Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 1

Can we please stop acting like "top 10" means something in a league that only has something like 20-40 starting players in it? Few teams + starters playing the whole game = top 10s are pretty meaningless.

At least use "top 5s" for quick and dirty comparisons.

(This also relates to my Cleghorn post that I just made)

Sure thing.

Taylor was still highest scoring or second highest cover/point in his 4 seasons in the ECAHA. His reputation as a super-star followed him to Vancouver and was not born from his scoring exploits in Vancouver. He was a star the second he stepped on the ice in the ECAHA. Heck he was an all-star in the IHL in 1905-06 and he only played 6 games that season.

Largely because he entered the league at age 27 in what we'd consider an athletes prime.
 
Cleghorn played the lion's share of his career in the era before the penalty box was a thing in eastern hockey (it was an innovation of the Patrick brothers in the PCHA). Given that fact, it's quite remarkable that Sprague still has a reputation for having hurt his team through indiscipline. He didn't even have to serve penalties most of the time.
The bolded is my point of contention- I don't think this is a fair characterization. Eastern hockey had shorthanded play. Maybe the NHA didn't, but it was very much a thing according the the papers I have been reading. Just for example, from a game on 13 January 1906-

“For the Ottawas, Alf. Smith probably put up the best game for his side, although he did not become prominent until the second half opened. His work was telling perhaps when Ottawa was playing against extra men. ”

To me, that clearly describes what we would call a shorthanded situation. I guess it could refer to an odd man rush, but I have a hard time reading that. I'll go through my clips tonight to see if I can get something more conclusive.
Found my own old research on the subject:


So, the "team penalty" system looks like it started in 1918-19 in the PCHA, and had moved to the NHL by the 1921-22 season, five years before consolidation.

In Cleghorn's case, his last few peak years were played under the new rules (and to his credit, he did well in Hart voting during that period), but the better part of his career was spent under the old ones.

Thanks for this, that was a good read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy
In the spirit of interpositional discussion, what about Cleghorn over Lalonde?

Cleghorn had point finishes amongst defensemen of

1st (1914), 1st (1915), 1st (1920), 2nd (1913), 2nd (1917), 2nd (1922), 3rd (1912), 3rd (1916), 3rd (1919) 3rd (1923), 3rd (1925)

That's 11 top 3 finishes in defensive points.

Quoting the Ultimate Hockey

"Deapite a capacity for outright savagery, Sprague Cleghorn was one of the finest defenders the game of hockey has ever known.

While Cleghorn was adept with the puck, he was possibly better without it".


So we have an elite defensive player who also excels offensively.

The feel from this thread is that he is confidently ahead of Stuart. If we are considering him the consensus best defenseman amongst eligible players, isn't that worth more than arguably the second best offensive player of the 1910s/early 1920s in Lalonde?
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord
In the spirit of interpositional discussion, what about Cleghorn over Lalonde?

Cleghorn had point finishes amongst defensemen of

1st (1914), 1st (1915), 1st (1920), 2nd (1913), 2nd (1917), 2nd (1922), 3rd (1912), 3rd (1916), 3rd (1919) 3rd (1923), 3rd (1925)

That's 11 top 3 finishes in defensive points.

Quoting the Ultimate Hockey

"Deapite a capacity for outright savagery, Sprague Cleghorn was one of the finest defenders the game of hockey has ever known.

While Cleghorn was adept with the puck, he was possibly better without it".


So we have an elite defensive player who also excels offensively.

The feel from this thread is that he is confidently ahead of Stuart. If we are considering him the consensus best defenseman amongst eligible players, isn't that worth more than arguably the second best offensive player of the 1910s/early 1920s in Lalonde?

This one comes down to star power for me.

Lalonde just had star power that was really only surpassed by Taylor in this period.

Lalonde's finishes are quite impressive as it stretches across multiple leagues where he led them in points/goals or both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy
The bolded is my point of contention- I don't think this is a fair characterization. Eastern hockey had shorthanded play. Maybe the NHA didn't, but it was very much a thing according the the papers I have been reading. Just for example, from a game on 13 January 1906-

“For the Ottawas, Alf. Smith probably put up the best game for his side, although he did not become prominent until the second half opened. His work was telling perhaps when Ottawa was playing against extra men. ”

To me, that clearly describes what we would call a shorthanded situation. I guess it could refer to an odd man rush, but I have a hard time reading that. I'll go through my clips tonight to see if I can get something more conclusive.
Not to harp on it too much, and not to be the guy who quotes himself, but the first game I opened for today was the Wanderers vs Montreal HC on 31 January 1906. The Ottawa Citizen from 1 February (page 8) wrote: "That there was bad blood between the two teams was evident from the outset and before the mix-up occurred in the final ten minutes of play over 26 penalties had been meted out, the record for the present season. When Montreal scored its second goal it was with four players to Wanderers' three and throughout the greater part of the second half from two to four players stayed with the timekeeper"

Teams had to play shorthanded from penalties. It looks like that wasn't the case for the NHA for a period of time, but it was absolutely a thing for some of the Eastern leagues.
 
Taylor managed to play exactly one half season in the middle of his prime due to appendicitis, so it's actually easy to do a WOWY for his 1916-17 season. According to this, Taylor needed emergency surgery on December 12. Assuming that he missed that night's game against Seattle (implied if you read the "ballad" by Wilson MacDonald by enlarging the image, which notes that Vancouver's three game season-opening win streak), here is the game log and the resultant WOWY:

GP​
Team​
GF​
GA​
GF/GP​
GA/GP​
GF%​
12​
with Taylor​
80​
60​
6.67​
5.00​
57.1​
11​
without Taylor​
51​
61​
4.64​
5.55​
45.5​
23​
Rel.​
131​
121​
+2.03
-0.55
+11.6

That's a huge offensive impact and a moderate defensive impact as well.

