with a no-name (Archie Biden) player for Frank Fredrickson and another no-name player (Harry Meeking). Here is a contrast of Keats and Fredrickson's styles:

That Keats and Briden should figure in an even trade for him (Fredrickson), however, is surprising. It probably means that Ross has too many stars elsewhere, but not enough speed in centre ice. Keats has more hockey brains then Fredrickson, perhaps, but he hasn't the high-strung termperament, or the flashing speed net-wards that is Fredrickson's forte

.
Lack of speed was Keats' weakness, at least as a player in his 30s. His stickhandling never left him:

With the second period half over, Duke Keats, always noted as a clever puck manipulator, put on a splendid exhibition of juggling. The Duke, while not quite as slow as a snail, has little or no speed at any time and it was probably his lack of speed that enabled him to come through with Chicago's only tally of the game. He juggled the puck successfully to get in close to Connell, although two or three opponents endeavored to block his way to the Ottawa net. When in close, Keats decoyed Connell out of position to score easily.

Summary:Keats was a top 10 scorer in the consolidated NHL at the ages of 31 and 32, and while he was slow as dirt by this time, he still seems to have been considered a committed back checker.


Summary of Keats' career:

• Top 5 scorer in the NHA in 1916 and 1917 when the NHA was one of two professional leagues. (1917 is projected from where he was when he left to fight WW1)
• Missed 2 more full years due to WW1.
• Came back and dominated the Big-4 semi-amateur league and was offered a huge contract to come back East to the now-NHL (which he seems to have declined). The Big 4 contained several HHOFers in their 20s and was likely paying its stars under the table.
• Star in the professional WCHL for 5 straight seasons
  • Might have been the best player in the world in 1921-22 - hard to tell, the league was clearly the weakest of the 3 professional leagues at this point, but Keats flat out owned it.
  • Definitely the best forward in the WCHL in 1922-23 - the league was a bit weaker than the PCHA still.
  • Top 3 scorer in the WCHL in 1923-24 (when it was much stronger than the PCHA), and again in 1924-25 when it had absorbed the PCHA.
  • 6th in scoring in the WCHL in 1925-26 as a 30 year old.
• After the fall of the WCHL, Keats finished 9th in 10th in a consolidated NHL at the ages of 31 and 32.

Keats was a dominant player in the Big-4 and WCHL for most of his career. His accomplishments in more known leagues bookending this time - the NHA as a rookie and sophmore player (top 5 offensive player in the NHA both seasons) and the NHL as a 31 and 32 year old (top 10 offensive player in the consolidated NHL both season) - is pretty compelling evidence that Keats was probably a top 10 offensive player in the world in every season that he played hockey between 1915-16 and 1927-28. He may have been the best offensive player in the world in 1921-22, but it's hard to tell. We also have evidence that Keats was considered a strong back checker over the course of his career, beginning with his rookie season.

 

[seventieslord]

Sundin led his team in scoring 13 times. Modano led his team in scoring 12 times. When both were in their primes (late 90s, early 00s), Modano generally led his team in scoring by wider margins than Sundin led his. Anyway, enough about Modano; he's already on the list.

I will likely have Sundin ahead of Zetterberg myself. Sundin's probably going to be my 3rd or 4th (Nedomansky and Fredrickson look good for my top 2) and Zetterberg should be in my 5-8 range.

I'm planning to go through Duke Keat's career in more detail this weekend.

Honestly, what the heck is the problem with Zetterberg?

He's as good a peak producer as any of these guys.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Overshadowed on his own team?

I'll say this...there's some players that you needed to see live to appreciate them more and I was very indifferent about Mats Sundin until I saw him live for the first time...it was something that always stuck with me...that said, I'm not peeling off first place votes for him the past 2 or 3 rounds or whatever...but he was a terrific player...

 

[Hardyvan123]

Honestly, what the heck is the problem with Zetterberg?

He's as good a peak producer as any of these guys.

I'm not sure, I respect TDMM and his views but Big Ned over Zetts is really hard to fathom IMO.

As for Keats we have his 9th and 10th place finishes in the NHL when he was older, may or may not be as impressive as Big Ned's 2 big years in Detroit hard to say, but there isn't really any attempt to make a real good guess on how players in this era spread over 3 leagues in still the early days of the sport as to how they would have placed in an integrated league at the time.

It's one thing to be the big fish in the big 4 but modern guys played in a fully integrated league, if guys like Keats are being considered there should be some ballpark ranking year by year of consolidation at least presented to make their cases stronger one would think.

How guys rank in 3 , 4 5 team divided leagues really makes it difficult to get a real handle on how those early guys, after the obvious stars, shake out IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Lemaire Defensively

!970s were not the ideal decade for an intelligent defensive center or LW with a solid offensive package.

