Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

That part is a bit overly simplistic.

The Leafs weren't exactly running 4 lines. Hell, they were probably even not running 3 lines by the time Primeau came in (somebody can confirm this statement?).

Thus IT was not exactly easy to come by, and bottom lines didn't exactly have any kindof freedom (Murray Murdoch's quote to that effect is totally awesome).

Rule changes opened the way for playmakers, which Primeau was. And he took advantage of it.

Toronto no1 center (Andy Blair) finished 2nd for assists, and 3rd for points. The Leafs had absolutely no reason to change that. Primeau got more IT in 29-30 though, and the rest is history.

Let's look at the situation in 28 and 29 more closely though and it becomes clear eh wasn't good enough

28 coming off a 15-24-5 season Joe (aged 22) auditions for the 28 Leafs and plays in 2 games for the 18-18-4 non playoff Leafs.

the centers on the 28 team were

Bill Carson (aged 27) with a 32-20-6-26 line
Butch Keeling (aged 22) with a 42-10-6-16 line (also listed as a LW)
Gerry Lowery (aged 21) with a 21-6-5-11 line
Jimmy Herbert (aged 30) with a 31-7-1-8 line

So 2 guys got significant playing time at center the same age or younger than Joe on a non playoff team in 28.

In 29 these were the centers in which Joe now 23 played in 6 games others were

Andy Blair (age 20) 44-12-15-27
Gerry Lowery (age 22) 32-3-11-14
Bill Carson (aged 28) 24-7-6-13

This team made the playoffs with 2 centers younger than Joe

In 30 Joe takes over as the #1 Center, Blair is 2nd line and the Leafs miss the playoffs.

Looks pretty much like Joe didn't cut it until 24, it wasn't some dynasty with prime stars holding him back.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Line Rotations

That part is a bit overly simplistic.

The Leafs weren't exactly running 4 lines. Hell, they were probably even not running 3 lines by the time Primeau came in (somebody can confirm this statement?).

Thus IT was not exactly easy to come by, and bottom lines didn't exactly have any kindof freedom (Murray Murdoch's quote to that effect is totally awesome).

Rule changes opened the way for playmakers, which Primeau was. And he took advantage of it.

Toronto no1 center (Andy Blair) finished 2nd for assists, and 3rd for points. The Leafs had absolutely no reason to change that. Primeau got more IT in 29-30 though, and the rest is history.

Thru the 1928-29 season game rosters were capped at 12 with a minimum of 8. Basically a two line rotation. Upped to 15 at the start of the 1929-30 season with downward adjustments caused by the initial 1932-33 salary cap. By the 1935-36 season teams were running three line rotations but they required extra shifting or positional flexibility.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

See it's not the all or nothing thing that you pretend to make it out to be here.

And that's the huge underlying problem with your argument, and assessment of McGee and Stamkos as you make it out to be one of two choices, both of which would be wrong.

It's not a "hey let's totally dismiss the level of play for that era" my opinion is that one needs to adjust for it, and seriously it's a huge adjustment if we do it fairly.

Your counterpoint is to go completely in the opposite direction and not account for it and treat 1903 exactly like 2011 in terms of competition, qaulity of play ect... which is totally mind blowing frankly.

By being too "fair" to one guy, you completely turn the tales on the other guy, can't you see the problem here?

If I were to not account for era and competition differences at all, the choice would be one-sided in favour of McGee. A legendary Stanley Cup performer who was elected to the Hall of Fame on the very first ballot. If Stamkos were to retire today he would receive no HOF consideration whatsoever, and his Stanley Cup resume would be practically blank. Regular season goals would be his only possible advantage. Yet I outlined cases where somebody may prefer either player, as I believe they are close. If I believe they are close in spite of McGee having some obvious points in his favour, I must be accounting for era differences to cover the discrepancy.

Both players were short career elite scorers, considered among the very best in the game during their careers. This is why a comparison is reasonable. As stated previous, after an examination of their respective careers, people can make their mental adjustment for era as they see fit, and may very well conclude that this factor tips the scales in Stamkos' favour. Your position is that difference in era is the first thing that needs to be considered, and you conclude McGee is the odd man out on this basis alone, before any detailed career examination can take place for either player. Putting the cart before the horse. There seems to be no scholarly benefit to this methodology.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

Let's look at the situation in 28 and 29 more closely though and it becomes clear eh wasn't good enough

28 coming off a 15-24-5 season Joe (aged 22) auditions for the 28 Leafs and plays in 2 games for the 18-18-4 non playoff Leafs.

the centers on the 28 team were

Bill Carson (aged 27) with a 32-20-6-26 line
Butch Keeling (aged 22) with a 42-10-6-16 line (also listed as a LW)
Gerry Lowery (aged 21) with a 21-6-5-11 line
Jimmy Herbert (aged 30) with a 31-7-1-8 line

So 2 guys got significant playing time at center the same age or younger than Joe on a non playoff team in 28.

In 29 these were the centers in which Joe now 23 played in 6 games others were

Andy Blair (age 20) 44-12-15-27
Gerry Lowery (age 22) 32-3-11-14
Bill Carson (aged 28) 24-7-6-13

This team made the playoffs with 2 centers younger than Joe

In 30 Joe takes over as the #1 Center, Blair is 2nd line and the Leafs miss the playoffs.

Looks pretty much like Joe didn't cut it until 24, it wasn't some dynasty with prime stars holding him back.

Bill Carson was fourth in the league in terms of GPG.

Leafs under Conn Smythe - coach, later owner favoured a "beat them in the alleys" approach with aggressive centers. Primeau was a skill/finesse center.

Andy Blair was the rare pre forward pass player who did not benefit statistically from a more open game.

Butch Keeling was a career secondary or support center. Found and mastered his niche early. Plenty of similar players today - career second / third liners that enter the league as juniors.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent Analogy

If I were to not account for era and competition differences at all, the choice would be one-sided in favour of McGee. A legendary Stanley Cup performer who was elected to the Hall of Fame on the very first ballot. If Stamkos were to retire today he would receive no HOF consideration whatsoever, and his Stanley Cup resume would be practically blank. Regular season goals would be his only possible advantage. Yet I outlined cases where somebody may prefer either player, as I believe they are close. If I believe they are close in spite of McGee having some obvious points in his favour, I must be accounting for era differences to cover the discrepancy.