Month
Day
Visitor
Score
Home
Score
Team​
Taylor​
GF​
GA​
GF (w/ Taylor)​
GA (w/ Taylor)​
Dec​
1​
Spokane​
5​
Portland​
4​
Dec​
2​
Seattle​
2​
Vancouver​
6​
1​
1​
6​
2​
6​
2​
Dec​
5​
Portland​
3​
Seattle​
4​
Dec​
5​
Vancouver​
4​
Spokane​
6​
1​
1​
4​
6​
4​
6​
Dec​
8​
Seattle​
2​
Portland​
5​
Dec​
9​
Spokane​
6​
Vancouver​
9​
1​
1​
9​
6​
9​
6​
Dec​
12​
Portland​
5​
Spokane​
7​
Dec​
12​
Vancouver​
7​
Seattle​
6​
1​
7​
6​
Dec​
15​
Vancouver​
3​
Portland​
5​
1​
3​
5​
Dec​
15​
Spokane​
0​
Seattle​
4​
Dec​
19​
Seattle​
3​
Spokane​
1​
Dec​
23​
Portland​
5​
Vancouver​
7​
1​
7​
5​
Dec​
26​
Vancouver​
2​
Seattle​
7​
1​
2​
7​
Dec​
26​
Portland​
2​
Spokane​
6​
Dec​
29​
Spokane​
5​
Portland​
10​
Dec​
30​
Seattle​
7​
Vancouver​
4​
1​
4​
7​
Jan​
2​
Portland​
7​
Seattle​
4​
Jan​
5​
Vancouver​
3​
Portland​
5​
1​
3​
5​
Jan​
5​
Seattle​
1​
Spokane​
5​
Jan​
9​
Spokane​
1​
Seattle​
3​
Jan​
9​
Portland​
4​
Vancouver​
5​
1​
5​
4​
Jan​
12​
Vancouver​
3​
Seattle​
12​
1​
3​
12​
Jan​
12​
Portland​
3​
Spokane​
5​
Jan​
16​
Seattle​
6​
Portland​
2​
Jan​
19​
Portland​
3​
Seattle​
8​
Jan​
20​
Spokane​
3​
Vancouver​
6​
1​
6​
3​
Jan​
23​
Vancouver​
8​
Spokane​
5​
1​
8​
5​
Jan​
26​
Spokane​
5​
Portland​
4​
Jan​
27​
Seattle​
2​
Vancouver​
3​
1​
3​
2​
Jan​
30​
Spokane​
2​
Seattle​
4​
Jan​
30​
Vancouver​
7​
Portland​
11​
1​
1​
7​
11​
7​
11​
Feb​
2​
Seattle​
16​
Spokane​
1​
Feb​
3​
Portland​
1​
Vancouver​
6​
1​
1​
6​
1​
6​
1​
Feb​
6​
Portland​
3​
Spokane​
4​
Feb​
6​
Vancouver​
4​
Seattle​
8​
1​
1​
4​
8​
4​
8​
Feb​
9​
Seattle​
1​
Portland​
5​
Feb​
10​
Spokane​
1​
Vancouver​
8​
1​
1​
8​
1​
8​
1​
Feb​
13​
Spokane​
8​
Vancouver​
12​
1​
1​
12​
8​
12​
8​
Feb​
13​
Portland​
2​
Seattle​
5​
Feb​
16​
Spokane​
1​
Portland​
9​
Feb​
17​
Seattle​
2​
Vancouver​
4​
1​
1​
4​
2​
4​
2​
Feb​
20​
Vancouver​
4​
Portland​
6​
1​
1​
4​
6​
4​
6​
Feb​
23​
Spokane​
7​
Seattle​
9​
Feb​
24​
Portland​
4​
Vancouver​
5​
1​
1​
5​
4​
5​
4​
Feb​
27​
Spokane​
0​
Seattle​
7​
Mar​
2​
Spokane​
5​
Vancouver​
11​
1​
1​
11​
5​
11​
5​
Mar​
2​
Seattle​
4​
Portland​
3​
Mar​
Vancouver​
Spokane​
cancelled​
23​
12​
131​
121​
80​
60​
 
Taylor managed to play exactly one half season in the middle of his prime due to appendicitis, so it's actually easy to do a WOWY for his 1916-17 season. According to this, Taylor needed emergency surgery on December 12. Assuming that he missed that night's game against Seattle (implied if you read the "ballad" by Wilson MacDonald by enlarging the image, which notes that Vancouver's three game season-opening win streak), here is the game log and the resultant WOWY:

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
GP​
[/TD]

[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF/GP​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA/GP​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
with Taylor​
[/TD]

[TD]
80​
[/TD]

[TD]
60​
[/TD]

[TD]
6.67​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.00​
[/TD]

[TD]
57.1​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
11​
[/TD]

[TD]
without Taylor​
[/TD]

[TD]
51​
[/TD]

[TD]
61​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.64​
[/TD]

[TD]
5.55​
[/TD]

[TD]
45.5​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
23​
[/TD]

[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
131​
[/TD]

[TD]
121​
[/TD]

[TD]
+2.03
[/TD]

[TD]
-0.55
[/TD]

[TD]
+11.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

That's a huge offensive impact and a moderate defensive impact as well.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Month
[/TD]

[TD]
Day
[/TD]

[TD]
Visitor
[/TD]

[TD]
Score
[/TD]

[TD]
Home
[/TD]

[TD]
Score
[/TD]

[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
Taylor​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
GF (w/ Taylor)​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA (w/ Taylor)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
15​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
15​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
0​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
19​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
23​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
26​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
26​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
29​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
10​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Dec​
[/TD]

[TD]
30​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
16​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
19​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
20​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
23​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
26​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
27​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
30​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Jan​
[/TD]

[TD]
30​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
11​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
11​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
11​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
16​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
10​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
13​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
8​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
13​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
16​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
17​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
20​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
6​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
23​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
9​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
24​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Feb​
[/TD]

[TD]
27​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
0​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
7​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Mar​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
11​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
1​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
11​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
11​
[/TD]

[TD]
5​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Mar​
[/TD]

[TD]
2​
[/TD]

[TD]
Seattle​
[/TD]

[TD]
4​
[/TD]

[TD]
Portland​
[/TD]

[TD]
3​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Mar​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
Vancouver​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
Spokane​
[/TD]

[TD]
cancelled​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
23​
[/TD]

[TD]
12​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
131​
[/TD]

[TD]
121​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
80​
[/TD]

[TD]
60​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I was going to do something like this after TDMM posted the Nighbor splits but you did it better than I could

Edit: however the Millionaires also lost MacKay (and someone else) for a couple of those games Taylor missed. It was overall a lost season for the Millionaires

Double Edit: Worse, it was MacKay and Roberts for a ten day stretch while Taylor was still out. That would be massive depending on when that stretch was. So looking at my positions log (while still incomplete) was probably around January 9th and Taylor/MacKay/Roberts were all back by the 29th.