If a center did not slash and break the ankle of an opponent he was viewed as soft.

If a winger was not a clean physical defensive stalwart like Bob Gainey he was viewed as weak.

This is the enigma that was Jacques Lemaire. Required to play LW he would do the job without board rattling hits. Required to play center he would handle the defensive responsibilities cleanly and efficiently. Essential to winning hockey.

 

[MXD]

Honestly, what the heck is the problem with Zetterberg?

He's as good a peak producer as any of these guys.

So far, I do have Zetterberg ahead of Sundin myself (and clearly, I might add).

But.

- 3rd best player on his team (I mean, we did vote Datsyuk ahead quite a bit)

- While Sundin didn't have much of a peak... If a goal-above-relative-depth-chart-replacement-player existed, I suspect Sundin would still come on top of Zetterberg. So long for Sundin never really being a Top-8 center (random thresold) -- he was still much superior to ANY replacement 1st line center the Leafs would find in bargain bin to take his spot (think, say, Robert Lang). If anything, the Leafs are still looking for Sundin's replacement.

 

[MXD]

Duke Keats Part 1 of 3

This is my attempt at going through a season-by-season outlook of Keat's career, similarly to how Stuminator is going through Fredrickson's and MacKay's.

Keats is a difficult player to evaluate for 2 reasons:

1) He lost a serious chunk of his prime due to World War 1
2) Much of his prime was spent in the WCHL, which is less documented than the PCHA or early NHL.

No use quoting your whole post.

Keats lost a lot. Not only renounced to a spot in the NHA (and damn, look at that scorerboard), where he was doing quite well, only to lose years and to end up in a league where we cannot really give him full credit for his achievements (Big-4), then in the other league (WCHL) which got gradually stronger as he got gradually older.

So we're looking at a career that is, basically...

- 1.5 year in the NHA (where he wasn't a good as Lalonde and Malone; something that shouldn't be held against him at this point : he did outscore Neighbor though, if anything).
- 2.5 years in Europe (war)
- 2 years in what was the 3rd best league in the world (at the very best) -- that he flat out dominated
- 2 years in what was the 3rd best league in the world (but much closer to the Top-2) -- in which he was the best forward.
- 3 years in what was probably the 2nd best league in the world, and where he was a good enough player to be the best of his team (as a whole), but just not anymore the best forward of the league. Amongst players that were better than him : Bill Cook. That shouldn't be held against Keats at this point.

 

[BM67]

No, it was Nedomansky's entire 6 year NHL career.

In his first disastrous NHL season, he was outscored by 20 players, older than him, combined NHL/WHA. That dropped to 1 in his second NHL season.

Here's a table of the number of players that put up more points than Nedomansky that were older than him.

The number in brackets is the number of other older NHL players within 20 points of him while he was in the WHA. In 77-78 it is the number of older players that had more than his NHL only total of 28, but less than his combined total of 33.

Season|NHL|WHA
74-75|6(6)|5
75-76|1(3)|2
76-77|3(7)|1
77-78|8(1)|11
78-79|1|0
79-80|1|-
80-81|2|-
81-82|0|-
82-83|0|-

Compare that to Larionov who was out scored by 29 players older than him in both 89-90 and 90-91.

okay but part of that is to do with the much smaller number of older players in the NHL in the early 80's though right?

If we look at Big Ned in the WHA and NHL combined age 30 and older it's a less complimentary picture on the "he scored well for his age" argument.

Using age from H-R, the number of skaters age+ and rank in points out of those players. The bracketed numbers are NHL/WHA split. I just combined all of the numbers from the chart above for Nedomansky's rank.

Age|Nedomansky|Larionov|Makarov|Stastny|Sundin
29|-|145-30|-|-|-
30|151(79/72)-18|99-30|-|74-3|235-1
31|117(64/53)-7|95-9|64-1|47-1|191-6
32|87(52/35)-12|67-NA|42-1|28-1|149-3
33|58(36/22)-20|54-9|36-2|18-1|LO
34|32(18/14)-2|39-10|22-2|11-1|96-5
35|15-2|26-4|15-2|9-1|62-4
36|6-3|23-5|9-2|5-1|49-1
37|2-1|13-4|4-NA|5-2|33-13
38|1-1|9-1|5-5|3-2|-

 

[Hardyvan123]

Using age from H-R, the number of skaters age+ and rank in points out of those players. The bracketed numbers are NHL/WHA split. I just combined all of the numbers from the chart above for Nedomansky's rank.

