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

[blogofmike]

In the last thread someone posted a great quote about Dionne in the playoffs not being able to be found with a microscope. The lack of ink on Quackenbush means not only did they need the microscope, but unlike DIonne, based on his regular season performance Quackenbush wasn’t worth taking the time to look.

We know Quackenbush is in 1st place in 1948 and 1949. But we don’t necessarily know how much better he was than say 10th place. He played on a team with Flash Hollett, and also with Red Kelly. There’s clear proof of those guys making significant offensive contributions to their teams. At his presumed peak when he’s supposedly winning the Norris, there’s paper-thin separation between the offense of Quackenbush and the offence of Pat Egan.

Not every season produces a Lidstrom. Sometimes you get a Corey Perry or Taylor Hall winning a Hart.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In the last thread someone posted a great quote about Dionne in the playoffs not being able to be found with a microscope. The lack of ink on Quackenbush means not only did they need the microscope, but unlike DIonne, based on his regular season performance Quackenbush wasn’t worth taking the time to look.

We know Quackenbush is in 1st place in 1948 and 1949. But we don’t necessarily know how much better he was than say 10th place. He played on a team with Flash Hollett, and also with Red Kelly. There’s clear proof of those guys making significant offensive contributions to their teams. At his presumed peak when he’s supposedly winning the Norris, there’s paper-thin separation between the offense of Quackenbush and the offence of Pat Egan.

Not every season produces a Lidstrom. Sometimes you get a Corey Perry or Taylor Hall winning a Hart.

We shouldn't necessarily read a lack of commentary as a criticism. I haven't seen a single contemporary source suggest that Quackenbush was less than his normal self in the playoffs. Most notably, we would expect to see that kind of commentary in the articles about his trade, and yet there's not even a peep to that effect.

All we know is that his scoring went down -- we don't know why, and we don't know anything about his actual quality of play -- and that nobody sat down and wrote an article about it. There's a big difference between Quackenbush's playoff performances being taken for granted, and guys like Dionne/Thornton getting ripped apart for underperformance.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We know Quackenbush is in 1st place in 1948 and 1949.

I mean... I think that’s still too much credit, and assuming intentions from a voting group that couldn’t differentiate between 1st and 2nd, but the rest of your post is spot on. Stewart, Hollett, Anderson, Kelly - these guys all made splashes in Hart voting at least once in the years surrounding when Quackenbush was recognized strictly positionally. Those are possible 1sts in years when being 1st wouldn’t even necessarily be a big deal to begin with.

I think if there’s a case for Quackenbush, it should be from what @tarheelhockey referenced: accounts of his performance relative to the rest of the league - which are hit (discussions about creating a Defenseman trophy) and miss (offensive players intentionally engaging him and not Stewart; being traded when he was traded). Not from creating narratives from unintentionally fudged All-Star=Norris rankings in years where there were just 5 votes and the subsequent removal of already ranked players to equate his finishes behind marquee players with other players legitimately being the best at their position.

 

[quoipourquoi]

There's a big difference between Quackenbush's playoff performances being taken for granted, and guys like Dionne/Thornton getting ripped apart for underperformance.

I would suggest that greater access to information and more national coverage of a bigger and more established league is at least part of a factor in narrative-building. League titles also held greater significance in the 1940s than the 1970s/1980s and 2000s/2010s, so poor playoff performance may not yet have been magnified to the extent it is with a Dionne or a Thornton.

Is there a pre-1950s player that we know to have been dragged for his playoffs?

 

[MXD]

I would suggest that greater access to information and more national coverage of a bigger and more established league is at least part of a factor in narrative-building. League titles also held greater significance in the 1940s than the 1970s/1980s and 2000s/2010s, so poor playoff performance may not yet have been magnified to the extent it is with a Dionne or a Thornton.

Is there a pre-1950s player that we know to have been dragged for his playoffs?

Dill Burnan.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

Again, I think Bentley peaks a "natural" #3-5 scorer in the league if WWII doesn't happen. He would have been a Hall of Famer in his prime, playing on a line with his even better brother, so it's not as though he would have fallen dramatically off the map or anything (he's better than e.g. Herb Cain).