I can also confirm he missed the December 12th game
 
Last edited:
I was going to do something like this after TDMM posted the Nighbor splits but you did it better than I could

Edit: however the Millionaires also lost MacKay (and someone else) for a couple of those games Taylor missed. It was overall a lost season for the Millionaires

Double Edit: Worse, it was MacKay and Roberts for a ten day stretch while Taylor was still out. That would be massive depending on when that stretch was. So looking at my positions log (while still incomplete) was probably around January 9th and Taylor/MacKay/Roberts were all back by the 29th.

I can also confirm he missed the December 12th game
Your working knowledge of the intricacies of old-time hockey is ludicrous, my guy.

I've forgotten a lot more of the details than I can remember (I think?), but at least I can still track down my own old posts lol.
 
I thought Nighbor's splits had been posted, but it looks like a very partial look at them. i did this a few years ago, thank goodness the search function worked well enough this one time for me to find them:

Canadiens1958:

On the other hand Nighbor's strength was the poke check. Valuable in the pre liberalized forward pass era but virtually disappeared along with the sweep check since 1929-30.

So how are such attributes to be balanced?

seventieslord:

I think that anybody like him who just thinks the game at a higher level is going to find a way to be just as successful under any rules. Perhaps his defensive dominance could be exaggerated before the liberalized forward passing rules, but being that he was a guy who was in Tip-Top physical condition and could skate all day, combine that with his intelligence and stick skills, and I still think that when skating and Puck chasing become more important, he would still be the best defensive forward in the league.

after all, he continued to be the best through many rule changes, including the introduction of the Blue Line, the rule about camping out in the defensive Zone, roster size increases which led to players being more rested and assumedly faster, The moving of the blue lines, and the shortening of the length of sticks, when previously a long stick with something he was said to have benefited from. Still, in 1929 they were referring to him as the master.

MXD:

The master of what?
... Which would translate to what?

I mean.... By then, Nighbor was something of an also-ran playing for an also-ran team, for which he probably deserves at least SOME blame, considering the amount of time he was spending on the ice.

Of course.... Nighbor was old, and probably shouldn't be expected to be the player he once was. Why use the word "master" to describe him, and, while we're at it, why would I give full credibility to the people who gave him more praise (than his numbers warranted) if they'd use words like "master" to describe him when his score sheet looked like a donut?

seventieslord:
The master of what?
... Which would translate to what?


defensive play, specifically. Probably the possession game, the mental game and his stickwork, too. Obviously his offensive game in his last few seasons was not what it once was. For the record, it was never my contention that he had some hidden offense that was being lost in his point totals, and I'm not sure how that got inserted into the conversation.

Now would be a good time to remind everyone that Nighbor, in the 1927-28 season, was STILL 6th in Hart voting (with a not-insignificant number of votes) despite having only 1/3 as many points as the league leaders. This is a quote from late in the following season, 1928-29:

So far ahead of all hockey players in defensive ability, in starting plays and in outguessing the opposition is Frank Nighbor that it would be almost a shame to mention another in the game at the present time. There is only one "Old Master" and aspiring players have a star to aim at.

They're not talking about what he was in this passage. They're talking about what he still is. Again, I do not think this in any way relates to his current offensive capabilities.

I mean.... By then, Nighbor was something of an also-ran playing for an also-ran team, for which he probably deserves at least SOME blame, considering the amount of time he was spending on the ice.

The player I just described is no also-ran and I'm kinda not clear on what you mean about his team, either. Ottawa's franchise index can be found here:

Ottawa Senators Franchise Index | Hockey-Reference.com

He was with them from 1917-18 through 1928-29, and part of 1929-30. Show me where in his tenure the team was ever bad. From what I can see, they only failed to be a .600 team in four of his twelve full seasons, and under .500 twice. And you should know something about those two seasons...

The first time was 1917-18, in which they were actually 5-5 (with 4.00 GAA) with him, and 3-9 (with 6.08 GAA) without. The other was 1928-29, when they were 12-11-7 (with a 1.29 GAA) with him, and 2-6-6 (with a 2.07 GAA) without him, so it actually kinda looks like, even at 36, he was the only thing stopping them from actually being an als0-ran.

Since we got on the topic, there are a few other times Nighbor missed four or more games in a season. Here's what happened:

1922: 13-5-2 (2.95) with, 1-3-0 (6.25) without
1924: 15-5-0 (2.05) with, 1-3-0 (3.75) without
1925: 15-10-1 (2.27) with, 2-2-0 (1.75) without
1927: 27-7-0 (1.47) with, 3-3-0 (2.17) without

Combined with the other two instances, in these six seasons in which there are reasonable samples (he missed 1-2 games other times that I do not consider worth researching), the results look like this:

87-43-10 (1.97) with, 12-26-6 (3.68) without. These six instances span 12 seasons, and every time the result was the same - better win percentage (6 of 6 times), and better goals against average (5 of 6 times). His impact was obvious and does show up in the numbers, just not in the ways you might expect. This is why he was the master. When he's playing, you get twice as many wins as losses. When he's not.... well, it's the opposite.

You're right about one thing - He does deserve at least SOME blame, considering the amount of time he was spending on the ice.

Of course.... Nighbor was old, and probably shouldn't be expected to be the player he once was. Why use the word "master" to describe him, and, while we're at it, why would I give full credibility to the people who gave him more praise (than his numbers warranted) if they'd use words like "master" to describe him when his score sheet looked like a donut?

I believe the answer to this is, such a statement might look like a head-scratcher if you're only looking at offensive stats. But his value went far beyond that, as I hope you can now recognize.

I mean, maybe there is some valid criticism of Nighbor, but this sure ain't it. He drove winning, it's quite clear. Going back to his pre-NHL years, his teams were only below .500 with him in the lineup when he was 20, 21 and 37. In between, his personal W-L record in the regular season was approximately 232-114-29, give or take a few missed single games that I won't bother to research, and 22-14-5 in the playoffs. By the time he was retired, only Jack Marshall had amassed as many as his five stanley cups, and a couple of Jack's were gimmes. Nighbor's cup count would take decades for another player to top. If Nighbor's name wasn't the one most synonymous with winning at the time of his retirement in 1930, whose was?