Both players were short career elite scorers, considered among the very best in the game during their careers. This is why a comparison is reasonable. As stated previous, after an examination of their respective careers, people can make their mental adjustment for era as they see fit, and may very well conclude that this factor tips the scales in Stamkos' favour. Your position is that difference in era is the first thing that needs to be considered, and you conclude McGee is the odd man out on this basis alone, before any detailed career examination can take place for either player. Putting the cart before the horse. There seems to be no scholarly benefit to this methodology.

Excellent analogy Kyle.

The modern bias. Judge the skills competition elements and count awards and honours but ignore whether the player can play in a team concept best 20 against 20.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If I were to not account for era and competition differences at all, the choice would be one-sided in favour of McGee. A legendary Stanley Cup performer who was elected to the Hall of Fame on the very first ballot. If Stamkos were to retire today he would receive no HOF consideration whatsoever, and his Stanley Cup resume would be practically blank. Regular season goals would be his only possible advantage. Yet I outlined cases where somebody may prefer either player, as I believe they are close. If I believe they are close in spite of McGee having some obvious points in his favour, I must be accounting for era differences to cover the discrepancy.

Both players were short career elite scorers, considered among the very best in the game during their careers. This is why a comparison is reasonable. As stated previous, after an examination of their respective careers, people can make their mental adjustment for era as they see fit, and may very well conclude that this factor tips the scales in Stamkos' favour. Your position is that difference in era is the first thing that needs to be considered, and you conclude McGee is the odd man out on this basis alone, before any detailed career examination can take place for either player. Putting the cart before the horse. There seems to be no scholarly benefit to this methodology.

Actually the first thing I do when comparing any player is comparing their years.

Frank has 4 years...total and I think Bowie outscored him but it's hard to give him the tag top goal scorer with the different leagues and team setups back then but let's assume he was the best scorer in that 4 year period.

Scratch that I looked it up Bowie scored 106 goals in 32 games from 03-06 Frank scored 68 in 23 games.

Stamkos in his 4 year peak (his rookie season was decent and it's extra as is his 17-14-9-23 line this season so far).

So in Stamkos and his 4 years he is first in goals with 185 goals, next best is AO with 152 and then Corey Perry with 129 goals.

That 185-129 (which is really huge given 30 teams with top scorers with top line opportunities to match Stamkos) advantage Canadian to Canadian and frank was 2nd to Bowie and has zero else in his regular season career.

Maybe 1 other center has a 4 year peak, in terms of goal scoring (in his first 5 years in the league) that Stamkos has and his name is Wayne not Frank.

We really don't need to even adjust for era here, Stamkos is already well ahead in regular season play.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Actually the first thing I do when comparing any player is comparing their years.

Frank has 4 years...total and I think Bowie outscored him but it's hard to give him the tag top goal scorer with the different leagues and team setups back then but let's assume he was the best scorer in that 4 year period.

Scratch that I looked it up Bowie scored 106 goals in 32 games from 03-06 Frank scored 68 in 23 games.

Stamkos in his 4 year peak (his rookie season was decent and it's extra as is his 17-14-9-23 line this season so far).

So in Stamkos and his 4 years he is first in goals with 185 goals, next best is AO with 152 and then Corey Perry with 129 goals.

That 185-129 (which is really huge given 30 teams with top scorers with top line opportunities to match Stamkos) advantage Canadian to Canadian and frank was 2nd to Bowie and has zero else in his regular season career.

Maybe 1 other center has a 4 year peak, in terms of goal scoring (in his first 5 years in the league) that Stamkos has and his name is Wayne not Frank.

We really don't need to even adjust for era here, Stamkos is already well ahead in regular season play.

These are all fine points that bolster the case of Stamkos over McGee. (Though we must be aware that some players didn't have the opportunity to play their first 5 years in "the league", meaning the NHL I trust).

Why not present these findings at the outset, rather than attempt outlandish comparisons between the CAHL/ECAHA and British Super league/Tony Hand, building upon unsupported and contested player participation rates that you seemingly pulled out of thin air in the previous thread? If an era adjustment is not even necessary, it should not have been your primary point of contention.

But moving forward, yes I agree that Stamkos has eclipsed McGee in regular season scoring prowess by this point. I think we need to wait and see if Stamkos has McGee's ability to deliver in clutch situations and lead a team as its primary star though.

McGee's playoff resume includes some dubious shellackings of Dawson City, Queen's University, but also great performances against HOF-filled rosters of Rat Portage, Russell Bowie's Victoria club. Stamkos' is limited to one appearance where he performed adequately for a young player in his first playoff, though well below his regular season scoring rate.

McGee had a HOF winger in Alf Smith to help do a lot of the dirty work, but was still uncontested as the driving force on his Ottawa teams. Stamkos has been aided by a probable HOF winger in St. Louis, and another elite center in Lecavalier alongside him in the lineup. Too early to tell if he can be the focal point of team success like McGee was.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Knew I forgot a detail. Steve Yzerman, 1995-96 scored 95 points, followed by 85, then three seasons between 69 and 79, then elder statesman years:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/y/yzermst01.html

So after adjusting for the difference in league scoring levels Yzerman was in fact able to hit your 90 pt benchmark at least once and possibly a second time with the 79 pt season.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Plus/Minus

Excellent point; +/- is infected by all kinds of noise, not only team situation. When used to judge individual performance, it is a silly stat, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. There are arguments to be made for Jacques Lemaire, but let's please not waste any more time with this one.

From the early days of hockey with limited or no substitution, plus/minus was a rather self-evident stat.

Disappeared with multiple line rotations then resurfaced in the sixties as a counter to fad scoring - 50 goal benchmark,PP specialists, etc as part of an effort to suppress salaries.

 

[Hardyvan123]

These are all fine points that bolster the case of Stamkos over McGee. (Though we must be aware that some players didn't have the opportunity to play their first 5 years in "the league", meaning the NHL I trust).

Why not present these findings at the outset, rather than attempt outlandish comparisons between the CAHL/ECAHA and British Super league/Tony Hand, building upon unsupported and contested player participation rates that you seemingly pulled out of thin air in the previous thread? If an era adjustment is not even necessary, it should not have been your primary point of contention.

