Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 4

[quoipourquoi]

I was the one who made the second of those comparisons, and it wasn’t at all because I think Quackenbush = Lidstrom. It was because I was pointing out a modern duo where there was one highly physical and one highly non-physical partner. Lidstrom/Konstantinov was the first that came to mind which I thought everyone would remember clearly. I thought that was clear at the time, I guess it wasn’t?

I took the reference to their voting results in 1997 as an implication that the voters had it wrong. If that’s not why you brought it up, I don’t think we disagree on the stylistic comparison.

It’s saying, and I think very rightly, that for decades a wrong-headed attitude prevailed about the value of physical engagement compared to positional engagement. There is a lot of evidence that physically engaging a winger on the rush is a bad idea, and not a lot of evidence to the contrary. Especially when the counterpoint is “well what if the defenseman commits a major penalty!”

Particularly in a smaller league, I would say that physical engagement is a fantastic tool. If you hurt someone, 20% of your schedule gets easier.

Taking a man’s fish inspires them to become a more clever fisherman. Breaking a fishing rod across his ankles teaches him to fish somewhere else.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I took the reference to their voting results in 1997 as an implication that the voters had it wrong. If that’s not why you brought it up, I don’t think we disagree on the stylistic comparison.



Particularly in a smaller league, I would say that physical engagement is a fantastic tool. If you hurt someone, 20% of your schedule gets easier.

Taking a man’s fish inspires them to become a more clever fisherman. Breaking a fishing rod across his ankles teaches him to fish somewhere else.

Great quote.

Ron Swanson?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not in the playoffs.

Or per game.

He definitely didn't have a playoff run anything close to 1994 Bure, but...

Bure points per game top 10s:

1993-94 NHL 1.41 (7th)

1997-98 NHL 1.10 (7th)

1999-00 NHL 1.27 (3rd)

2001-02 NHL 1.01 (8th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thornton points per game top 10s:

2001-02 NHL 1.03 (6th)

2002-03 NHL 1.31 (3rd)

2005-06 NHL 1.54 (1st)

2006-07 NHL 1.39 (2nd)

2007-08 NHL 1.17 (9th)

2015-16 NHL 1.00 (6th)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

(Sorry everyone, I know Thornton isn't available)

 

[quoipourquoi]

This was from a short film from 2000, filmed north of Toronto. It showed the three greatest forwards in history and what was supposed to the superstars of the next generation - Bure, Kariya, Jagr, Lindros. Not that it's proof of anything (Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov, Selanne etc easily could have been included), but it's a really impressive photo.

For three of the four to have to wait 7-9 years for the HOF would have been impossible to predict at the time. Just a rough era for a lot of the great forwards.

If Bure was a 1982 rookie or a 2002 rookie rather than a 1992 rookie, I’d find his longevity more problematic.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Great quote.

Ron Swanson?

Haha, it very well could be!

 

[Batis]

This is also supported by the actual scoring numbers. The only time, pre-NHL P. Stastny ended up in top 10 tournament scoring, happened precisely at Lake Placid 1980, where he registered fairly impressive 14 points (7+7) in just 6 games, which was good enough for 2nd overall scoring finish (1 point behind his fellow teammate Milan Novy).

Thank you for posting the summary of Stastny’s pre-NHL career. I definitely agree with your conclusion that Stastny only had one meaningful season during his career in Czechoslovakia. One minor correction regarding the bolded though as Stastny also did finish 8th in scoring during the 1976 WHC. Championnats du monde 1976 de hockey sur glace

As a sidenote I also just found that the 1980 European Cup game between Slovan Bratislava and CSKA Moscow is available on youtube. Considering that CSKA came out flying and had a 2-0 lead within a couple of minutes it was never any real nerve in the game but knowing what happened right after this game (Peter and Anton defecting) still made it very interesting to watch for me.

 

[Batis]

Here is a look at how the new available players performed in Best-on-Best tournaments.

Gilbert Perreault
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 13 gp, 8 g, 11 a, 19 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 4 gp, 3 g, 2 a, 5 pts

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Summit Series 1972: 2 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Canada Cup 1976: 2 gp, 2 g, 1 a, 3 pts

Accolades: Canada Cup All-Star team 1981

Guy Lapointe
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 14 gp, 0 g, 5 a, 5 pts (0 g, 7 a, 7 pts)
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 9 gp, 0 g, 3 a, 3 pts (0 g, 5, a, 5 pts)

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Summit Series 1972: 7 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts (0 g, 3 a, 3 pts)
Canada Cup 1976: 2 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts

Accolades: -

Gilbert Perreault’s overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments are truly outstanding and his knockout stage numbers are strong as well. It really is a shame that Perreault got injured in the 1981 Canada Cup though as he was playing perhaps the best hockey of his life there and made the All-Star team despite only playing the first four games. Perreault’s performance in the 1976 Canada Cup was also impressive and his early goal in Game 2 of the final series against Czechoslovakia is a personal favourite.



In my opinion the Best-on-Best resume of Guy Lapointe does not really stand out that much in neither a positive nor a negative way. When watching the 1972 Summit Series the performance of Lapointe has not impressed me and he also had one of the weaker plus-minus statistics of all players on Team Canada. On the other hand Lapointe had a much stronger tournament at the 1976 Canada Cup and while it is difficult to stand out as a defenceman on a team that includes Bobby Orr and Denis Potvin I would still say that Lapointe was a important factor on one of the greatest national teams of all time.