Criticizing Nighbor for how his teams performed just doesn't fly, because they did perform, and he was the reason why, almost without exception.

Just to recap, in six seasons where Nighbor missed time, the team was 87-43-10 with a 1.97 GAA with him, and 12-26-6 with a 3.68 GAA without him.
 
Here is a pretty in depth look at Lalonde's career from a bio I did last year during the ATD. Tried to highlight details just beyond scoring exploits and awards. Many, many newspaper clippings talk about many aspects of his career/game.

Use dark background, and even then, what the hell was I thinking w/those colors haha? Can't edit it due to exceeding picture limits....

 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr John Carlson
In this group, I wouldn’t call Nighbor’s offense strong - it’s probably second weakest ahead of Phillips.

Sure. Maybe. But one may say the same thing about Patrice Bergeron in a field that includes Ryan Getzlaf, Eric Staal, Henrik Sedin, Nicklas Backstrom and Claude Giroux. And he's still undoubtedly the best player among them.

Am I wrong for having Eddie Gerard as the second highest Senator? Not counting Cleghorn.

No, not necessarily.

Ian Fyffe's Point System

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Hall of Fame by Point Allocation (Fyffe Points)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Russell Bowie[/TD]
[TD]136.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cyclone Taylor[/TD]
[TD]116.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Newsy Lalonde[/TD]
[TD]113.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Frank Nighbor[/TD]
[TD]109.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Clint Benedict[/TD]
[TD]108.6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Eddie Gerard[/TD]
[TD]103.1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Georges Vezina[/TD]
[TD]102.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Joe Malone[/TD]
[TD]101.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cy Denneny[/TD]
[TD]98.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Sprague Cleghorn[/TD]
[TD]97.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tommy Phillips[/TD]
[TD]91.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hod Stuart[/TD]
[TD]82.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

His system isn't perfect, and certainly weighs offense heavily.

That's correct, offense is weighed heavily and there's no fudging done, either.

Nighbor actually does a lot better here than one would think, and that's probably because his assists are normalized to a certain Assists-per-goal ratio in Iain's system. He's the 2nd-best playmaker here, aside from Cyclone.

But the defense..... yeah. His system ain't gonna account for it. Ottawa was usually exceptional defensively, and the credit for that starts with the goalie, then the point, then the coverpoint, then the center, then the wings. So he was 2nd last in line for credit, even though in reality, he was likely THE most important defensive player on the team. Reading reports and fudging accordingly would have given Nighbor the credit he deserved. I know Iain likes to fudge at times to force results to approach perception, but not in this system, from the looks of it.

Ottawa wins their cup in 1921 with the following roster
- Frank Nighbor
- Cy Denneny
- Punch Broadbent
- Jack Darragh
- Eddie Gerard
- Sprague Cleghorn
- George Boucher
- Clint Benedict

It's quite remarkable that on a team loaded with rooks, bishops and knights, he was still seen as the queen on the board.

The bolded were teammates with Nighbor for 3+ seasons including two cup wins. I have a hard time upon more reflection thinking that Nighbor can be the best player pre-consolidation with 4 other teammates in the top 12 on the basis of a stellar team accomplishment based resume

Look at it this way. Ottawa's 1920s dynasty is probably the best dynasty of the pre-merger era, for sure if you give a little more credit to later dynasties. It's only natural that their players are going to gravitate to the top of the list just like Richard/Beliveau/Plante/Harvey all rank so highly. One may ask, how is it that four top-20 players of all-time were on the same team at the same time? Well, they did win five straight cups...

But with that said, I think that with greater and greater appreciation of Nighbor, has come downgrading of other players, like Denneny and Benedict. I think as a group we've realized that the team couldn't have had three of the six best players of all-time (circa 1930) or they'd have won every cup and not just three.

Combined Vs2 in NHA/NHL/PCHA 1910-1926.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Vs2- 3 Years[/TD]
[TD]Vs2 - 5 Years[/TD]
[TD]Vs2 - 7 Years[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cyclone Taylor[/TD]
[TD]128.1[/TD]
[TD]119.2[/TD]
[TD]103.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Newsy Lalonde[/TD]
[TD]110.6[/TD]
[TD]106.7[/TD]
[TD]99.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Joe Malone[/TD]
[TD]106.3[/TD]
[TD]103.8[/TD]
[TD]98.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cy Denneny[/TD]
[TD]101.4[/TD]
[TD]100.9[/TD]
[TD]99.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Frank Nighbor[/TD]
[TD]97.4[/TD]
[TD]90.7[/TD]
[TD]82.4[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

For reference, Bowie's numbers come to
179.7, 158.4, 136.5

Phillips is hard to generate

I don't think Vs2 provides much benefit pre-1910, but can be a reasonable look at offensive separation across the leagues. I think it confirms my initial suspicions: Taylor is the offensive king of post-1910 hockey, with Lalonde not far behind. Denneny stands out really strongly too.

Nighbor finishes fifth amongst eligible forwards. Obviously, things like defense and playoffs aren't included.

I have no idea on how to make a direct comparison between Bowie/Lalonde/Denneny
My numbers (which attempt to simulate VsX by giving one player per season a score >100) give them the following:

Taylor: 113-108-94
Lalonde: 106-101-96
Malone: 105-102-98
Denneny: 99-98-96
Nighbor: 88-82-77

If assists were given out at a rate similar to after WW2, Nighbor could potentially be in 2nd spot on this list.

After those numbers I just posted, I have been reminded that numerically there doesn't seem to be a great deal separating Malone and Lalonde. But we frequently rank Lalonde much higher in all-time projects.

Is it because we just have the sense that Lalonde was a lot more of an involved, impactful player?

I know Malone was called a loafer sometimes, who camped in an advantageous spot, or a ghost who'd be out of the play and then somehow show up in the right place to score a goal, while Lalonde was a lot more of a fiery, determined ice general kind of guy. Do I have that right? Is that the main difference?
 
Sure. Maybe. But one may say the same thing about Patrice Bergeron in a field that includes Ryan Getzlaf, Eric Staal, Henrik Sedin, Nicklas Backstrom and Claude Giroux. And he's still undoubtedly the best player among them.



No, not necessarily.



That's correct, offense is weighed heavily and there's no fudging done, either.