But even if we take real-life 1943 into consideration, Bentley's goal and point titles are a consequence of Syl Apps breaking his leg at midseason. It's an even more extreme version of Jamie Benn's... instead of just Crosby, it's more like an entire postseason AS forward line's worth of title contenders cleared a path for Bentley to be the last man standing. It's still a good season for Bentley, but we can't take that statistical mark at anything near face value. I think 3-5 is a fair placement.

Along the same lines, I think it's evident that he wasn't anything anything like a top-3 player in a fully-stocked NHL, which is what the wartime Hart finishes imply at face value:

• Even in the context of the extremely weak 1944 season, his Hart 3rd was by only a 3-point margin over 4th
• His 1AS in 1947 was by only a 1-point margin over Dumart (Bentley's 2-2-0 against Dumart's 1-2-2 which is arguably a better showing).
• Even his Hart 4th in 1949 was actually a three-way tie with less than a handful of votes for each player.

We can recognize that these are good seasons, but they are not high-end elite seasons as implied by the numerical award rankings.

Bentley's face-value stats and awards would suggest he belongs in a comparison with guys like Bure and Perreault. If we apply due discretion to context and competition levels, it's very evident that he's solidly a tier below these guys. He would be a good comparable to a guy like Woody Dumart who we might see in this project but who certainly would not be inducted within the next several rounds if at all.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would suggest that greater access to information and more national coverage of a bigger and more established league is at least part of a factor in narrative-building. League titles also held greater significance in the 1940s than the 1970s/1980s and 2000s/2010s, so poor playoff performance may not yet have been magnified to the extent it is with a Dionne or a Thornton.

Is there a pre-1950s player that we know to have been dragged for his playoffs?

Doug Bentley. If he had a better playoff record, he'd be my #1 this round. His brother Max had similar problems before being traded to Toronto, where he became amazing.

Statistically Nels Stewart, I think he's a player it's ok to judge by more by numbers.

Re: Defensemen, I suspect playoffs is a reason Moose Johnson wasn't as highly regarded as a few other contemporary dmen in retrospectives.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again, I think Bentley peaks a "natural" #3-5 scorer in the league if WWII doesn't happen. He would have been a Hall of Famer in his prime, playing on a line with his even better brother, so it's not as though he would have fallen dramatically off the map or anything (he's better than e.g. Herb Cain).

But even if we take real-life 1943 into consideration, Bentley's goal and point titles are a consequence of Syl Apps breaking his leg at midseason. It's an even more extreme version of Jamie Benn's... instead of just Crosby, it's more like an entire postseason AS forward line's worth of title contenders cleared a path for Bentley to be the last man standing. It's still a good season for Bentley, but we can't take that statistical mark at anything near face value. I think 3-5 is a fair placement.

Along the same lines, I think it's evident that he wasn't anything anything like a top-3 player in a fully-stocked NHL, which is what the wartime Hart finishes imply at face value:

• Even in the context of the extremely weak 1944 season, his Hart 3rd was by only a 3-point margin over 4th
• His 1AS in 1947 was by only a 1-point margin over Dumart (Bentley's 2-2-0 against Dumart's 1-2-2 which is arguably a better showing).
• Even his Hart 4th in 1949 was actually a three-way tie with less than a handful of votes for each player.

We can recognize that these are good seasons, but they are not high-end elite seasons as implied by the numerical award rankings.

Bentley's face-value stats and awards would suggest he belongs in a comparison with guys like Bure and Perreault. If we apply due discretion to context and competition levels, it's very evident that he's solidly a tier below these guys. He would be a good comparable to a guy like Woody Dumart who we might see in this project but who certainly would not be inducted within the next several rounds if at all.

Or maybe if Doug gets traded to a contender instead of his brother Max, it's Doug who makes it into our top 100?

1942-43: Doug 73 points, Max 70 points (next best 44 points) 1942-43 Chicago Black Hawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Max missed 1943-44 and 1944-45 and Doug was injured in 1945-46

1946-47: Max 72 points in 60 games, Doug 55 points in 52 games, Mosienko 52 points in 59 games: 1946-47 Chicago Black Hawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Keep in my that Doug was also the defensive conscience for the Bentley-Bentley-Mosienko line.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Doug Bentley. If he had a better playoff record, he'd be my #1 this round.