I think that Perreault probably overtakes Bure when it comes to having the most impressive Best-on-Best resume of the available players. Yes Bure had a awesome 1998 Olympics but Perreault was more consistently playing at a very high level at these tournaments. When it comes to Lapointe I think that his Best-on-Best resume belongs slightly below the ones of Vasiliev and Savard. So something like this.

Perreault
Bure
Langway
Savard/Vasiliev
Lapointe
Datsyuk
Stastny

Here are the numbers of the other available players again.

Pavel Bure
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 12 gp, 11 g, 1 a, 12 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 6 gp, 7 g, 0 a, 7 pts

Knockout stage number broken down by tournament
Olympics 1998: 3 gp, 6 g, 0 a, 6 pts
Olympics 2002: 3 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts

Accolades: Olympic Best Forward 1998

Rod Langway
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 17 gp, 1 g, 3 a, 4 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 2 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Canada Cup 1981: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Canada Cup 1984: 1 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts

Accolades: Canada Cup All-Star team 1984

Pavel Datsyuk
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 29 gp, 6 g, 17 a, 23 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 10 gp, 1 g, 6 a, 7 pts

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Olympics 2002: 3 gp, 1 g, 2 a, 3 pts
World Cup 2004: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2006: 3 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2010: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 2014: 2 gp, 0 g, 4 a, 4 pts

Accolades: -

Peter Stastny
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 15 gp, 1 g, 6 a, 7 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 5 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Canada Cup 1976: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Canada Cup 1987: 3 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts

Accolades: -

Valeri Vasiliev
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 17 gp, 1 g, 6 a, 7 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 8 gp, 1 g, 3 a, 4 pts

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Summit Series 1972: 6 gp, 1 g, 2 a, 3 pts
Canada Cup 1981: 2 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts

Accolades: -

Serge Savard
Overall numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 12 gp, 0 g, 5 a, 5 pts
Knockout stage numbers in Best-on-Best tournaments: 7 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts

Knockout stage numbers broken down by tournament
Summit Series 1972: 5 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Canada Cup 1976: 2 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts

Accolades: -

In the 1998 Olympics Pavel Bure was voted the Best Forward of the tournament and scored 9 goals in 6 games. That he went without a point in the two games against Hasek and the Czech Republic is in my opinion the only negative from Bure's performance in that tournament. Four years later he had a far less impressive tournament though with only 3 points in 6 games. Still I would say that Bure's overall Best-on-Best resume is impressive and more so than anything else his goalscoring numbers there.

As I mentioned in my earlier post Rod Langway's performances on the international stage has really impressed me. Obviously his numbers offensively are nothing that stands out but his defensive play very clearly did as evident by him making the All-Star team in the 1984 Canada Cup. So I would say that Langway has a impressive Best-on-Best resume even if he did not get to enjoy that much team success.

At first glance Pavel Datsyuk's numbers both overall and in the knockout stage look relatively strong. Regarding his knockout stage numbers it is however worth noting that Datsyuk scored 6 out of his 7 points in the bronze-medal game against Belarus in 2002 and the qualification playoffs game against Norway in 2014. So in the 8 knockout stage games against Canada, USA, Finland and the Czech Republic he only scored 1 point. With that in mind Datsyuk's Best-on-Best resume really leaves me rather unimpressed even if his overall numbers are relatively strong.

Serge Savard may not have put up any outstanding numbers offensively but his performance in the 1972 Summit Series has always impressed me and as tarheelhockey already has mentioned in this thread Team Canada's record in the 5 games that Savard played was excellent (4-0-1). In the 1976 Canada Cup Savard was part of the on paper strongest defensive line-up in history and I would say that he played his role well even if he did not stand out as much as he had done in 1972. All in all a strong Best-on-Best resume as well I would say.

Valeri Vasiliev also has a rather strong Best-on-Best tournaments resume. In the 1972 Summit Series he was one of the few Soviet players that had a positive plus-minus statistic and he also did produce some offense. Fair or not but his mistake on Henderson's last minute series winning goal does cloud away some of those positives for me though. In both the 1976 and 1981 Canada Cups I would say that he had rather strong but far from outstanding performances.

Considering what a productive player Peter Stastny was offensively I feel like his 7 points in 15 games are disappointing numbers. Especially considering that he only had 1 point in 5 games in the knockout stage. To be fair Stastny was quite young at the time of the 1976 Canada Cup as he turned 20 three days after the last game of the tournament. When taking that into account his 4 points in 7 games during that tournament does seem to be more or less what one realistically could expect from him. Stastny's subpar performance in the 1984 Canada Cup playing for Team Canada does in my opinion bring down his overall Best-on-Best resume though. As you can see in the video here below Stastny had been somewhat criticized throughout the camp for being a bit of a slow starter so it seems as if Stastny somewhat underperformed throughout both the training camp and the tournament where he ended up with 3 points in 8 games.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I took the reference to their voting results in 1997 as an implication that the voters had it wrong. If that’s not why you brought it up, I don’t think we disagree on the stylistic comparison.

Well, I guess I brought it up out of a wrongheaded memory that Lidstrom had the better season that year. I thought it was a good illustration of the point I was trying to make about voter behavior, but that confidence was misplaced. Blake and Lidstrom would have been a better example, but they didn’t play together so the other one seemed like a good idea at the time.