Nighbor actually does a lot better here than one would think, and that's probably because his assists are normalized to a certain Assists-per-goal ratio in Iain's system. He's the 2nd-best playmaker here, aside from Cyclone.

But the defense..... yeah. His system ain't gonna account for it. Ottawa was usually exceptional defensively, and the credit for that starts with the goalie, then the point, then the coverpoint, then the center, then the wings. So he was 2nd last in line for credit, even though in reality, he was likely THE most important defensive player on the team. Reading reports and fudging accordingly would have given Nighbor the credit he deserved. I know Iain likes to fudge at times to force results to approach perception, but not in this system, from the looks of it.



It's quite remarkable that on a team loaded with rooks, bishops and knights, he was still seen as the queen on the board.



Look at it this way. Ottawa's 1920s dynasty is probably the best dynasty of the pre-merger era, for sure if you give a little more credit to later dynasties. It's only natural that their players are going to gravitate to the top of the list just like Richard/Beliveau/Plante/Harvey all rank so highly. One may ask, how is it that four top-20 players of all-time were on the same team at the same time? Well, they did win five straight cups...

But with that said, I think that with greater and greater appreciation of Nighbor, has come downgrading of other players, like Denneny and Benedict. I think as a group we've realized that the team couldn't have had three of the six best players of all-time (circa 1930) or they'd have won every cup and not just three.


My numbers (which attempt to simulate VsX by giving one player per season a score >100) give them the following:

Taylor: 113-108-94
Lalonde: 106-101-96
Malone: 105-102-98
Denneny: 99-98-96
Nighbor: 88-82-77

If assists were given out at a rate similar to after WW2, Nighbor could potentially be in 2nd spot on this list.

After those numbers I just posted, I have been reminded that numerically there doesn't seem to be a great deal separating Malone and Lalonde. But we frequently rank Lalonde much higher in all-time projects.

Is it because we just have the sense that Lalonde was a lot more of an involved, impactful player?

I know Malone was called a loafer sometimes, who camped in an advantageous spot, or a ghost who'd be out of the play and then somehow show up in the right place to score a goal, while Lalonde was a lot more of a fiery, determined ice general kind of guy. Do I have that right? Is that the main difference?

My Lalonde bio from 2022 hits on some of the very questions you're asking in regards to Lalonde and Malone.

Lalonde was the better all around hockey player, more explosive, and far more intimidating, that much I gather from reading/transcribing a considerable amount of info.

How much better is open to debate of course.
 
Look at it this way. Ottawa's 1920s dynasty is probably the best dynasty of the pre-merger era, for sure if you give a little more credit to later dynasties. It's only natural that their players are going to gravitate to the top of the list just like Richard/Beliveau/Plante/Harvey all rank so highly. One may ask, how is it that four top-20 players of all-time were on the same team at the same time? Well, they did win five straight cups...

But with that said, I think that with greater and greater appreciation of Nighbor, has come downgrading of other players, like Denneny and Benedict. I think as a group we've realized that the team couldn't have had three of the six best players of all-time (circa 1930) or they'd have won every cup and not just three.

Sure, but my contention is that Nighbor's personal resume is out of place amongst Malone/Lalonde/Taylor/Bowie and it's only when you fold in his team's accomplishments (which no doubt he was a large part of) that he can considered a peer. But his team had by far the most support of any of these 5 which makes it a bit easier to achieve those results.

In a world where Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux don't exist, Howe is the presumptive #1 despite players on another team stacked together having more success, that's my point. We don't even come close to considering Harvey or Beliveau over Howe despite their team's dominance.

The next regular teammate of Lalonde outside of Vezina who is going to come up for voting is Pitre and we won't talk about him or at least a handful of rounds

The next regular teammate of Malone who will come up is Joe Hall or Tommy Smith and we're a long way from discussing them

The next regular teammate of Taylor who will come up outside of Lehman (who should show up in the next vote or two) is going to be MacKay and we won't talk about him for at least a few more rounds.

And Bowie, who knows how long until we talk about Blair Russell.

Edit: Full disclosure I had Nighbor #1, but I've fully talked myself into following my heart.

I know Malone was called a loafer sometimes, who camped in an advantageous spot, or a ghost who'd be out of the play and then somehow show up in the right place to score a goal, while Lalonde was a lot more of a fiery, determined ice general kind of guy. Do I have that right? Is that the main difference?

This is my read as well. Lalonde was a lot more visible with his offensive dominance. Malone just kinda popped in and out scoring buckets of goals.

the other thing about Lalonde's offense (from another awesome nik jr bio), once the Canadians got more talent outside of him and Pitre he was still productive despite playing with another goal scorer in Malone.

Newsy Lalonde's impact on his linemate Joe Malone in '18:
To provide a sense of Lalonde’s importance to the team, and to Malone in particular:

Malone with Lalonde: 13 games, 32 goals (2.46 gpg)

Malone without Lalonde: 7 games, 12 goals (1.71 gpg)
Some of this is coincidental with the presence of Frank Nighbor in Montreal's games vs Ottawa.

Malone with Lalonde in games vs Ottawa without Nighbor: 16g, 2a in 4 games
Malone without Lalonde in games vs Ottawa without Nighbor: 7g in 3 games

Malone with Lalonde in games vs Nighbor: 0p in 1 game
Malone without Lalonde in games vs Nighbor: 1g in 2 game
 
I know Malone was called a loafer sometimes, who camped in an advantageous spot, or a ghost who'd be out of the play and then somehow show up in the right place to score a goal, while Lalonde was a lot more of a fiery, determined ice general kind of guy. Do I have that right? Is that the main difference?

Malone admitted to loafing himself. “We had a lot of ice time but I’ll tell you we didn’t go up and down the rink like they do today. We’d hustle when opportunities presented and then we’d loaf. At least I did. It was the only way you could go the 60 minutes and a lot of players had to do that.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast
Most of the best players of this era played the full game. Using spares regularly actually started becoming a thing under Pete Green (Ottawa head coach). I don't think anyone with a shred of common sense would believe a human being capable of going all out for most, let alone all of 60 minutes, even knowing that players weren't skating as fast as folks today. At some point your body just shuts down from sheer exhaustion.

Still boggles my mind more people didn't die pre-consolidation, between the lack of headgear, wild violence/wild west rules.
 