Age|Nedomansky|Larionov|Makarov|Stastny|Sundin
29|-|145-30|-|-|-
30|151(79/72)-18|99-30|-|74-3|235-1
31|117(64/53)-7|95-9|64-1|47-1|191-6
32|87(52/35)-12|67-NA|42-1|28-1|149-3
33|58(36/22)-20|54-9|36-2|18-1|LO
34|32(18/14)-2|39-10|22-2|11-1|96-5
35|15-2|26-4|15-2|9-1|62-4
36|6-3|23-5|9-2|5-1|49-1
37|2-1|13-4|4-NA|5-2|33-13
38|1-1|9-1|5-5|3-2|-

Thanks for your efforts, we can see why Statsny is already in and how Sundin here is much better than Big Ned this round as well.

Igor doesn't look as good as Big ned on the surface but there are a couple of things that helps his case and why he is already in.

1) Playoffs, Igor simply wipes big Ned off the mat here.

2)94 and 95 when he was in San Jose he played basically 3/4 of those seasons and had a higher impact per game than his standings suggest, in fact it leads to the next point about his 2 way play, his plus/minus in San Jose on those teams is simply outstanding

3) Igor had superior 2 way play to Big Ned and was much more than just what he brought to the table in terms of scoring. although scoring is probably the largest factor we should consider for forwards, probably upwards to 75% of their "score" Igor hung close enough to make those intangibles decidedly the factor IMO.

Given the obvious edge offensively for Sundin over Big Ned in the above metric, and probably overall as well along with his intangibles is there any reason Big Ned should rank higher than Sundin this round?

 

[MXD]

Thanks for your efforts, we can see why Statsny is already in and how Sundin here is much better than Big Ned this round as well.

Igor doesn't look as good as Big ned on the surface but there are a couple of things that helps his case and why he is already in.

1) Playoffs, Igor simply wipes big Ned off the mat here.

For the sake of common sense, can we just call Nedomansky's (north american) playoff resume "incomplete" ?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

is there any reason Big Ned should rank higher than Sundin this round?

Yes.

I don't see the point in comparing the longevity between a guy who peaked in the 70s (and had unusually good longevity for his age group) and a guys who played in the 90s, when such longevity was very common.

 

[Killion]

!970s were not the ideal decade for an intelligent defensive center or LW with a solid offensive package.

If a center did not slash and break the ankle of an opponent he was viewed as soft.

If a winger was not a clean physical defensive stalwart like Bob Gainey he was viewed as weak.

This is the enigma that was Jacques Lemaire. Required to play LW he would do the job without board rattling hits. Required to play center he would handle the defensive responsibilities cleanly and efficiently. Essential to winning hockey.

Ya. He was like a stitch out of time from the waning years of the 06 era when thats how a great many players played. Were expected to be able to play if they had the brains & ability in fewer cases. Clean player.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't think there's any amount of spreadsheet or award reckoning that would convince me that Nedomansky and/or Zetterberg deserve higher consideration than Sundin. Literally everything that can be used to distinguish Zetterberg from Sundin (basically... Cups) came as a complimentary (even if relatively close at times in terms of "impact") piece to Datsyuk, for example, and there's no amount of value that anyone can suggest for Nedomansky's career in the Czech league that would overshadow the fact that Sundin is, by FAR, the highest scoring Swede in NHL history (and may never be touched - not even by Alfredsson).

 

[seventieslord]

Yes.

I don't see the point in comparing the longevity between a guy who peaked in the 70s (and had unusually good longevity for his age group) and a guys who played in the 90s, when such longevity was very common.

He still compared Sundin to his own contemporaries who had the same common longevity.

Isn't this apples to apples?

 

[seventieslord]

I don't think there's any amount of spreadsheet or award reckoning that would convince me that Nedomansky and/or Zetterberg deserve higher consideration than Sundin. Literally everything that can be used to distinguish Zetterberg from Sundin (basically... Cups) came as a complimentary (even if relatively close at times in terms of "impact") piece to Datsyuk, for example, and there's no amount of value that anyone can suggest for Nedomansky's career in the Czech league that would overshadow the fact that Sundin is, by FAR, the highest scoring Swede in NHL history (and may never be touched - not even by Alfredsson).

That's why Zetterberg has a cup. If your best forward is Sundin/Zetterberg, you're probably not winning the cup. If your second best forward is that caliber, you're a contender. If shouldn't devalue Zetterberg.

In fact, none of the case for Zetterberg (that I made, at least) rests on the cup, it rests on his actual playoff performance and all around game coupled with the fact that he was every bit as good offensively in his best 700 (or 400) games.

Zetterberg compared to Sundin right now seems like if we were comparing Gilmour to savard/perreault/Stastny/Hawerchuk circa 1994.

Sundin will be my #2 for sure though.