In other words, had the facts been on my side it would have been a great point

Particularly in a smaller league, I would say that physical engagement is a fantastic tool. If you hurt someone, 20% of your schedule gets easier.

Taking a man’s fish inspires them to become a more clever fisherman. Breaking a fishing rod across his ankles teaches him to fish somewhere else.

Again though, we have ample statistical evidence that this doesn’t pay off in the long run.

Basically, the only way it can work is if you’re sure you can get away with penalties on a regular basis. Otherwise the lack of positioning and risk of penalty more than outweighs the “advantage” of forcing traffic to the other side (which if I understand your point, is where they’re more likely to score).

 

[ted2019]

This is from an old overpass chart that he had from 2015. Might be a bit useful for some.
Special teams roles - 1968-2009 - HFBoards (archive.org)

 

[sr edler]

Lindros hit 760. Kariya hit 989. Bure hit 702.

Lindros was also largely irrelevant the last few years, due to his many injuries. He played his only 80+ games season with the Rangers in 02–03 and hit 19 goals and 53 points. 200 of those 760 games were in his twilight years where he didn't have any serious impact.

When he played with Dallas against the Canucks in the 06–07 playoffs it was like he wasn't even there.

This is kind of like condemning Joe Thornton for not scoring goals. Joe did come in 12th and 17th in two of his 18 seasons that he played over 70 games.

I thought about this but with Forsberg instead as a comparison. Forsberg never scored more than 30 goals in a regular season, though when the playoffs came around he upped his goal scoring GPG, showing he could score more goals if necessary, and in tougher surroundings too. In the regular season he was more specialized in playmaking though, just like Bure was more specialized in goal scoring. In the playoffs Bure had 50% goals and 50% assists. One shouldn't stare oneself too blind on regular season accumulation, when asserting greatness in a player.

With the Forsberg comparison one can say "but, but, but he scored more points than Bure, he won an Art Ross", and I kinda agree on that as I would rank Forsberg above Bure on an all-time list. It's not necessarily based on slim point margins though, but I just liked the way Forsberg controlled the puck, controlled games and controlled possession, he was amazing at that. As a fan of a team who played the Avalanche a lot I remember when the team took a penalty thinking "oh shit here it goes again" every time Forsberg touched the puck.

 

[sr edler]

Selanne would have stopped at 879 before the lockout gave him a window of time for reconstructive surgery.

Imagine how good Selänne would look in VsX if his 6–10 seasons were his two seasons in San Jose where he couldn't hit 30 goals or 65 points, his season in Colorado where he scored 32 points, and his sophomore season with the Jets where he ripped his achilles tendon.

Lockout happened, gift from above, and he's jumping straight from 32 points end of career situation to posting two consecutive 90+ points seasons.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lindros was also largely irrelevant the last few years, due to his many injuries. He played his only 80+ games season with the Rangers in 02–03 and hit 19 goals and 53 points. 200 of those 760 games were in his twilight years where he didn't have any serious impact.

When he played with Dallas against the Canucks in the 06–07 playoffs it was like he wasn't even there.



I thought about this but with Forsberg instead as a comparison. Forsberg never scored more than 30 goals in a regular season, though when the playoffs came around he upped his goal scoring GPG, showing he could score more goals if necessary, and in tougher surroundings too. In the regular season he was more specialized in playmaking though, just like Bure was more specialized in goal scoring. In the playoffs Bure had 50% goals and 50% assists. One shouldn't stare oneself too blind on regular season accumulation, when asserting greatness in a player.

With the Forsberg comparison one can say "but, but, but he scored more points than Bure, he won an Art Ross", and I kinda agree on that as I would rank Forsberg above Bure on an all-time list. It's not necessarily based on slim point margins though, but I just liked the way Forsberg controlled the puck, controlled games and controlled possession, he was amazing at that. As a fan of a team who played the Avalanche a lot I remember when the team took a penalty thinking "oh shit here it goes again" every time Forsberg touched the puck.

I used Thornton as a comparison because of the wide discrepancy between goals and assists.

Never would have used Forsberg because, to me, neither Thornton nor Bure are on the same level as him.

 

[danincanada]

I took the reference to their voting results in 1997 as an implication that the voters had it wrong. If that’s not why you brought it up, I don’t think we disagree on the stylistic comparison.

Konstantinov clearly benefitted in his two big seasons in '96 and '97 from being part of the Russian 5. His ES numbers would be impacted most because Bowman liked to toss them out at ES and control the puck for entire shifts. The '98 example with Blake seems poor if one assumes Lidstrom should have not only lead the league in AS votes like he did but also Norris votes. I think Norris voters simply got it wrong and it shouldn't be cited as a example of "be careful assuming a Norris in place of a 1st AS vote" prior to the Norris' existence.

Particularly in a smaller league, I would say that physical engagement is a fantastic tool. If you hurt someone, 20% of your schedule gets easier.

Taking a man’s fish inspires them to become a more clever fisherman. Breaking a fishing rod across his ankles teaches him to fish somewhere else.

I don't know about using Lidstrom as an example of non-physical play not being as effective as physical play is a wise one either. I'm pretty sure he's tops all-time in regular season wins by an NHL skater. He's up there near the top for the playoffs as well. Low PIM, low injuries/games missed, high ice-time (often leading the league in ice-time and PK ice-time). Seems like efficiency is better in the long run than playing with reckless abandon if you are using him as an example.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The '98 example with Blake seems poor if one assumes Lidstrom should have not only lead the league in AS votes like he did but also Norris votes. I think Norris voters simply got it wrong and it shouldn't be cited as a example of "be careful assuming a Norris in place of a 1st AS vote" prior to the Norris' existence.