I can go back and look but I'm pretty sure I posted his scoring for the alst 5 seasons (including this injured on were he is still the leader).

I went back and checked ,it was in post 80, clearly Stmakos has the best peak in this round and it's an extremely high one as well, it's 4 full seasons (okay 1 is a lockout 48 game one) and the 17 games this season.

But moving forward, yes I agree that Stamkos has eclipsed McGee in regular season scoring prowess by this point. I think we need to wait and see if Stamkos has McGee's ability to deliver in clutch situations and lead a team as its primary star though.

What clutch situations, were high scoring games made the 80's look like a defensive struggle?

McGee's playoff resume includes some dubious shellackings of Dawson City, Queen's University, but also great performances against HOF-filled rosters of Rat Portage, Russell Bowie's Victoria club. Stamkos' is limited to one appearance where he performed adequately for a young player in his first playoff, though well below his regular season scoring rate.

Stmakos played in an era were playoff scoring is down from the low regular scoring to begin with, something that needs to be considered.

McGee had a HOF winger in Alf Smith to help do a lot of the dirty work, but was still uncontested as the driving force on his Ottawa teams. Stamkos has been aided by a probable HOF winger in St. Louis, and another elite center in Lecavalier alongside him in the lineup. Too early to tell if he can be the focal point of team success like McGee was.

Stamkos has done fine without Vinny this year and in other seasons as well, sure MSL is there but McGee played with 4 HHOF players on that 7 man side too. At best the linemate thing is a wash IMO.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

McGee's playoff resume includes some dubious shellackings of Dawson City, Queen's University, but also great performances against HOF-filled rosters of Rat Portage, Russell Bowie's Victoria club.

It should be mentioned, of course, that when Ottawa first faced Rat Portage (Ottawa would become the "Silver Seven" upon receiving their "reward") they only had one player older than 20 years old at that point, and apparently the poor ice condition played a "major factor". It should also be pointed out that the names of inductees that you see on those rosters are members for significance of their association with the '06/07 Thistles; perhaps more so than the relative "merit" of their resumes as individuals (important for comparison with a more modern player, who has to live up to much higher standards for induction). (1903 CAHL summary from wikipedia)

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Excellent analogy Kyle.

The modern bias. Judge the skills competition elements and count awards and honours but ignore whether the player can play in a team concept best 20 against 20.

Thank you for the kind words. Agree about players needing to fit in as part of the collective. When looking at how a player fits into team concept, we also need to remember that trying to envision Frank McGee as part of a 20-man unit is no different than trying to picture Stamkos as part of a 7-man unit that played all 60 minutes. May be an interesting thought experiment, but better to evaluate them in the role they were required to play in their own time.

I can go back and look but I'm pretty sure I posted his scoring for the alst 5 seasons (including this injured on were he is still the leader).

I went back and checked ,it was in post 80, clearly Stmakos has the best peak in this round and it's an extremely high one as well, it's 4 full seasons (okay 1 is a lockout 48 game one) and the 17 games this season.

Yes, you mentioned Stamkos has the most goals over the last four seasons. This came well after numerous references to poor quality hockey being played in McGee's era. No direct comparison to McGee was made (ie. where did he rank in goals scored during his career). I made that comparison myself in a later post.

What clutch situations, were high scoring games made the 80's look like a defensive struggle?

I detailed these in a previous post, perhaps you overlooked them. For your convenience, here is the relevant excerpt:

"Ottawa defended the Cup the next December against Winnipeg, McGee scoring a goal in a 2-0 victory described as "the most brilliant game ever played in Ottawa".

Ottawa fell behind in a 1905 Cup series against Rat Portage, losing the opener 9-3 with McGee out injured. He returned for the next two games, helping the Silver Seven comeback to win the series with a hat trick in the decisive 5-4 victory in the third game"

Stmakos played in an era were playoff scoring is down from the low regular scoring to begin with, something that needs to be considered.

His goal scoring and point production both decreased by approximately 39%, well beyond the expected drop-off for his era.

Stamkos has done fine without Vinny this year and in other seasons as well, sure MSL is there but McGee played with 4 HHOF players on that 7 man side too. At best the linemate thing is a wash IMO.

Stamkos doing fine without Lecavalier, indeed. But only over a 17 game sample size, not an entire season. Teammate strength may be a wash, but in terms of the players' roles, McGee showed he was capable of being "the man" on a successful team/Stanley Cup winner. Stamkos has been an elite player on a generally poor team with Martin St. Louis considered the top player in most years.

It should be mentioned, of course, that when Ottawa first faced Rat Portage (Ottawa would become the "Silver Seven" upon receiving their "reward") they only had one player older than 20 years old at that point, and apparently the poor ice condition played a "major factor". It should also be pointed out that the names of inductees that you see on those rosters are members for significance of their association with the '06/07 Thistles; perhaps more so than the relative "merit" of their resumes as individuals (important for comparison with a more modern player, who has to live up to much higher standards for induction). (1903 CAHL summary from wikipedia)

Hooper and McGimsie are more than likely just in the HOF due to their association with the Thistles, yes. But Si Griffis had a long career and has never been questioned as a worthy inductee. Tom Phillips was on the 1905 version of the Thistles that McGee's Silver Seven defeated (but not 1903), and was most certainly considered one of the outstanding players of his generation. Inaugural ballot HOF inductee. They were a young team, but then most great players of the time did so in their early 20's, long gone before the age of 30 in many cases.

Poor ice conditions were a common reality of the times, and cited as a factor in the outcome of games too numerous to mention. It wouldn't be fair to discredit Ottawa alone as a possible beneficiary of slushy ice conditions. It is suggested in some accounts that Ottawa salted the ice in attempt to gain deliberate advantage, but this appears to be anachronistic and no contemporary sources have been cited. The musings of an Ontario hockey executive decades later are possibly the source of this unsupported allegation.

(PS, Sorry if it sounds like I'm lecturing that's not my intent, just putting forth all the information available.)

 

[Canadiens1958]

7 vs 20

^^^ Kyle, human nature is such that having maximum ice time would never be a problem. Sharing, especially as the pieces get smaller is another issue altogether.