I'm genuinely trying to understand how a better-playoff version of Doug Bentley could be #1 in this group. What's the argument for that? I'm missing something here.

edit: good timing

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm genuinely trying to understand how a better-playoff version of Doug Bentley could be #1 in this group. What's the argument for that? I'm missing something here.

edit: good timing

• Doug looks to be #3 this round as a regular season point producer*, just a little behind Stastny and Jackson (if you dock Francis a little for the Jagr/Mario thing), and a better two-way guy than Stastny and especially Jackson. Keep in mind that VsX now includes a "war time fudge," which it did NOT do during the players by position projects, so you can take Doug's number in @Hockey Outsider's tables as a pretty good estimate IMO.
• He was likely just as good as Max Bentley before Max got traded to a contender. A little worse offensively, but better defensively
• Voted best player of Chicago's first half century over Max (ok, max got traded), Charlie Gardiner, Earl Seibert, etc. Maybe there was a bias towards him as a recent player at the time, I don't know, but it's a nice little thing.
• But yes, his playoffs are somewhat problematic

Edit: *I'm now intentionally using "point producer" in my language, rather than "scorer," because someone could favor a more goal-scoring oriented player as a "scorer."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

On the VsX adjustments for war years AND for Chicago's 1948-49 overcounting of assists that already are included in Doug Bentley's numbers posted by @Hockey Outsider

Re: The "VsX wartime fudge": From posts 131 and of this thread: Post-consolidation VsX Benchmarks

Note that @Sturminator (who did the work) agreed with @ContrarianGoaltender that 1942-43 is not problematic in terms of the years top scorers. But 1943-44, 1944-45, and 1945-46 are problematic and adjusted accordingly.

Ok, I've got an idea of how to handle the war years. I'm going to post the new benchmarks I've thought up here, and then work my way through how they affect the various wartime players. Any comments or critiques are welcome, as is help in crunching the numbers should anyone be so inclined.

1942-43: I don't see this season as particularly problematic. In all likelihood, the scoring champ, Doug Bentley, would have been at or around the top of "the pack" (so, he'd have been the benchmark, himself), in a completely normal season. The old benchmark used the averaging method because there is a big gap between the top three and the next group, but I think this is distorted. The problem in this year is not the guys at the top, but rather the crappy next group. Their crappiness is what forced us to use the averaging method for this season (due to the gap between #3 and #4), but I think that method is misguided in this case, and we should simply use Cowley's #2 score as the benchmark. For 1942-43, I think the benchmark should be set to a standard Vs2, using Cowley's 72 points.

1943-44: I think this is the single most problematic season of the war years. Herb Cain didn't only win the scoring title this year, but he won it by a healthy margin. I think this year is an absolute disaster, and my solution is a relatively tough one. I think we can use Bill Cowley, who was the #2 scorer and our benchmark from the previous season, as our benchmark for this season as well, prorated for the number of games he played.

What do I mean by this? Well, we simply assume that Cowley's offensive production remained constant from 1942-43 to 1943-44. That seems fairly reasonable, and is perhaps even generous to the 1943-44 season given that Cowley was evidently hurt during the year and missed 25% of the games. So we assume that a Cowley who plays 48 games (which he had played in 1942-43) is our benchmark, and we calculate from that how many points he would have reached at his scoring rate for 1943-44 had he played 48 games. For 1943-44, we arrive at a benchmark of 95 points.

Now, this is pretty harsh. Herb Cain, in his career year, goes from a VsX score of 106 to a score of 86. Doug Bentley goes from being the benchmark (and a score of 100) to a score of 81. And so on down the line. Among hall of famers, this obviously hurts Doug Bentley the most, but I don't think that is inappropriate considering that he is the one and only hall of famer who was playing at his real peak this season, and he got easily outscored by Herb Cain.

1944-45: Elmer Lach's first scoring title. The trick with this season is that Lach also won a scoring title in a full-strength league, so we cannot dismiss out of hand the idea that he was a worthy #1 scorer in this season. What does look suspicious, however, is the margin of his victory.

What I propose is simple: assume that Lach's offensive production was just as good in 1944-45 as it was in 1947-48, and by extension assume that a normalized benchmark scorer would have been behind Lach's year-end scoring totals by the same margin. Lach won the 1947-48 Art Ross trophy by a single point, 61 to 60, over Buddy O'Connor in the latter's Hart Trophy season. So...

61/60 [1947-48 margin of victory] = 1.02
80/1.02 [Lach's 1944-45 scoring output/above margin] = 78

I propose 78 as a benchmark for the 1944-45 season.