Disagreeing with the voters isn’t really relevant to acknowledging that their All-Star votes and Norris votes do not translate.

Langway (24-16-12) below Howe (13-24-18)
Blake (27-12-8-2-1) below Lidstrom (15-22-10-5-0)
Doughty (53-30-20-13-10) below Subban (24-36-38-37-8)

The Norris votes were pretty definitive in all three of these examples, but when translating to a system where 1st and 2nd is the same, 3rd and 4th in the same, and 5th and 6th is the same, margins were created in the other direction.

There are other examples that predate these as well (such as Howell/Pilote, Park/Tremblay, Bourque/Salming, Potvin/Carlyle) where we don’t have the full breakdown, as well as some lesser examples that didn’t have 2:1 margins in 1st place votes (Konstantinov/Ozolinsh, Niedermayer/Stevens, and Blake/Stevens off the top of my head).

Reverse engineering Norris results - especially from years when there were just 5 ballots - isn’t reliable. So a (4-1-0) to (3-2-0) margin in 1948 essentially being the only thing separating two players’ voting records shouldn’t really be a needle-mover, and yet it’s been said in this thread that Quackenbush’s is “a fairly big step up” from Stewart’s.

Same All-Star record, both have a 5th place - Stewart’s even the one with top-5 Hart support - so I think 1948 is doing some heavy lifting when people think Quackenbush’s is better let alone “a fairly big step up”.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bill Quackenbush = best defenseman available this round (and better than Jack Stewart)

Bill Quackenbush and Jack Stewart became available in the defensemen project at the same time: Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Defensemen)

In the end, Quackenbush was ranked 26th (tied with Mark Howe) and Jack Stewart was ranked 31st, which is a fairly big difference when discussion defensemen only.

Here's my post on Quackenbush from that round:

"In my opinion, Quackenbush is probably the best of the new choices this round. He's not as good as Bill Gadsby, but I think he's the next best defenseman available from the Original 6 period. Here's a brief summary of his credentials:

• Quackenbush led all defensemen in All-Star voting in 1948 and 1949. To me, that's the equivalent of 2 Norris Trophies.
  • He was also a 2nd Team All Star in 1947
• Unlike Jack Stewart, Quackenbush was an All Star into the early 1950s, when competition was much higher than in the 1940s.
  • Quack was a 1st Team All Star in 1951 alongside Red Kelly.
  • Quack was a 2nd Team All Star in 1953, after Kelly and Harvey, but with more votes than a young Bill Gadsby
• Consistent recognition as a top player: Quackenbush was selected to play in the All-Star Game every season from 1947 to 1954, all of them based on merit.
• Very good at both ends of the rink. Hardyvan earlier compared Quackenbush's offense to Brian Rafalski and I think that seems fair. But Quackenbush had a reputation to be even better defensively than he was offensively (something that nobody would ever say about Rafalski).
• Excellent defensively without taking penalties.
• Quackenbush accomplished all this, while playing a style of hockey that wasn't particularly suited for his day: In that era of hockey, it was unusual for nonphysical players to be successful at any position, let alone as a defenseman. I would also guess that his nontraditional style of play didn't do him any favors when it came time to vote for Postseason All Star Teams.

Here's a full profile of Quackenbush (most of the research done by seventieslord and EagleBelfour):
ATD2011 Bio Thread

From the profile, here are some stats on just how great Quackenbush's ability to avoid penalties was:

• Quackenbush went 131 straight games without drawing a penalty, from 1948 to 1950
• He won the Lady Byng in 1949 with 52 of 54 1st place votes (also finished 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th in voting). The only other defenseman to ever win the Byng was Red Kelly (who was mentored by Quackenbush).
• With a ratio of 0.12 PIMs per game, Quackenbush is far and away the least penalized defenseman of history

And remember, Quack managed to avoid penalties while still arguably being the best defensive defenseman in the league."

_______________

Inspired by a post by @seventieslord in the defensemen project, here is how Jack Stewart and Bill Quackenbush rank in All-Star voting with already added players removed. This takes into account the competition that Quackenbush faced from Harvey, Kelly, and Gadsby in his later seasons. Stewart faced the tail end of Clapper and Seibert's careers and the very beginning of Kelly's

Quackenbush All-Star record, Harvey/Kelly removed: 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10
Stewart All-Star record, Clapper/Seibert/Kelly removed: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 9, 11

Jack Stewart year by year
40-41: 10th (behind Clapper/Seibert)
41-42: 12th (behind Clapper/Seibert)
42-43: 1st
43-44: Missed due to war
44-45: Missed due to war
45-46: 4th
46-47: 3rd
47-48: 2nd
48-49: 2nd
49-50: 5th (behind Kelly)

Bill Quackenbush year by year
43-44: 10th
45-46: 5th
46-47: 3rd
47-48: 1st
48-49: 1st
49-50: 7th (behind Kelly)
50-51: 2nd (behind Kelly)
52-53: 3rd (behind Kelly, Harvey, Gadsby was 4th)

Quackenbush likely leads all defensemen in All-Star voting 4 times if it weren't for Kelly and Harvey. Jack Stewart never faced the competition that Quackenbush did at the end of his prime.