Malone admitted to loafing himself. “We had a lot of ice time but I’ll tell you we didn’t go up and down the rink like they do today. We’d hustle when opportunities presented and then we’d loaf. At least I did. It was the only way you could go the 60 minutes and a lot of players had to do that.”
It was a lot more like ice soccer back then, yeah.

I think it's really hard to hold that stuff against players from the "starters and subs" era.
 
The longevity expectations differ quite vastly amongst the eligible eras. While players in the 20s and 30s and 40s have very modern looking career lengths (Dit Clapper played in 20 NHL seasons) with guys having full pro careers and most stars retiring in the 36-42 range. But in the amateur era, we see stars retire in their mid 20s. So how do we evaluate longevity when the expectations were so different?

Nighbor played in 20 pro seasons, with 19 of them being as a full-time player. So already by the 1920s guys are having full "modern" career lengths.

A look at longevity for players that had their primes in the 1890s vs 1900s, vs 1910s. I am excluding junior years.

I am pulling players from my initial list

Players who had their primes in the 1890s
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Birth Year[/TD]
[TD]Number of Seasons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dolly Swift[/TD]
[TD]1866[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mike Grant[/TD]
[TD]1873[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dan Bain[/TD]
[TD]1874[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Graham Drinkwater[/TD]
[TD]1875[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bob McDougall[/TD]
[TD]1876[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Harry Trihey[/TD]
[TD]1877[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Weldy Young[/TD]
[TD]1871[/TD]
[TD]?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Players who had their primes in the 1900s
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Birth Year[/TD]
[TD]Number of Seasons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Paddy Moran[/TD]
[TD]1877[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jack Marshall[/TD]
[TD]1877[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jack Laviolette[/TD]
[TD]1879[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Joe Hall[/TD]
[TD]1881[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Si Griffis[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Russell Bowie[/TD]
[TD]1880[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Percy LeSueur[/TD]
[TD]1881[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hod Stuart[/TD]
[TD]1879[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Riley Hern[/TD]
[TD]1878[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Tommy Phillips[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ernie Russell[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bouse Hutton[/TD]
[TD]1877[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Marty Walsh[/TD]
[TD]1884[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dickie Boon[/TD]
[TD]1878[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Frank McGee[/TD]
[TD]1882[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Billy Nicholson[/TD]
[TD]1878[/TD]
[TD]?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Players who had their primes in the 1910s
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Birth Year[/TD]
[TD]Number of Seasons[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hugh Lehman[/TD]
[TD]1885[/TD]
[TD]22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Didier Pitre[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cyclone Taylor[/TD]
[TD]1884[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lester Patrick[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bobby Rowe[/TD]
[TD]1885[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Rusty Crawford[/TD]
[TD]1885[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Art Ross[/TD]
[TD]1885[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Frank Patrick[/TD]
[TD]1885[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Basically, once we hit the 1882-1885 birth years we start to see guys play full careers. This roughly corresponds to guys who were in their prime playing years when hockey went pro.

What does this mean? A guy like Russell Bowie had strong longevity for his era, even if it was weak for guys born just 5 years after him. This can largely be tied into him staying amateur. If he was born even a few years later, it is likely he plays in the NHA.

Moran, Marshall, and Laviolette are potentially the only players older than Bowie who had longer careers than him.

I think Bowie's longevity should be viewed as a positive, considering the amateur/pro reality of being born in 1880.

There is only an 8 year gap between Stuart(1879) and Lalonde (1887), with Bowie, Taylor, and Phillips all born in between. But they played in vastly different hockey realities.

Bowie has strong longevity for his era, the highest offensive peak of his era, and the reputation for best player ever before ~1910ish. Shouldn't he be a strong candidate for top 5?
 
Last edited:
A Case for Russell Bowie
I had hoped to have been able to provide something like this earlier, but I'm pressed for time this week. So, here is the long story short version of why I think Russell Bowie, the star rover of the Montreal Victorias in the late 1890s-1900s, deserves to be in the top 5 at the latest. His stats are undeniable; I won’t get into that here, largely due to the following reasons;

1) As I think I have shown in the research/discussion thread, stats from the era are notoriously unreliable, with two or even three players receiving credit for the same goal depending on which paper you are reading, or, worse, no goal scorer being listed at all. And that is not even getting into assists being tracked quite poorly. However, I think the fact that Bowie was at the top (or near the top) of the scoring lists for 10 years proves that his offensive dominance was real.

2) Several people, both here on the board and elsewhere online, have done an excellent job of showing just how dominant he was offensively, even if it appears their numbers may not be the most accurate (see above). His level of dominance is Gretzky-like, and his only real contemporary challenger was Frank McGee, who had the benefit of star teammates (I imagine no less than 3 of his teammates will make this list, which means over half of the players on those teams will be represented here). Bowie, on the other hand, was largely on an island while in his prime; while “rookie” Bowie did play on a fairly stacked team (though, I’d argue not stacked to the extent that McGee’s teams were), his prime was performed largely without star teammates, with only Blair Russell as a source of consistent and reliable support.

3) Finally, I don’t feel qualified to perform any real statistical analysis. My “career” in math ended after calculus in high school, which was well over a decade ago now. I’ll do what I can to support any analysis with the raw stat data, but I’ll leave anything more than that to the posters who are better able to do so.

So if I’m not going to hammer on stats to prop up Bowie (but they are awesome, and should by themselves put him in the conversation at this point), what am I going to focus on? Basically, I think there was more to Bowie than just scoring. He was an excellent stick-handler, and seems to have been responsible for leading the rush. He was noted for his “generalship”, which I understand as something like being the guy who directs the other players on the ice. He was gritty, and while he wasn’t a physical force, he didn’t back down from anyone despite being the target of abuse on a regular basis. He protected the puck well, and there are some comments about the occasional defensive play that makes me think he wasn’t a complete zero there. And I’ve already touched on the impressive length of his prime (for the era), so there’s another feather in his cap.

The following are a sample of quotes that I have pulled until about halfway through 1906; they are not everything I have on him, as that would end up with a lot of redundancy (and needlessly lengthen this post), but I think they provide a pretty good picture of his impact/star power. All of these quotes (and more) can be found in the discussion thread in the individual season recaps (well, they will be once I finish 1906).