Modern players would love the opportunity to play a sixty minute game.

 

[MXD]

^^^ Kyle, human nature is such that having maximum ice time would never be a problem. Sharing, especially as the pieces get smaller is another issue altogether.

Modern players would love the opportunity to play a sixty minute game.

But they also probably would have to change their game a bit...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

They were a young team, but then most great players of the time did so in their early 20's, long gone before the age of 30 in many cases.

Yeah, but there's a mountain of difference between a team of "early 20s" and having only one player who was older than 20.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Federko's placement on the tables are interesting. Racked up a lot of low top 10/20 finishes, bit VsX shows he was never that close to the leaders.

And his All-Star record doesn't impress (though he did play at a time when Gretzky owned the 1st Team)

Always thought he was a better scorer than his VsX seems to indicate but then again he was almost always the biggest producer on his team and had plenty of wingers who had their peaks with him.

I'm pretty sure he isn't going to be in my top 4 this round but he reminds me of Turgeon but 15 years earlier and with a better playoff record.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm having a bit of a lazy night and don't want to go over each player from scratch, many thanks to Tarheelhockey for this post and it would be great if everyone could do this every time but that would be ideal.

anyways will quote both him and TDMM and then add my comments on the missing guys

Just trying to organize my thoughts with so many different players on the board... below I've made an attempt to summarize the pro/con arguments for each of them.

Rod Brind'Amour
Pro: Consistent, though relatively modest, offensive producer; premier defensive center for a large portion of his career; outstanding faceoff guy; big-game goal scorer; captained the 2006 Cup team.
Con: One of the weakest offensive candidates available; not a #1 center for much of his career; other than Selkes, didn't receive much individual recognition in the "overall player" awards.

Pretty much this and if you took his best 10 seasons, which are all over the map, he starts to look alot like Lemaire, although without the playoff resume.

Guy Carbonneau
Pro: All-time elite defensive center, definitely the best in this round; critical defensive performance on Gretzky in the '93 Finals; won 3 Cups; captained the 1993 Cup team.
Con: Probably the weakest offensive producer in this round; could be wrong but I don't think he was ever a #1 center; only individual recognition was Selke votes.

Just too weak offensively and was basically a specialist, even if he was the best defensive center of all time, and I highly doubt that he wouldn't make my top 100 list and there are simply too many centers who could provide more value with way better scoring and/or 2 way play

Neil Colville
Pro: One of the better (maybe 4th behind Cowley/Apps/Schmidt?) offensive centers of the period immediately before WWII; top leaguewide scorer during a Cup run in 1940; well rounded offensively, and had a good defensive game; versatile enough that he switched back to D after the war; captained the Rangers for 4 years before retiring to become head coach.
Con: Underwhelmed in 1942 and then missed the next 3 years to war service; wasn't the same player when he came back. So really only about a 5-year window as an elite center.

Somewhat comparable to Brind'Amour and Lemaire IMO but with better AST voting results but alot of that has to do with just less players to compete with for votes. Statistically he just looks very meh compared to his team mates never mind the league. Something higher than than a 7th place finish or more eyars in the top 10 sure would help his case.

Tommy Dunderdale
Pro: Top goal scorer in PCHA history; judging by AS awards, he was certainly the best PCHA center from 1912-1915; reputed for his speed and stickhandling; apparently played decently on defense; exceptional longevity for the time; outscored Frank Foyston head to head in some seasons (but not all of them).
Con: Does being the best, but not utterly dominant center in the PCHA for a few years make him a top-60 center? Took a ton of PIMs; probably not higher than the 5th-best center in his prime, had the leagues been unified.

I think the cons take it here, at some point a top 5 center in the teens isn't really going to fair well to top 8-10 guys in a post 70's world situation.

Bernie Federko
Pro: Extremely consistent, reliable playmaker; unselfish, underrated, a player who made his linemates better; arguably a top-5 center for a brief period around 1980; certainly didn't get a lot of team help; led the NHL in playoff points in 1986 (without making the Finals!)
Con: No individual recognition; never in the top-3 centers leaguewide; he had a Sundin-type peak; it's hard to point at any one thing as an all-time-relevant "accomplishment", other than Blues franchise records.

The term compiler comes to mind , and that's not a bad thing really but he just doesn't have much of a wow factor to his resume and probably at no time would he really be considered as a top 20 player in the world to start a one team from.

Maybe a top 10 guy in the NHL in his absolute peak but still lacking something for a place in the top 3 this round.

Still he made alot of wingers look really good and his Dmen QB on the PP might be worse than Dionne's so something to consider I guess.

Frank Foyston
Pro: During the period 1917-1919, Foyston had at least something of an argument for best center in the world; extremely versatile, winning AS nods at all three forward positions plus rover; noted for his speed, stickhandling, and general playmaking skill; a big-game player who won Cups with 3 different teams and missed a potential 4th due to the 1919 flu cancellation.
Con: A less generous view of his prime could have him at least as low as 8th in the time period behind Taylor, Nighbor, Lalonde, Malone, Fredrickson, MacKay and Keats. If you see him that way, does the 8th best center of the 1910s belong on the top-60 list?

The cons really shed some light on him and there just is going to be a limit on how many PCHA guys can really be considered top 60 ever right?

Pat Lafontaine
Pro: Probably the best "eye test" player available; his peak was extremely high, probably good enough to be a legit Hart-winner during much of hockey history. He showed pretty well in his limited playoff action.
Con: Extremely short peak and overall career; major injury issues; no team success of note.

If not for the injuries he would be a lock for top 40 probably, as it is his peak was excellent and he is in the mix for top 4 this round.

Jacques Lemaire
Pro: Versatile and intelligent; contributed to a modern dynasty; arguably underrated offensively
Con: No individual recognition; benefited statistically from playing with LaFleur; was perhaps the 5th or 6th best player on those Cup-winning teams.

Probably the hardest guy to peg this round, could have played longer but didn't. Played with guy but also excelled before playing with him. There also seems to be a divided on his defensive play and his importance to those Habs teams. One thing he has though is a great playoffs and was more an ES guy than a guy who padded his stats on the PP (not that scoring on the PP is a bad thing but there are differences).