1945-46: Some argue that this is not really a war year, but I disagree. The league was clearly still quite weak, Apps only played 40 games, Schmidt was not in hockey shape, and the scoring leaderboard is just a hot mess. What to do?

Luckily, we can repeat the process we used for the 1944-45 season here. Max Bentley won the scoring championship in consecutive seasons starting in 1945-46. The problem in this year is that his margin is much bigger than in the following season in a full-strength league. So if we assume that Max is the legitimate scoring champ but recalculate the margin between #1 and #2 to establish our benchmark for the 1945-46 season, this is what we get:

72/71 [1946-47 margin of victory] = 1.01
61/1.01 [Bentley's 1945-46 scoring output/above margin] = 60

I propose 60 as a benchmark for the 1945-46 season.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions, comments or personal attacks are welcome. I really hate asterisks, and the problem of the war years has been bothering me ever since we started down this road with the VsX project. I want to do the war years players justice without making them look better than they are, and I also want to differentiate them from one another, as one asterisk is not necessarily the same as the next. Anyway, let me know what you all think.

I will start working my way through the adjusted numbers for the wartime stars using the above benchmarks.

I actually had forgotten this, but VsX now also deducts assists from Chicago specific players in 1948-49, because for some reason, their scorekeeper went wild with assists that year. This primarily affects Doug Bentley and Roy Conacher:

Oh, one other piece of work to attend to: Doug Bentley and Roy Conacher's assist totals in the 1948-49 season. There is evidence that the Chicago scorekeepers were awarding phantom assists during Blackhawks home games in this season, and if you take a look at the assist tables, the separation between these two and the pack is simply galling, especially with respect to Conacher, who was not known as a playmaker.

Again, though, Bentley led the league in assists on one other occasion, so if we assume that he was just as good this year and no better, then we can calculate his adjusted assist totals by the same margin of victory and alter our benchmark (Doug was the benchmark scorer this season) accordingly. So...

37/36 [Doug's 1947-48 margin of victory in assists] = 1.03
29 * 1.03 [3rd place Paul Ronty's assist finish * Doug's previous margin of victory] = 30

Doug actually tallied 43 assists during the 1948-49 season. If we shave 13 assists off of his total (and that of Roy Conacher) to get him down to his previous margin of victory, Doug falls from 66 to 53 points, and Ted Lindsay/Sid Abel are now in 2nd place at 54 points. Roy Conacher also falls from 68 to 55 points, still in first place, but by a much saner margin.

I propose no change to the benchmark for the 1948-49 season (it was already Abel/Lindsay at 54), with 53 and 55 being the end-of-season scoring totals for Doug Bentley and Roy Conacher, respectively.

How the new (circa 2014) adjustments affect Doug Bentley:

Doug Bentley's top scoring seasons under the new benchmarks (affected years in bold):

101, 98, 95, 87, 81, 77, 67, 66*

*8th best season, so would be dropped in a 7-season weighted average

7-season weighted VsX with new benchmarks = 87.2

 

[tarheelhockey]

Or maybe if Doug gets traded to a contender instead of his brother Max, it's Doug who makes it into our top 100?

1942-43: Doug 73 points, Max 70 points (next best 44 points) 1942-43 Chicago Black Hawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Max missed 1943-44 and 1944-45 and Doug was injured in 1945-46

1946-47: Max 72 points in 60 games, Doug 55 points in 52 games, Mosienko 52 points in 59 games: 1946-47 Chicago Black Hawks Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Keep in my that Doug was also the defensive conscience for the Bentley-Bentley-Mosienko line.

The two big years of the Pony Line were 1946 and 1947.

1946
Max won the Hart by a solid margin over Gaye Stewart. Doug did not receive any votes. Note that Stewart won the AS nod at LW by a wide margin over Doug, who placed 3rd.

1947
Max placed 3rd in Hart voting. Doug again did not receive any votes. This was the year of Doug's 1-point win over Dumart at LW.


Granted, Doug missed a combined 19 more games over the two seasons. That could be a factor in their Hart voting, but missing a few games didn't seem to be disqualifying in that era. Only a couple of years before this in 1943, Syl Apps missed 21 more games than Doug (on 50 game schedule!) and still pulled close to him in 1943 Hart voting.