As seventieslord said in the defensemen project:

There should be no doubt Quackenbush was more highly regarded in his time than Stewart.

_____________

In terms of skillset, the two men seem similarly praised defensively, but Quackenbush has a big advantage in offense over Stewart. You'd have to really highly value Stewart's physical game (and the penalties it drew!) to rank him over Quackenbush.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Quackenbush led all defensemen in All-Star voting in 1948 and 1949. To me, that's the equivalent of 2 Norris Trophies.

...so already a false presumption.

Unlike Jack Stewart, Quackenbush was an All Star into the early 1950s, when competition was much higher than in the 1940s.

Unlike Bill Quackenbush, Stewart lost two years due to a war. Stewart’s 5th place finish in 1950 came behind Kelly.

Very good at both ends of the rink.

Except in the playoffs, where he could not differentiate himself statistically from Stewart.

Quackenbush accomplished all this, while playing a style of hockey that wasn't particularly suited for his day

So... a detriment? Jack Adams seemed to think so.

Quackenbush All-Star record, Harvey/Kelly removed: 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10
Stewart All-Star record, Clapper/Seibert/Kelly removed: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 9, 11

It’s not really about who a player loses to but rather the quality of the players they beat that determines the value of an All-Star selection.

The measure of Pavel Bure’s 2nd Team selection in 2000 isn’t being worse than Jagr. Everyone was worse than Jagr. What it is a measure of his being better than Mark Recchi.

Jack Stewart year by year
42-43: 1st
43-44: Missed due to war
44-45: Missed due to war
45-46: 4th
46-47: 3rd
47-48: 2nd
48-49: 2nd
49-50: 5th (behind Kelly)

Bolder for emphasis, because he bookended the war years with a 1st Team and a top-5 Hart finish. That he missed two years of his peak that would have led to stronger differentiation of his record over Quackenbush’s isn’t a reflection of anything deficient in Stewart.

Quackenbush has a big advantage in offense over Stewart. You'd have to really highly value Stewart's physical game (and the penalties it drew!) to rank him over Quackenbush.

Or the acknowledgment of Quackenbush’s playoff scoring plummeting and making his two-way value less significant in pressure games, Stewart equaling Quackenbush’s All-Star record while missing two years of his peak, Stewart having the only year of strong Hart support between them, that their own team chose Stewart over Quackenbush, Stewart getting stronger support on the THN list, and that Stewart made the HOF a dozen years earlier.

 

[seventieslord]

Bill Quackenbush = best defenseman available this round (and better than Jack Stewart)

Bill Quackenbush and Jack Stewart became available in the defensemen project at the same time: Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Defensemen)

In the end, Quackenbush was ranked 26th (tied with Mark Howe) and Jack Stewart was ranked 31st, which is a fairly big difference when discussion defensemen only.

Here's my post on Quackenbush from that round:

"In my opinion, Quackenbush is probably the best of the new choices this round. He's not as good as Bill Gadsby, but I think he's the next best defenseman available from the Original 6 period. Here's a brief summary of his credentials:

• Quackenbush led all defensemen in All-Star voting in 1948 and 1949. To me, that's the equivalent of 2 Norris Trophies.
  • He was also a 2nd Team All Star in 1947
• Unlike Jack Stewart, Quackenbush was an All Star into the early 1950s, when competition was much higher than in the 1940s.
  • Quack was a 1st Team All Star in 1951 alongside Red Kelly.
  • Quack was a 2nd Team All Star in 1953, after Kelly and Harvey, but with more votes than a young Bill Gadsby
• Consistent recognition as a top player: Quackenbush was selected to play in the All-Star Game every season from 1947 to 1954, all of them based on merit.
• Very good at both ends of the rink. Hardyvan earlier compared Quackenbush's offense to Brian Rafalski and I think that seems fair. But Quackenbush had a reputation to be even better defensively than he was offensively (something that nobody would ever say about Rafalski).
• Excellent defensively without taking penalties.
• Quackenbush accomplished all this, while playing a style of hockey that wasn't particularly suited for his day: In that era of hockey, it was unusual for nonphysical players to be successful at any position, let alone as a defenseman. I would also guess that his nontraditional style of play didn't do him any favors when it came time to vote for Postseason All Star Teams.

Here's a full profile of Quackenbush (most of the research done by seventieslord and EagleBelfour):
ATD2011 Bio Thread

From the profile, here are some stats on just how great Quackenbush's ability to avoid penalties was:

• Quackenbush went 131 straight games without drawing a penalty, from 1948 to 1950
• He won the Lady Byng in 1949 with 52 of 54 1st place votes (also finished 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th in voting). The only other defenseman to ever win the Byng was Red Kelly (who was mentored by Quackenbush).
• With a ratio of 0.12 PIMs per game, Quackenbush is far and away the least penalized defenseman of history

And remember, Quack managed to avoid penalties while still arguably being the best defensive defenseman in the league."