General positive remarks
“The Shamrocks say that the Victorias have a gem in Russell Bowie, who played with the Junior Vics last season. He is not yet 19 years of age, very fast, and a great shooter”

“Bowie and Ewing fit very nicely into the vacancies on the Vic. forward line made by the absence of Bob McDougall and Graham Drinkwater. Bowie is a particularly fine player”

“Two men on the [Victoria] forward line, Bowie and Russell, did good work and were factors in the game at all times. The other two did their best, but their good work was spasmodic and Ewing spent considerable time in testing his stick on portions of his opponent’s anatomy”

“Bowie’s work was the feature”

“... though they found Ottawa’s defence almost impregnable, the Victoria line, particularly Bowie and Ewing, frustrated the visitors’ forward play time after time. Scintillating brilliancy was evidenced only rarely, then Bowie and Ewing, on Victorias’ right wing contributed the welcome variety”

“Bowie was the star of the visitors' forward line”

“Bowie and Russell were the stars of the Victoria club”

“Bowie, however, distinguished himself. He was always dangerous, scoring three times”

“Bowie, Russell, Locke and Stewart made wonderful dashes, and Bowie was the most prominent on the ice”

Of the Victorias, Bowie was the star, and the manner in which he got through with the puck was marvellous

“Then the Vics, or rather Bowie, for he was practically alone, got into the game and forced the play for a few scores”

“Stuart played well, but the absence of Bowie was keenly felt, and there was no vim about the attack”

“Russell Bowie played and gave an excellent performance in spite of the many difficulties under which he labored”

“Bowie, Howard and Russell did wonderful work, Bowie as ever taking all sorts of chances and rushing, one would think, almost blindly in on the goals”

“Bowie is certainly a wonder, and a tower of strength to the Vics team”

“Bowie is a wonderful player, he has the confidence of the Victoria crowd, and his scoring gave them a feeling of security”
“Bowie threw himself into the breach time and again, but with all his dare-devil work, and all his impetuous rushes in which he was to the best of their ability supported by men who showed the wear and tear of the fast pace more than he did, he could not stem the tide”

“Bowie was the hero of the game”

“The fine work of Russell Bowie was practically responsible for the victory. He worked like a demon and his body play in the early stages of the second half counted”

“Bowie’s aptitude to slip into proper position in front of the net being particularly useful”

The Quebeckers put up a strong game against them, but their practical experience of the sport was not sufficient to conquer such men as Russell Bowie, the trickiest forward probably known to-day”

“Bowie, the wonderful, scored the first game”

Russell Bowie, the captain and rover, is the king-pin of the seven and without doubt one of a half dozen men who may be looked upon as the greatest exponents of the game playing at the present time. Of the men playing in the East today, McGee, of Ottawa, is Bowie’s only rival in centre ice. Bowie depends not so much on speed as on head work and as a tricky scorer is without equal. He is the terror of all goal minders and takes all kinds of chances when the opportunity to score presents itself”

“Of the seven Bowie was once more the star performer. In the first half, between his own hard luck and Moran’s sensational topping, he failed to connect with the nets, with no one to get by the goaler, were foiled by Moran rushing out and blocking his shot. In the second half things broke better for him, and he tallies six times. As usual, his best work was done when the Vics were apparently falling back, and it was mainly through his individual effort that his team changed a Quebec lead of three into a Vic lead of two”

“Anti-Victoria supporters always hoot at Bowie. It is a tribute to one of the slickest players the game of hockey has ever seen”

“With a Russell Bowie to handle the puck at the critical moments they would early have had a lead and probably the game”

“Bowie was the most conspicuous player on the ice and is evidently rounding into championship form. He was down the ice with every rush, always in his place, and the goals he did not actually score were all netted with his assistance”

“The Vic attack, as usual, revolved around Bowie, and the winners’ success was largely due to his clever work.”

“The real clever head work in the match was that of Bowie’s. He used his brain as well as his stick, and his passing was so clever that in every game scored by his team he either shot into goal himself of passed to somebody else who did the trick for him”

Stickhandling/Skating/Shooting
Bowie and Russell on the Vic’s forward line were the best skaters and stickhandlers the visitors had, and they did a pile of work without adequate support from the rest of the team”

“From a Vic point of view there was only one man on the ice. That was Russell Bowie. Speedy, a beautiful stick handler and a rattling shot, he won the match for the Vics”

“Bowie, on fast ice, would be a dangerous man. He is a very speedy skater”

“He [Bowie] was as tricky as ever, as fast and as aggressive. Some of the jumps he made were really wonderful. He made the score one to one and the crowd roared some more”

“Bowie was even more brilliant than usual, and with Blair Russell’s aid, worked in some combination tricks that phased the Westmount’s defence time and again.”

“Russell and Bowie were the mainstays on the forward line. Bowie’s stick handling is as near perfection as anything could possibly be”

“Bowie’s stick handling was a feature and a sight for sore eyes”

“Said an old Shamrock man: ‘There are some good players on the ice, but I don’t see anyone who can handle a stick with Bowie of the Vics’”

“The sixth went to the Vics, Umpire Ewing holding up his hand on a shot from Bowie. The thud of the puck against the end of the rink was taken by the Quebec crowd as an indication that the goal had not been scored, and an outcry was immediately raised. Umpire Ewing pointed to a large hole in the corner of the net”

Generalship
“The loss of Bowie was inestimable from the standpoint of the Vics, not so much for his playing ability as for his generalship. There was no one to direct the attack. The centre men did not feed the wings and all four wandered away from their positions”

“What Westwick was to Frye Bowie was to Haig and Pulford, and the Vic captain time and again emerged from rushes around the Ottawa goals with stick and arms gesticulating at the Ottawa point and goal. So eager was Bowie on one occasion to help out a shot from Russell that he landed in a heap behind Haig”

“It was largely due to the good generalship and strong individual play of Bowie’s Quebec was both out-generaled and out-played”

Grit/Hard Work
“The hard work told on the Victoria line and soon the only men doing any sort of work were Russell and Bowie. Both of these men worked hard throughout the match, and Russell ought to be a fixture on the Victoria team from this henceforth”

“Bowie worked harder than any man on the ice. He made a number of rattling runs. In the second half he passed through the Montreal defence several times, and only splendid goal keeping on Nicholson’s part saved a larger score”

“Of the visitors, Bowie, the captain, was a glutton for work and kept pegging away in spite of the mushy ice.”