Definitely in the mix for top 3 but it's hard not to think what his career might have been like outside of Montreal too.

Joe Nieuwendyk
Pro: After a strong offensive showing as a young player, he developed into a highly respected and intelligent two-way center, faceoff ace and clutch goal scorer. Universally respected for his leadership and general good grace.
Con: Perhaps the ultimate "Hall of Very Good" player; a handful of top-10 goal scoring finishes are his only statistical accomplishments; never distinguished himself individually (on the all-time level) outside of a 1999 Conn Smythe; arguably benefited from luck in landing on the stacked teams at the right time.

Not the worst guy this round but also lacks that wow factor. kind of has a weird career too wasn't a flash in the pan but if he could have come close to replicating those first 4 years for another 2 or 3 years anytime it would really help his case.

Could be on either side of 8 but not a top 4 guy for me.

Joe Primeau
Pro: Playmaker and defensive conscience on the most successful line of the early 1930s; played a quiet all-round game comparable perhaps to a Ron Francis.
Con: His scoring success is directly correlated to being on the Kid Line, and was never replicated away from them; extremely short 4-year peak with little play and no noteworthy accomplishments outside that period.

Too short of a career with too many questions, might make top 8 but it's hard to make the case really.

Henrik Sedin
Pro: Peaked as a Hart/Ross-winner, captain of a finalist. The most prolific post-lockout player remaining. Consistent top-5 assist man, with 3 consecutive #1 finishes. Maybe tougher than his reputation.
Con: Benefited from an extreme case of linemate customization; not a strong defensive player; at best he may have been a top-3 center very briefly; very weak profile until age 25; still too young to have full "career value".

He suffers from the late getting it going like Joe did but at least he lasted longer and will make it higher on my list, somewhere in the top 8 but unlikely in my top 4

Vyacheslav Starshinov
Pro: Prolific goal scorer, both domestically and internationally, during the 1960s; played a highly physical two-way game; consistent star player in the Soviet league.
Con: Not a strong playmaker, and his point finishes are inflated by the fact that the Soviets didn't count assists; 1960s Soviet and international competition wasn't quite as competitive as later decades; for a smallish player, he was relatively slow and played a physical style that probably wouldn't have worked at a higher level.

I'm not going to use the tony Hand example here but that's my drift simply a big fish in a small pond and really it's extremely hard to even rank him fairly but he isn't top 8 material in this round and heck I can think of at least 8 other guys not on this list who compare better than he does.

Steven Stamkos:
Pro: Easily the best goal scorer and arguably the best peak-value player available.
Con: Extremely small career sample due to his age. Not notable for his defense, leadership, versatility, team success, or really anything other than goal scoring.

Extremely high peak and better than at least 75% of the other top 60 centers in the age 23 and under sample.

But that's it, the small sample hurts him, as did his injury this year. I have no doubt he will crack top 60 as soon as the 15 season but not sure for this round, it's possible

Pierre Turgeon
Pro: Arguably the best overall offensive resume available. Long, consistently productive career that included important roles on some good teams.
Con: Relatively low peak, finishing top-5 in points only on one occasion and never in goals or assists. Not much in the way of individual recognition or team success. Team-hopped, probably due to at least the perception that he wasn't a "leadership core" type of player.

I can see SeventiesLord point on Turgeon but he lacks that wow factor as well, maybe if he actually won an Art Ross and maybe if he didn't have an injury here or there or was better in the playoffs....

Maybe someone could finish this list... I have to go and I'm still missing the following:
Duke Keats
Frank McGee
Bernie Morris
Milan Novy
Jeremy Roenick

Here's what I can come up with for the three early guys. Feel free to add if I'm missing anything. I want to have more of a conversation with VMBM about Novy before doing him.

Duke Keats

Pros: From his rookie year at age 21 to his age 32 season, he was likely a top 10 offensive player in the world in every season he played. Relatively strong backchecker over the course of his career. Noted as a very smart player, a very physical player, and excellent stickhander, a leader, and an "on ice general." Possibly the best player in the world in 1921-22, but it's hard to tell. Had a lot of star power; it was not unusual to see him compared to the best players in the world at the time (in particular Fredrickson but also Morenz on at least one occasion).

Cons: Spent much of his prime dominating weaker leagues (likely for $$$), so while it's likely that he was always as good as he was in the NHA as a young player and NHL as an old player, it's not a guarantee. (Though note that the 1923-24 and 1924-25 WCHL were likely a little stronger than the NHL, as the league had absorbed the PCHA). Was compared to Fredrickson in the press, but it seems Fredrickson usually came out a bit ahead (During Fredrickson's prime, which was shorter than Keats'). Always a slow skater, he was a downright slug by the time he hit the NHL in his 30s (but was still a top 10 scorer). Bad temper, prone to taking bad penalties. No Stanley Cups, though he did lead the Edmonton Eskimos to the finals once, only to be obliterated by the Ottawa dynasty.

Good analysis but he's is a hard guy to peg, as are all of the PCHA guys with Canadian talent spread out and shifting from league to league.

those 2 top 10's later in his career in the NHL sure help his case alot though.

Frank McGee

Pros: There are contemporary quotes referring to him as the best player in the world while he played - of the players who played in that decade, I have only seen such quotes about Bowie, Hod Stuart, Tommy Phillips, and Frank McGee. During his brief career, he was seen as the best player on the Silver Seven dynasty. Easily scored the most goals in Cup challenges of the era. Seems to have been more of an all-around player than Bowie. On a per-game basis over his career, he wasn't that far behind Bowie as a goal scorer.

Cons: The big one - only played 4 years, and really only played full seasons for 3 of them. On a total (not per-game) basis, he was 33% behind Bowie in total goals scored over the entire course of McGee's career. Many of his Cup challenge goals were from running up the score against weak challengers, including college teams. If you only look at legitimate challengers, McGee's numbers in the remaining Cup challengers are still strong, but not otherworldly. He was a small man, even for his era.

His case is a lot him him really really short and sure a top 60 pre WW2 is a lock but too many good centers in much better competitive environments for much longer squeeze him out.