_______________

Inspired by a post by @seventieslord in the defensemen project, here is how Jack Stewart and Bill Quackenbush rank in All-Star voting with already added players removed. This takes into account the competition that Quackenbush faced from Harvey, Kelly, and Gadsby in his later seasons. Stewart faced the tail end of Clapper and Seibert's careers and the very beginning of Kelly's

Quackenbush All-Star record, Harvey/Kelly removed: 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10
Stewart All-Star record, Clapper/Seibert/Kelly removed: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 9, 11

Jack Stewart year by year
40-41: 10th (behind Clapper/Seibert)
41-42: 12th (behind Clapper/Seibert)
42-43: 1st
43-44: Missed due to war
44-45: Missed due to war
45-46: 4th
46-47: 3rd
47-48: 2nd
48-49: 2nd
49-50: 5th (behind Kelly)

Bill Quackenbush year by year
43-44: 10th
45-46: 5th
46-47: 3rd
47-48: 1st
48-49: 1st
49-50: 7th (behind Kelly)
50-51: 2nd (behind Kelly)
52-53: 3rd (behind Kelly, Harvey, Gadsby was 4th)

Quackenbush likely leads all defensemen in All-Star voting 4 times if it weren't for Kelly and Harvey. Jack Stewart never faced the competition that Quackenbush did at the end of his prime.

As seventieslord said in the defensemen project:



_____________

In terms of skillset, the two men seem similarly praised defensively, but Quackenbush has a big advantage in offense over Stewart. You'd have to really highly value Stewart's physical game (and the penalties it drew!) to rank him over Quackenbush.

I was actually starting to question why we should have Quackenbush so far ahead of Stewart when they're both five-time All-Stars and contemporaries, and you just reminded me

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Alex Delvecchio = the most "complete" resume of the available pre-expansion forwards:

I. He had two of his best seasons without Gordie Howe as an even strength linemate.

This is a repost from the HOH centers project, the table got destroyed, but here is the conclusion from @overpass

"At even strength, it looks like Delvecchio started off on a lower line, with Howe playing on the Production Line with Lindsay and Abel. Delvecchio appears to have been promoted to centre Howe for part of the 1954-55 and 1956-57 seasons, but not the full season. 15/33 points with Howe and 10/26 points with Howe is a bit low for full-time linemates. Delvecchio played with a wide variety of linemates in 1957-58 (basically what Norm Ullman would do in the early 1960s), and then moved onto a line with Howe and Ullman for most of the following three seasons.

In 1961-62 Delvecchio appears to have become Howe's full-time linemate, and he remained there for the next decade until Hull retired. He closed off his career with two seasons centering the young goal-scorer Mickey Redmond.

One would assume that Delvecchio benefitted offensively from playing with Howe. This is almost certainly true on the power play. A Detroit PP without Howe would have been less potent, with fewer points to go around for everyone. But is it true at even strength? Delvecchio was fourth in league scoring in 1952-53 and eighth in 1957-58 without Howe as a regular linemate. It seems he had the ability to be a top-10 scorer on a lower line and without Howe. And of course he deserves credit for being a good fit with Gordie Howe for a decade."

II. Insanely good longevity as an effective player, especially for his era.

• More top 10 finishes in NHL scoring (11) than any center but Wayne Gretzky (16) and Jean Beliveau (12). Delvecchio played with Howe most of the time, but he did exactly what you'd expect a great player to do playing with Howe - racking up the top 10 finishes. Delvecchio also got two of his top 10 finishes without Howe as his even strength linemate.
• Played in 13 All Star Games - only Howe (23), Bourque (19), Gretzky (18), Mahovlich (15), Coffey (15), and Messier (15) played in more.
• 2nd best 10-year VsX this round (behind Ron Francis, who played an an era when a player's prime tended to be much longer)

III. Defensive play

• In a 1958 coach's poll (the only coach's poll we have for the Original 6 era), Delvecchio did not finish 1st, but he was 1 of 4 players who received votes for "best defensive forward, checker."
• Canadiens1958 saw at least the 2nd half of Delvecchio's career and described his defensive game as this:

  Delvecchio's defense was extremely strong - not Henri Richard or Keon elite but strong enough in tandem with Norm Ullman to impact against Chicago and the Mikita and Hull lines. Bit short against Montreal and Toronto. Delvecchio's versatility also allowed the Red Wings to play him at LW against elite RWs, a defensive plus.

IV. Playoffs

• Delvecchio scored 1281 points in 1549 regular season games (0.83 PPG). In the playoffs, he had 104 points in 121 career playoff games (0.86 PPG), a small increase. Most players see decreases in the playoffs
• As late as 1970 (Delvecchio's last playoffs), he ranked 6th All-Time in playoff scoring behind Gordie Howe and 4 members of the Montreal Canadiens (Beliveau, Rocket Richard, Geoffrion, and Moore):

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I was actually starting to question why we should have Quackenbush so far ahead of Stewart when they're both five-time All-Stars and contemporaries, and you just reminded me

I reminded myself too. I was also starting to question it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Red Kelly did not think Quackenbush's style was a detriment:

He was the single biggest influence in the development of Red Kelly's style of play.

He taught me how to play the game without taking penalties'

Despite being a Byng Winner, Quack was no Shrinking Violet

Quackenbush, despite the fact that he continued to play, sustained a very severe face injury and lost a section of his dental crockery.

He can hand out a jarring body check along with the rest of them but seldom resorts to illegal use of hands or stick.

"Lidstrom-lite' = playing strong defensive hockey without taking penalties, "Lite" because nobody is suggesting he was as good as Lidstrom. I've called Paul Martin (not the PM, the dman) "Lidstrom-lite" before.

 

[seventieslord]

It’s not really about who a player loses to but rather the quality of the players they beat that determines the value of an All-Star selection.