Based on the above, it doesn't appear that Doug's defensive conscience registered as a reason for contemporaries to hold him equal, let alone superior to Max. The only time during their time together that Doug received higher peer recognition was in the aforementioned 1943, when he won the scoring title (because Max missed a few games despite pacing for a higher total, Apps broke his leg, the Kraut Line wasn't around, etc.).

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Again, I think Bentley peaks a "natural" #3-5 scorer in the league if WWII doesn't happen. He would have been a Hall of Famer in his prime, playing on a line with his even better brother, so it's not as though he would have fallen dramatically off the map or anything (he's better than e.g. Herb Cain).

But even if we take real-life 1943 into consideration, Bentley's goal and point titles are a consequence of Syl Apps breaking his leg at midseason. It's an even more extreme version of Jamie Benn's... instead of just Crosby, it's more like an entire postseason AS forward line's worth of title contenders cleared a path for Bentley to be the last man standing. It's still a good season for Bentley, but we can't take that statistical mark at anything near face value. I think 3-5 is a fair placement.

Along the same lines, I think it's evident that he wasn't anything anything like a top-3 player in a fully-stocked NHL, which is what the wartime Hart finishes imply at face value:

• Even in the context of the extremely weak 1944 season, his Hart 3rd was by only a 3-point margin over 4th
• His 1AS in 1947 was by only a 1-point margin over Dumart (Bentley's 2-2-0 against Dumart's 1-2-2 which is arguably a better showing).
• Even his Hart 4th in 1949 was actually a three-way tie with less than a handful of votes for each player.

We can recognize that these are good seasons, but they are not high-end elite seasons as implied by the numerical award rankings.

Bentley's face-value stats and awards would suggest he belongs in a comparison with guys like Bure and Perreault. If we apply due discretion to context and competition levels, it's very evident that he's solidly a tier below these guys. He would be a good comparable to a guy like Woody Dumart who we might see in this project but who certainly would not be inducted within the next several rounds if at all.

Just to be clear, I'm not really advocating for Doug Bentley in this spot, I wouldn't rank him above Bure either. I'm simply responding to what I perceive to be a very significant underrating of wartime achievements.

There are two main points of consideration when it comes to Bentley:

1. How good were his seasons relative to his league context, accounting for wartime talent loss?

2. How much was he individually responsible for that scoring?

Your points about Hart finishes and playing with his brother and so on are absolutely relevant for the second point. There is at least a hint of "1940s Sedin brother" that everyone has to grapple with when placing him historically. But on the first point, I still don't see any good evidence for your subjective evaluation of the 1942-43 season.

I'm honestly confused as to why you keep bringing up Syl Apps. This was the NHL top 10 in scoring on January 30, 1943, the day of Apps' broken leg:

1. Lorne Carr: 32 GP, 48 Pts, 1.50 PPG
2. Bill Cowley: 34 GP, 46 Pts, 1.35 PPG
3. Max Bentley: 28 GP, 44 Pts, 1.57 PPG
4. Billy Taylor: 32 GP, 43 Pts, 1.34 PPG
5. Doug Bentley: 31 GP, 42 Pts, 1.35 PPG
6. Lynn Patrick: 33 GP, 42 Pts, 1.27 PPG
7. Buzz Boll: 36 GP, 41 Pts, 1.14 PPG
8. Syl Apps: 29 GP, 40 Pts, 1.38 PPG
9. Toe Blake: 33 GP, 39 Pts, 1.18 PPG
10. Gaye Stewart: 30 GP, 37 Pts, 1.23 PPG

Both Bentleys were on their way to beating Apps anyway. I think my narrative remains more accurate: Doug Bentley's goal and point titles were a consequence of playing with Max Bentley, the best scorer in the league, and was still the most likely scenario even if every player in the league was healthy and nobody went to war. On the surface it looks like it was wartime influenced since the Bentleys happened to break out in 1942-43 after a bunch of players had already left, but that conclusion is a mistake because it would have happened regardless (see the post-war period for confirmation).