Bernie Morris

Pros: Likely, the third best scorer in PCHA history, a little behind Fredrickson and a little ahead of Foyston and Dunderdale (Keats is a WCHL player, not a PCHA one). He was outstanding in the Stanley Cup finals in 1917 for the Cup winning Seattle Metropolitans, perhaps the Conn Smythe winner that year if one had been awarded (they Retro Conn Smythe project starts in 1918)

Cons: Morris doesn't seem to have brought anything other than scoring. Despite lesser stats, Morris's teammate Foyston (a stronger all-round player) seems to have gotten more praise in the press. I've never seen anything comparing Morris to the best players in the world. Unlike his available contemporaries, Morris is not a member of the HHOF, though it seems like accusations of draft dodging (of which he was not convicted) MAY have been a factor initially.

[/QUOTE]

might have the weakest case of the PCHA guys, it sure would help if we had more information on these guys but we don't and it's hard to see him in the top 60.


Novy has obvious strength in Czech league play and somewhat internationally, although it was the 70's. his NHL resume is extremely weak, especially when compared to Hlinka who was 2 years older at the same time.

Roenick has a very strong case to go #1 this round, his peak before his injury was that of a physical 200 foot player who was exciting and easily the best player on his team. Pretty solid across the board and AST voting supports that as well, in a golden age of centers he still looks really good at this point.

 

[VMBM]

Novy has obvious strength in Czech league play and somewhat internationally, although it was the 70's. his NHL resume is extremely weak, especially when compared to Hlinka who was 2 years older at the same time.

?

I think the Czechoslovak league was at its strongest in the 1970s. And Novy was a dominant scorer from the mid-1970s on. Remember that Peter Stastny was never better than 4th (scoring). It was also quite hard to get all-star nods etc. at the World Championships (due to the top Soviet players).

Some relevant questions are: how dominant was Poldi Kladno in the mid-/late-1970s exactly? Can it really be compared to CSKA in the Soviet league? i.e. was it (much) easier for Novy to score than for his Czechoslovakian rivals (Martinec, Hlinka, Stastnys etc.), which would partly explain his superior domestic record?

I know Kladno won e.g. 4 straight championships in 1975-78, but was it because the team was so strong (overall) compared to the others, or was Novy the main contributor (or both)? I know the team had the best Czech defenseman, Frantisek Pospisil, and other decent ones (e.g. Frantisek Kaberle, Sr., Jan Neliba) and that might have given Novy a better chance to concentrate on scoring (rather than on defensive play). Speculations, speculations... God, I'd love to hear from someone, who followed the Czechoslovak league in the 1970s!!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensive Centers

The value of defensive play was very strongly underlined by Mike Babcock, coach of the 2014 Canadian Gold Medal team, when he said in effect that everyone remembers the gold medal winner but not the scoring leader.

 

[Hardyvan123]

?

I think the Czechoslovak league was at its strongest in the 1970s. And Novy was a dominant scorer from the mid-1970s on. Remember that Peter Stastny was never better than 4th (scoring). It was also quite hard to get all-star nods etc. at the World Championships (due to the top Soviet players).

Some relevant questions are: how dominant was Poldi Kladno in the mid-/late-1970s exactly? Can it really be compared to CSKA in the Soviet league? i.e. was it (much) easier for Novy to score than for his Czechoslovakian rivals (Martinec, Hlinka, Stastnys etc.), which would partly explain his superior domestic record?

I know Kladno won e.g. 4 straight championships in 1975-78, but was it because the team was so strong (overall) compared to the others, or was Novy the main contributor (or both)? I know the team had the best Czech defenseman, Frantisek Pospisil, and other decent ones (e.g. Frantisek Kaberle, Sr., Jan Neliba) and that might have given Novy a better chance to concentrate on scoring (rather than on defensive play). Speculations, speculations... God, I'd love to hear from someone, who followed the Czechoslovak league in the 1970s!!!

I should have been more clear it was the 70's for international play when it was basically Russia, Czechs then a huge dropoff.

The Czech domestic league was indeed probably at it's strongest but still it was the 3rd or 4rth best league in the world probably behind the NHL, WHA, Russia.

the NHL resume isn't Krutov bad but it really hurts his case.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'll have to double check my research on this, but I'm 90% sure that Jackson was actually sent to center the third line. Conacher was with Thoms and Buzz Boll -- both of whom had career years.

Closing the loop on this, I’ve gone back and looked at the granular details of the Leafs' line situation during Primeau's final two seasons. This is going to take a couple of long posts, which are basically just an info dump, so I’m going to “show my work†first and then post a summary below for those who aren't all that interested in the details.



1934-35

Preseason

Rumors had the Leafs leadership high on Bill Thoms and looking to move Andy Blair to make room for new blood. Lines to begin the preseason were as follows:

B. Jackson - Primeau - Conacher
Boll - Thoms - Kilrea
Cotton - Blair - Doraty
Metz - A. Jackson - Kelly

When playing IHL teams in exhibition, the Leafs would lend them a line or two to help even out the competition. Ironically, it was Pep Kelly, on the "New Kid Line", who slashed Primeau across the hand and put him out of the lineup for X weeks.

Regular season

With Primeau out, and Conacher emerging from a holdout at the absolute last minute before the season opener, the Leafs started the season with the following lineup:

Jackson - Thoms/Metz - Conacher
Boll - Thoms - Kilrea
Cotton - Blair - Doraty/Kelly

Without Primeau:
8-1-0 - (8 wins to start season = NHL record)

Primeau re-entered the lineup in the 10th game. He injured his shoulder Jan 21. In his absence the Leafs won 2-1 over St. Louis.

The normal lines, with Primeau skating, were as follows:

Jackson - Primeau - Conacher
Boll - Thoms - Kilrea
Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly

Due to broken ribs, Busher Jackson missed the 0-0 tie on 1/26/35, 3-2 loss on 1/31/35, and 2-1 loss on 2/2/35. He came back for a spell and then missed a 6-5 OTL 2/12/35 (replaced by Boll who scored), 3-0 loss on 2/14/35, 5-1 win on 2/16/35, and 3-1 win on 2/19/35.

A line of Kilrea - Thoms - Finnigan was assembled on 2/19/35.

Conacher missed a game on 3/12/35. The Leafs started Boll - Primeau - Jackson in a 1-0 win.