The measure of Pavel Bure’s 2nd Team selection in 2000 isn’t being worse than Jagr. Everyone was worse than Jagr. What it is a measure of his being better than Mark Recchi.

I mean, if you think you can show that Jack Stewart finished ahead of better players than Quackenbush, knock yourself out. I wouldn't expect the results to be considerably different when stated that way compared to who they both finished behind.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I mean, if you think you can show that Jack Stewart finished ahead of better players than Quackenbush, knock yourself out. I wouldn't expect the results to be considerably different when stated that way compared to who they both finished behind.

The high finishes each man had when the other wasn't in the league:

1942-43 (voting by LD and RD was separate, but you can see from all the crossover why this distinction was soon abandoned):
FIRST TEAM: RIGHT D: Earl Seibert, Chi 10; Flash Hollett, Bos 6; Jack Stewart, Det 5; Jack Crawford, Bos 4; Dit Clapper, Bos 1
LEFT D: Jack Stewart, Det 15; Babe Pratt, Tor 3; Flash Hollett, Bos 3; Jack Crawford, Bos 3; Earl Seibert, Chi 2
SECOND TEAM: RIGHT D: Earl Seibert, Chi 9; Jack Crawford, Bos 8; Jack Stewart, Det 4; Dit Clapper, Bos 2; Flash Hollett, Bos 2
LEFT D: Babe Pratt, Tor 9; Flash Hollett, Bos 5; Jack Crawford, Bos 3; Jack Portland, Mtl 3; Dit Clapper, Bos 2; Jimmy Orlando, Det 2; Earl Seibert, Chi 1; Art Wiebe, Chi 1; Alex Motter, Det 1

1950-51:
DEFENSE: (270/324, 35-29-8) Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 68 (9-7-2); Jim Thomson, Tor 62 (8-6-4); Leo Reise, Det 50 (0-16-2);

1952-53:
DEFENSE: (220/324, 33-14-13) Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Doug Harvey, Mtl 56 (8-5-1); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3); Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9);

Other considerations:

• We don't have complete voting for a few years in the early 1950s, only the top 4. Quackenbush wasn't top 4 in 1951-52, but may (or may not) have had a fairly high finish. He did make the NHL All-Star game based on merit, which is somewhat meaningful in a 6 team league at at time when the ASG comprised of the "Defending Cup Winner vs NHL All-Stars (of the other 5 teams).
• Jack Stewart missed 1943-44 and 1944-45 due to WW2.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Does this mean we give Bentley absolute zero credit for 1943? No, because the NHL wasn't quite the AHL-level exhibition league that it would be the following season. But we absolutely do have to acknowledge that this was probably the weakest post-consolidation season in history, other than the two immediately following. Statistical marks and postseason recognition earned in that context definitely do need to be taxed for that, recognizing that its unlikely those achievements are replicated in a complete league (particularly if the Bruins powerhouse team stays intact).

Of course, but my point is that they should be taxed appropriately, not overtaxed. And I say that having done the research. In my estimation, Doug Bentley's 1943 season was good enough to win the 1942 scoring title, for example.

I did a study a while back trying to estimate league strength during the war years by looking at how scoring numbers changed for forwards who remained in the league (min. 75% GP in both seasons being compared). From 1941-42 to 1942-43, league scoring went up 16% per game, while scoring for active forwards went up 22% per game. The 6% difference represents an estimate of the additional edge from playing in a weaker league, but just as a point of comparison, in 1943-44 scoring went up 13% while active forwards scored 30% more (almost triple the difference).

Discounting Bentley's 73 points by 22% gives him roughly the equivalent of 60 in a 1942 context, good enough to edge out Hextall's 56 for first place. I disagree it is unlikely that the Bentley brothers would compete for a scoring title in a full-strength NHL, their 1943 results seem much more a function of Max breaking out at age 22 than beating up on weaker competition.

I think it's important to be precise about what exactly is weak in a depleted league. The depth losses in 1942-43 were much more significant on the blue line and in net, where the league lost roughly half of its starting talent. But in terms of elite forwards capable of challenging for the scoring title, it was pretty much just the Kraut Line and Neil Colville that enlisted right away. In the final 1943 scoring list, 8 of the top 10 were HOFers (and Billy Taylor would have made it 9 if not for the war and the whole gambling scandal thing). Compare that to Bentley's top-10 competition in 1948-49, for example, which included Jim Conacher, Paul Ronty, Gus Bodnar, Billy Reay, Harry Watson and Johnny Peirson. The rest of the NHL may have been weaker than ever, but I'm not convinced that 1942-43 was actually a weaker environment for scoring forwards than the late '40s.

Bolder for emphasis, because he bookended the war years with a 1st Team and a top-5 Hart finish. That he missed two years of his peak that would have led to stronger differentiation of his record over Quackenbush’s isn’t a reflection of anything deficient in Stewart.

I think Stewart should get credit for his two missed war years, but it is important to note that the strength at his position was weakened considerably in 1942-43. Of the 24 defencemen who played in 30 or more games in 1941-42, 12 were in the military the following season (positions are really tricky from that era so I may be missing a player or two, but that's my best guess from cross-referencing NHL.com, Hockey Reference and awards voting). Maybe Stewart still ends up as a 1AST in a fully-strength league, but maybe Tom Anderson repeats in that spot and Stewart ends up on the Second Team or worse. Just something to keep in mind for projecting those seasons.