I don't get how the Boston guys missing can be reasonably assumed to bump Bentley down 2-4 spots in scoring. The probability that the entire Kraut line outscores Doug Bentley in 1942-43 has to be absurdly low. At that point, Bill Cowley was on a very similar level to Milt Schmidt offensively (swapped scoring titles in 1940 and 1941, almost identical PPG in 1942), and back when most scoring came at ES it was much less likely that one team would have guys on different lines both threatening for the league scoring lead. Even if Schmidt and Cowley were both on the roster, there was only ever going to be one of them that could challenge the equivalent of 73 points in 1942-43 (and having both active and sharing opportunities might even have been a detriment to that goal).

If you want to look at Schmidt's age and project him to win the #1 center job in Boston, to produce slightly better than Cowley actually did and to edge out the Bentleys by a few points for the scoring title, that's not unreasonable. But Boston's top center in that era was routinely outscoring his wingers, and neither Bauer nor Dumart ever had a scoring season in their entire careers that was as good contextually as Bentley's 1942-43. You would have to project full health and career years where they score something like 15-20% above anything they ever did to expect them to also finish ahead of Bentley. Of course everything is subjective when it comes to filling in the WWII gaps, but I don't see that as responsible projection at all.

 

[tarheelhockey]

• Voted best player of Chicago's first half century over Max (ok, max got traded), Charlie Gardiner, Earl Seibert, etc. Maybe there was a bias towards him as a recent player at the time, I don't know, but it's a nice little thing.

But we don't accept this as valid, do we? If so, it means need to radically re-calibrate our judgment on Gardiner and Seibert to make space for this.

It's noteworthy that the vote finished in this order:
1. Doug Bentley
2. Johnny Gottselig
3. Charlie Gardiner
4. Mush March.

Not one of those guys ever played a game outside Chicago. Earl Seibert, Max Bentley, and Paul Thompson -- guys who played significant parts of their careers elsewhere -- got fringe consideration. This was very much a "Mr. Blackhawk" award rather than a "best player" award.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But we don't accept this as valid, do we? If so, it means need to radically re-calibrate our judgment on Gardiner and Seibert to make space for this.

It's noteworthy that the vote finished in this order:
1. Doug Bentley
2. Johnny Gottselig
3. Charlie Gardiner
4. Mush March.

Not one of those guys ever played a game outside Chicago. Earl Seibert, Max Bentley, and Paul Thompson -- guys who played significant parts of their careers elsewhere -- got fringe consideration. This was very much a "Mr. Blackhawk" award rather than a "best player" award.

Thanks. I never saw the voting order. It does seem like a "Mr Blackhawk" / fan favorite award.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Note that @Sturminator (who did the work) agreed with @ContrarianGoaltender that 1942-43 is not problematic in terms of the years top scorers. But 1943-44, 1944-45, and 1945-46 are problematic and adjusted accordingly.

Just ran a quick check and my math checks out with Sturminator's estimate for Bentley in 1943-44. Bentley's 77 points in 1943-44 convert to 59 points in 1942-43, using my 1943-44 discount factor of 30% for forward scoring. Compare to the new runner-up Max Bentley (70 points), and that's 84% of the Vs2 benchmark, which is close enough to 81.

(Edit: Just realized I should probably leave the benchmark with Cowley in that comparison, which comes out even closer at 82%).

I actually had forgotten this, but VsX now also deducts assists from Chicago specific players in 1948-49, because for some reason, their scorekeeper went wild with assists that year. This primarily affects Doug Bentley and Roy Conacher:



How the new (circa 2014) adjustments affect Doug Bentley:

I was looking at this too out of curiosity before I learned that VsX was already correcting for it, but this adjustment seems way too strong. We have home/road splits now on NHL.com, and there isn't actually that strong of a case to be made for overcounting:

Conacher and Bentley combined, 1948-49:

Home: 60 GP, 27 G, 43 A, 70 P
Road: 58 GP, 22 G, 42 A, 64 P

On the road that year they both put up 21 assists, while the next best in the league was Ted Lindsay at 12. For the record, Doug Bentley also led the league in road assists in 1947-48. I think there probably was a bit of overcounting in Chicago (or possibly more accurately, some undercounting in other rinks, since the assists/goal rate was down substantially in this period), but I think taking away anything more than 5 points or so from Bentley seems very unjustified.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't get how the Boston guys missing can be reasonably assumed to bump Bentley down 2-4 spots in scoring.

To be clear, I don't think we should assume any specific player bumps him down in scoring. But just as a straight matter of probability:

- Bill Cowley missed 2 games and finished 1 point behind Bentley. Cowley averaged 1.5 PPG that year, so it's not any sort of stretch to say the 2 games cost him the title.