Just prior to the playoffs (3/23/35), Primeau suffered a ‘gash above the ear and several teeth knocked out’ after crashing into goalpost during scrimmage. The injuries did not cause him to miss time.


Here is the way the top line scoring broke down into roughly 10-game blocks (I know they’re not perfect blocks, but I’m at the mercy of the newspaper):

9 games without Primeau:
Jackson 10-4-14
Conacher 5-7-12
Thoms 1-2-3
Metz 1-2-3

1st 10 games back
Primeau 1-7-8 .800
Conacher 5-3-8 .800
Jackson 7-3-10 1.00

Next 11 games
Primeau 3-6-9 .820
Conacher 9-7-16 1.455
Jackson 2-4-6 0.545

Next 9 games:
Conacher 4-2-6 .667
Jackson 1-3-4 .444
Primeau 3-1-4 .444

Next 8 games:
Conacher 9-2-11 1.375
Jackson 2-6-8 1.000
Primeau 3-5-8 1.000


as of 1/29/35:
Conacher 19-17-36
Jackson 19-11-30
Primeau 4-13-17

As of 2/19/35:
Conacher 23-19-42
Jackson 20-14-34
Primeau 7-14-21

As of 3/12/35
Conacher 32-21-53
Jackson 22-20-42
Primeau 10-19-29

 

[tarheelhockey]

1935-36
Preseason

Here is how the lines were expected to operate as of 11/6/35:

“There was no chance of the Toronto Maple Leafs’ famous “Kid Line” being shaken-up for the National Hockey League opener...

The high-scoring string of Joe Primeau, Charlie Conacher and Jackson was not impressive in the exhibition game here last night...

In Art Jackson, brother of the team’s only hold-out, “Red” Metz and “Pep” Kelly, Smythe figures he has the most valuable “find” in hockey since the original “kid” line jumped to the Leafs...

Bill Thoms, Frank Finnigan and “Buzz” Boll will form a third attacking line, and Conny points to the scoring ability this trio has demonstrated throughout the training grind.

Andy Blair has earned the spot of utility for the squad...”

Blair would spend almost all of his time on defense, having been usurped as a center.

Regular season

Jackson held out to start the season – Jack Shill took his place. The Kid Line was reunited when Jackson returned after the first game.

The Leafs had a mediocre start and Irvin started to contemplate new looks for the lineup – “Coach Dick Irvin turned out his forwards in cross-word puzzle formation, juggling Harvey Jackson and Charlie Conacher with several different combinations.”



This is a complete list of lineup combinations that I was able to ascertain from the Gazette, the Ottawa Citizen and the New York Times. This contains confirmed lines only – I did not make any inferences from the scoring lines, since it’s difficult to tell which goals are scored on the PP during that time period and five-forward rushes weren’t foreign to the time period. Everything that you see below was either listed as the starting lineup or mentioned in the narrative summary.

11/9/35 Shill – Primeau – Conacher, Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
11/14/35 Jackson – Primeau – Conacher
11/16/35 Metz - A. Jackson – Kelly
11/19/35 Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
11/22/35 ?
11/23/35 - Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
11/24/35 Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
11/26/35 Jackson – Primeau – Conacher
11/30/35 Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
12/7/35 Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
12/10/35 – Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
12/14/35 – Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
12/17/35 – Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Davidson on a line with A. Jackson
12/19/35 – Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Metz – A. Jackson – Davidson
12/21/35 – Jackson – Primeau – Conacher, Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
12/26/35 – Jackson – Primeau – Conacher
12/28/35 – Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
1/2/36 – Jackson – Primeau – Conacher
1/4/36 – Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
1/11/36 – Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
1/14/36 – Jackson – Metz – Conacher *no Primeau
1/16/36 Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
1/18/36 Metz – Jackson – Kelly *no Conacher or Primeau
1/19/36 Boll – Thoms – Finnigan *no Conacher or Primeau
1/23/36 Jackson – Primeau – Markle, Boll – Thoms – Finnigan *no Conacher
1/25/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly *no Conacher
1/30/36 Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
2/1/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/2/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/4/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/6/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/8/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Markle *no Jackson, Kelly
2/13/36 Davidson – Primeau – Conacher *Jackson to “third line”
2/16/36 Metz – A Jackson – Kelly
2/20/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/22/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/23/36 Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly
2/25/36 Metz – A. Jackson - Kelly
2/29/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly *Jackson breaks slump
3/3/36 Davidson – Primeau – Conacher or Boll (Ottawa vs NYT)
3/7/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
3/10/36 Davidson – Primeau – Conacher, Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
3/12/36 Davidson – Primeau – Conacher
3/14/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
3/15/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
3/17/36 Jackson – A . Jackson – Kelly
3/19/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
3/21/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly, Schill – Primeau – Conacher

3/24/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
3/26/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly

3/28/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
3/31/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
4/2/36 Jackson – Davidson – Kelly

4/5/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
4/7/36 Jackson – A. Jackson – Kelly
4/9/36 Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
4/11/35 Boll – Thoms – Finnigan, Jackson – Primeau – Conacher


So it would appear that after their intial instability, the Leafs settled into a relatively stable lineup for most of the season:

Jackson – Primeau – Conacher
Boll – Thoms – Finnigan
Metz – A. Jackson – Kelly

Circumstantial evidence (such as scoring lines and accounts of 2-man attacks) would suggest that these units were rarely broken up except in cases of injury or prospect movement.

By the end of the season, Jackson had been moved to the bottom line to replace Metz who was sent down. Jackson’s place on the top line was taken primarily by Davidson.

In-season scoring lines that I noticed:

As of 11/26/35:
Conacher 6-2-8
Metz 6-0-6
Jackson 6pts?

12/10/35
Conacher 6-6-12
Jackson 6-4-10
Metz 8-0-8
Thoms 4-4-8
Kelly 4-2-6
Boll 3-3-6
Primeau 2-4-6
A. Jackson 0-4-4

1/14/36
Conacher 11-8-19
Thoms 7-10-17
Boll 10-6-16
Jackson 8-7-15
Metz 10-2-12
Primeau 3-7-10
Kelly 5-3-8
A. Jackson 1-7-8

I’ve run out of time to get the 1936 playoff info in detail, but it looks like Primeau was better with a 3-4-7 line in 9 games. Here’s how each series broke down:

In the first round, the Leafs were stunned by the Bruins and pushed to the brink of elimination. They advanced on the basis of a Game 2 rout in the total-goals series when Eddie Shore couldn’t stop taking penalties and the Leafs punished them on the PP.