 

[overpass]

Alex Delvecchio = the most "complete" resume of the available pre-expansion forwards:

I. He had two of his best seasons without Gordie Howe as an even strength linemate.

This is a repost from the HOH centers project, the table got destroyed, but here is the conclusion from @overpass

"At even strength, it looks like Delvecchio started off on a lower line, with Howe playing on the Production Line with Lindsay and Abel. Delvecchio appears to have been promoted to centre Howe for part of the 1954-55 and 1956-57 seasons, but not the full season. 15/33 points with Howe and 10/26 points with Howe is a bit low for full-time linemates. Delvecchio played with a wide variety of linemates in 1957-58 (basically what Norm Ullman would do in the early 1960s), and then moved onto a line with Howe and Ullman for most of the following three seasons.

In 1961-62 Delvecchio appears to have become Howe's full-time linemate, and he remained there for the next decade until Hull retired. He closed off his career with two seasons centering the young goal-scorer Mickey Redmond.

One would assume that Delvecchio benefitted offensively from playing with Howe. This is almost certainly true on the power play. A Detroit PP without Howe would have been less potent, with fewer points to go around for everyone. But is it true at even strength? Delvecchio was fourth in league scoring in 1952-53 and eighth in 1957-58 without Howe as a regular linemate. It seems he had the ability to be a top-10 scorer on a lower line and without Howe. And of course he deserves credit for being a good fit with Gordie Howe for a decade."

Here's the table.

While Gordie Howe shows up as his most common linemate in 1954-55 and 1956-57, it still doesn't look like he was a full time linemate with Howe. It's not until 1958-59 and then 1961-62 through 1970-71 that he and Howe were more or less full-time linemates.

When he finished 8th in league scoring in 1957-58, he appears to have played with almost every forward at some point.

Alex Delvecchio	ESP	ESP w/Howe	% w/Howe	Linemate 1		Linemate 2
1952-53	42	7	17%	Johnny Wilson	20	Metro Prystai	11	AS2 - LW, 4th in points
1953-54	21	1	5%	Johnny Wilson	11	Metro Prystai	9
1954-55	33	15	45%	Gordie Howe	15	Ted Lindsay	9
1955-56	34	0	0%	Bill Dineen	12	Lorne Ferguson	8	9th in points
1956-57	26	10	38%	Gordie Howe	10	Ted Lindsay	9
1957-58	39	4	10%	Nick Mickoski	7	Jack McIntyre	7	8th in points
1958-59	36	22	61%	Gordie Howe	22	Norm Ullman	15	AS2 - LW, Byng
1959-60	33	11	33%	Norm Ullman	14	Gordie Howe	11
1960-61	47	19	40%	Norm Ullman	20	Gordie Howe	19	10th in points
1961-62	46	29	63%	Gordie Howe	29	Claude Laforge	10	6th in points
1962-63	44	28	64%	Gordie Howe	28	Parker MacDonald	22	8th in points
1963-64	35	22	63%	Gordie Howe	22	Parker MacDonald	14
1964-65	39	26	67%	Gordie Howe	26	Parker MacDonald	11	5th in points
1965-66	43	26	60%	Gordie Howe	26	Norm Ullman	10	7th in points, Byng
1966-67	34	19	56%	Gordie Howe	19	Ted Hampson	9	10th in points
1967-68	56	31	55%	Gordie Howe	31	Dean Prentice	12	8th in points
1968-69	66	47	71%	Gordie Howe	47	Frank Mahovlich	29	7th in points, Byng
1969-70	45	28	62%	Gordie Howe	28	Frank Mahovlich	28
1970-71	36	18	50%	Gordie Howe	18	Frank Mahovlich	12
1971-72	47	0	0%	Mickey Redmond	26	Al Karlander	17
1972-73	45	0	0%	Mickey Redmond	32	Al Karlander	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mean, if you think you can show that Jack Stewart finished ahead of better players than Quackenbush, knock yourself out. I wouldn't expect the results to be considerably different when stated that way compared to who they both finished behind.

Flash Hollett having 44 points in 50 games and Babe Pratt having 39 points in 44 games - when no other defenseman had more than 32 points - is pretty good competition in 1943. We could say that Hollett’s were split across two positions, but so were Stewart’s (who beat him clean on Left D while they split 6-5 on Right D).

You would basically have to prop up pre-breakout season Gadsby (22 points in 1953) to think Quackenbush was beating better seasons. And even Stewart beat out a 35-point pre-prime Gadsby in 1950.

Treating Quackenbush’s 1953 as the same as Stewart’s 1943 is a little silly, and yet that’s what the “rank in All-Star voting with already added players removed” table does.

And I think it’s kind of weird that placing behind Kelly and Harvey (and by this, I mean Quackenbush was on half of the number of 1st Team ballots as Harvey, and less than a quarter the number of 1st Team ballots as Kelly) is this amazing feat we want to highlight, but when it comes to Pavel Bure, the same consideration is absolutely not being given to him.

What’s good for the Quackenbush should be good for the Bure, yes? And yet for three rounds, I haven’t heard about the urgency to add Bure from the same people advocating this strongly for Quackenbush, despite Bure playing in a 21-30 team league, having credibility from playoffs/Olympics, and not splitting his success with a better linemate.

At least be consistent. When I mentioned Bure’s All-Star placements, I went into why beating Recchi, Nolan, Bondra, etc. was a big deal. Why is beating 22-point Gadsby the year before he has a 41-point season a big deal? Pretty much just name recognition, yes?