- Max Bentley missed 3 games and finished 3 points behind. Max averaged 1.49 PPG, so again it's not any sort of stretch to say a nondescript injury cost him his shot.

- Apps paced to finish 4 points behind. It's not crazy to imagine he makes up 4 points in 21 games, being the kind of player he was. And he surely would have knocked Bentley down a notch in the Hart race.

We can't assume all of these guys will convert their opportunities, no... but it's also not unreasonable to say a healthy Cowley and Max almost certainly push Doug down to #3 on the scoring list and Apps had as good a chance as anyone to make it #4.

These margins are so small that it shouldn't really matter, but there is an actual difference in perception between "won a scoring title" and "finished 3rd in scoring". There's an actual difference in perception between "4th place Hart finish" and "one of a cluster who tied for 4th-6th with less than a handful of votes". Even his non-wartime assist titles were both won by exactly 1 assist.

My overall point here is that nearly all of Bentley's award/stat achievements are manifested by these kinds of favorable breaks. His clear-cut 2AS in 1949 is the only one that isn't either war-influenced or a case of squeaking out a win by a hair's breadth. When you take all of that into consideration, the superficial gap in recognition between Bentley and Perreault disappears, and the gap between him and Jackson turns into something more like a chasm.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Thanks. I never saw the voting order. It does seem like a "Mr Blackhawk" / fan favorite award.

FWIW the article can be seen here. Had to find it in an out-of-market paper, because as far as I can tell the Herald isn't online.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My overall point here is that nearly all of Bentley's award/stat achievements are manifested by these kinds of favorable breaks. His clear-cut 2AS in 1949 is the only one that isn't either war-influenced or a case of squeaking out a win by a hair's breadth. When you take all of that into consideration, the superficial gap in recognition between Bentley and Perreault disappears, and the gap between him and Jackson turns into something more like a chasm.

'

So it basically comes down to just how much stock you put into reports of Bentley's strong backchecking games.

Perreault + strong backchecking would rank pretty highly this round, right?

 

[tarheelhockey]

'

So it basically comes down to just how much stock you put into reports of Bentley's strong backchecking games.

Perreault + strong backchecking would rank pretty highly this round, right?

His award recognition already takes the backchecking into consideration.

 

[seventieslord]

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).

Woof! Look at the recognition those two players had throughout their careers. These aren't world-beaters, heck, not even one person in this project has them as a top-220 player. Citing their point totals doesn't do anything for me, sorry.

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.

Gadsby wasn't the only other defenseman in the NHL! Quackenbush finished ahead of a Young Marcel Pronovost, prime Gus Mortson, prime Tom Johnson, old Butch Bouchard, prime Jim Thomson, young Tim Horton, and one-and-two years away from 2nd all-star teams themselves Hy Buller and Leo Reise.

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?

I don't think this is really directed at me, as personally I don't really care all that much about all-star voting for wingers - it's too inconsistent, applies to a really small sample of players and as a result has caused a number of results that aren't all that congruent from season to season - and since the value of a winger is tied so closely to the amount they score, we have lots of other data that is much more quantitative than their all-star voting. I'll judge Bure on the basis of his total contribution to offense, like I would for any other winger, and then plus or minus something for style points, playoffs, defense, longevity, etc.

Defensemen, on the other hand, particularly the ones we haven't watched ourselves, cannot be judged reliably by the amount of points that they score. The all-star voting we have for pre-1960 defensemen, along with first-hand accounts of their play, is literally the best data we have to assess their overall level of play and impact. I also think that taking a look at the competition level from season to season is very important, but by zeroing in on 1953 Gadsby, you're barking up that tree butt-first.

 

[seventieslord]

Also, for anyone who wants to take a deeper dive into Quackenbush's career, these are all the THN articles I could find between 1947 and 1957, in chronological order. I haven't gone over them too closely myself but at least now they are out there, for anyone who wants to. A first glance it seems that he was very well-respected as a defender.

These should show up as hi-res files and should be readable - if they got compressed at all, they won't be.

 

[seventieslord]

 

[seventieslord]

and also this, because I just noticed that the first picture I posted was supposed to be continued on page 11, so here's page 11

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Is it just me or does Quackenbush have a very non-hockey player face?