In the second round, the Amerks were happy just to have advanced so far and were no match for the Leafs.

In the third round, the Wings had a deep and experienced lineup and the Leafs just couldn’t get a foothold. When they scored a lot of goals, the Wings scored more. When the scores were low, Normie Smith was a wall. The Kid Line was broken up at some point and then reunited for the final loss with Primeau having a strong last performance of his career.

 

[tarheelhockey]

1935 Playoffs

Note the tone of the playoff preview:

“Forecasts from the rival camps on the outcome of Saturday’s game, and of the series, of course are conflicting. Frank Patrick, coach of the Bruins, and Art Ross, general-manager, are certain there are Bruins capable of bottling up Charlie Conacher, league-leading scorer, and his fiery wing-mate, Harvey Jackson. The Boston brain trust assumes the attitude that once this is done victory is assured, as Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper and Marty Barry will sweep in against “ordinary” opposition for the decisive goals.

Smythe and coach Dick Irvin, however, do not believe their ace forwards will be throttled in this series as they were last season in the league playoff in Detroit.

To most critics, even the biased Bostonians, the issue appears to rest on whether Jackson and Conacher can be “stopped”.

No mention of Primeau from either side of the matchup, or by the writer of the article...

In the Gazette’s summary of Game 1, it states with unusual directness that Primeau was “outplayed”. His Bruin counterpart was Peggy O’Neill.

The Leafs picked up their offensive performance and got past the Bruins in 4 games.

Before the start of their series against the Maroons:
Tommy Gorman, Maroons manager – 4/3/35 – “Who’ll watch Conacher and Jackson? Why Northcott and Ward, of course. But it really doesn’t matter. Any of our lines can cover them like a lid. And we’re not only going to watch them, but we’ll carry the play to them, too.”

That’s the second coach who didn’t see Primeau as a guy who needed special attention.

Leafs lines for Game 1 vs Maroons –
Jackson – Primeau – Conacher
Cotton – Metz – Kelly
One would assume: Boll – Thoms – Kilrea

From the Gazette:
“Northcott was like a bad nickel as far as Chuck Conacher was concerned tonight. The most feared gunner on the Toronto lineup never was able to leave Baldy behind, with the result that the Leafs’ biggest scoring threat was bottled up before it reached the blue line. Over on the other wing, Ward was doing an equally neat job on Harvey Jackson, and Joe Primeau spent a fruitless evening trying to find someone he could pass the puck to who wasn’t covered by a Maroon.”

In other words, the Maroons were exploiting Primeau as the weak link on his line.

Finals Game 3 description: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3AUuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8JgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1612,1227901

Mike Rodden of the Globe, quoted in the Gazette:

“Don’t blame Charlie Conacher and Harvey Jackson, the greatest wingers in the sport. Opposing teams concentrate their back-checkers on the stellar pair who have carried the locals to the top for several seasons. Mediocre players have failed the Leafs.”

He didn’t call Primeau out by name, but there are three guys on the line and he said not to blame two of them...

Primeau = 0 points in 3 Finals games

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok, here is the summary for those who don’t want to wade through the supporting data:

- Primeau was injured during the preseason of 1934-35. During the time that he was out of the lineup, the Leafs set a league record with 8 consecutive wins to start the season. Jackson and Conacher were scoring at well over a PPG rate with Bill Thoms and Nick Metz rotating at center.

- The Leafs’ total record with Primeau out of the lineup that season was 9-1-0. Their record without Busher Jackson in the lineup was 2-4-1. In fairness to Primeau, his absence was mostly concentrated at the beginning of the season whereas Jackson’s were in the middle – so the overall injury situation was not identical.

- It has been suggested that Primeau’s statistical slump may have been due to slow recovery from his wrist injury. In fact, started off fairly strong, then slumped for about 20 games, and then bounced back at the end of the season – that pattern doesn’t support an interpretation of an injury recovery. More importantly, his peaks and slumps correlate directly with those of his linemates, especially Conacher’s.

- Playoff summaries make it explicitly clear that opponents were focused on shutting down Conacher and Jackson (in that order) and Primeau is never mentioned as a focus of the defense. Accordingly, the post-mortem analysis shows that Primeau simply couldn’t create offense as long as defenders were latched to his star wingers.

- Contrary to what I asserted upthread, the Kid Line actually stuck together for most of 1935-36. It was broken up when Jackson was moved down to the checking line. I apologize for the confusion as I took a couple of accounts of “breaking up the Kid Line” a bit too literally, with confounding factors in games that included injury substitutions – looking at each game in detail made it clear that Primeau and Conacher were not intentionally separated for a significant stretch.

- Having said that, it’s a bit of a double-edged sword to Primeau’s argument here. On one hand, his coaches had the confidence in him to keep him on the 1st line rather than sending him down as they did with Jackson. On the other hand, it also means that his numbers that season were face-value production on a 1st line with the league’s leading goal scorer. He was actually outscored by the two other regular centers (Thoms and Art Jackson) despite being on the top scoring line.

- The article announcing his retirement indicates that in addition to business, an “illness” which affected Primeau’s “frail physique” in his final season led to his decision to retire. It’s not clear what exactly is meant by the word “illness”.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm really surprised that Bill Thoms didn't center the Leafs first line in 35-36, considering he was a 2nd Team All Star that season. And what we used to think was the Leafs top line then (Buzz Boll, Bill Thoms, Charlie Conacher) finished the top 3 on the team in scoring.

If nothing else, Primeau HAD to have lost his spot on the PP to Thoms for the stats to make any sense. At a time when stars still saw the majority of the ice time, it would make no sense for Primeau to finish 8th in team scoring otherwise.

Anyway, well done. I know the Kid Line had something of a reputation as chokers, but had not seen the article that opposing strategy was to shadow the wingers and ignore the center (Primeau). I guess it make sense when your center is known as a playmaker without much of a shot of his own