“Captain Bowie, whose ability to play before the match was doubtful owing to an injured ankle turned out and played with his team”

“The crowd seemed to think that Bowie, the Victorias’ captain, was the worst offender. His bad temper was apparent many times, and he showed a nasty habit of using his elbow on the heads of his opponents. The big captain was evidently angered at the manner which the opposing forwards chased him and slashed at his lame ankle”

“Bowie played a hard, effective game

“Of the four, Dunlop proved of most value, and while he lasted kept the Wanderers’ defence busy. His style is reminiscent of Russell Bowie, and he bores right in on the nets”

“Few games pass in which Moran is goaltend and Bowie forward without a mix-up of some sort between the two. Moran wants no one to bother him in the nets, and Bowie accepts all chances and goes in to score when the opportunity offers”

“The Quebec defence gave Bowie a toss nearly every time he went down the ice, but Bowie has a specialty of being able to score standing on his head”

“For the Victorias Bowie was easily the most prominent worker and the fast rover stamped himself as one of the cleverest and grittiest players at present in the game.”

“To Bowie once more fell the honors on the Vics side and he was probably not only the most conspicuous player on his team but of the whole fourteen on the ice. He took a tremendous amount of punishment from the Ottawa defence but never wilted”

Puck Protection/Defensive abilities
“Bowie, of course, was all over the ice, breaking up the Shamrock rushes and doing the bulk of the work for his team”

“Bowie set his teeth and made for the vicinity of the QUebec goals, which he hardly left except when it was absolutely necessary to go back a little on account of the hard work of the Quebec forwards, till he managed to get hold of the perper puck to score”

“It did seem that on half-a-dozen occasions Blair Russell fairly flew over from his wing and interfered with some Montreal player just at the moment when the latter was in a dangerous position. Bowie was no less useful on such occasions, and this feature of the work done by the Victoria forwards had much to do with the result”

He also gets brought up in the early lists of the best players of all-time, when the position of rover was still fresh in everybody’s minds. As the memory of that position faded, so too did the memory of Bowie- his position was gone, so there was nowhere to list him on all-star teams.

“Russell Bowie, like an Indian on skates, if such an expression be permissible, was sneaking around for no good purpose, as far as Montreal was concerned, and some of the Montreal rooters on the rail noticed it, and warning shouts went up of ‘Watch Bowie!’ Watch Bowie!’.

“When it did get away, however, Russell Bowie had it, and he clings to a puck like a miser to his hoard, like a Kangaroo mother to its leaping babe, and only death or violent collision can part him from it”

“It was something unusual to see Bowie allow a man to steal the puck from him without the slightest resentment on his part or the slightest effort to recover it.”

In the interest of fairness, Bowie does have this one thrown against him after one game- “Bowie seldom rushes back to help the defence. His specialty is putting the puck in the net”

From the All TIme Best Players- Lists by Contemporaries thread:


1929/30

Malcolm Brice [1876-1971]
Legendary sports editor for the Ottawa Free Press who saw all the early greats play. He is the one who first gave Fred “Cyclone” Taylor his nickname and was instrumental in getting Cyclone to Ottawa. He also gave Percy LeSueur his nickname “Peerless Percy.”

He gave some insight of the earliest hockey stars
“Russell Bowie was the best goal getter and centre ice man when the seven-man style prevailed. We always thought Gordie Roberts packed more dynamite than any of the other sharp shooters. I think Alf Smith had the greatest cross-check, and Art Ross the most highly developed short-end jab. Then there was Harry Smith and Froggie (Bruce) Stuart, who wielded mean blades in close quarters. I recall Harry dropping Bruce with a slash that laid bare his lower lip in a game between Ottawa and Wanderers in the Montreal Arena. Stuart came back after being repaired, and in a scuffle around the net, Smith went down with his nose caved in like an egg-shell. After the game they fraternized together.”
Art Ross picked a team-
1939/40

Art Ross (HHOF 1949)

Picked the best players of all-time (Also see 1943/44)

Goalie: Frank Brimsek (He also selected him when picking the best goalie in 1941)

Defenceman: Eddie Shore

Defenceman: Hod Stuart

Center: Cyclone Taylor & Frank Nighbor & Syl Apps & Howie Morenz & Russell Bowie & Milt Schmidt

Right Winger: Bill Cook

Left Winger: Tommy Phillips

“I have not attempted to rank the centres in order. Every one of them would be able to step out with Phillips and Cook and be the greatest scoring line in hockey’s history.”

The World's Best Hockey Players
Fanning Bee Brings Out Some Candidates
The Victoria Daily Times (1884-1971); Victoria, British Columbia [Victoria, British Columbia] 30 Jan 1912: 6.
“One prominent sporting man remarked: "... There is one great player who could have filled in his own figures in an N. H. A. contract if he wanted to participate in the 'pro' league. To my mind [Russell Bowie] was the greatest player that ever lived. What he hadn't [sic] no one ever had. We [sic] was fast and tricky and walked right in on the defence before he had ever thought of shooting. He had a great trick of... giving the referee the impression that he was injured... That was Bowie's only fault -- his propensity for faking.

"There was no doubt Bowie was a great player but there is a little fair haired fellow in Ottawa who has them all stopped." The speaker was a former backer of the Ottawa club and had campaigned with the champions through the stormy days of the commencement of the century.

"His name is Frank McGee. He could carry the puck on a straight line to the goal like a quarter-back bucks the line. And game!... He played hockey when a crack over the head was about as serious as a minor warning in the present rules of the N. H. A. and then a player with ability was a marked man. Why, he wore more pads than any man on the Ottawa team and after a bruising game would strip black and blue in front, behind, top and bottom. Incidentally he gave about as much punishment as he ever received."]/QUOTE]

Gene Tunney picked an all star team in the New York Times, Mar. 30, 1930...
"Easy. In the nets I'd have Georges Vezina...I'm picking the old positions seven-man style, so I'll put Les Patrick at point. For cover point, I'll take Hod Stuart and at rover we'll have Cyclone Taylor, than whom there was no more than whomer. He was the greatest ever. Center, Frank McGhee (there's previous explanation of him scoring five goals in a minute in the Stanley Cup match between Ottawa and Dawson City. And that he scored 16 of the 23 goals.).

For right wing, Scotty Davidson and for left wing, Tommy Phillips. For defense spares I'd take Frank Patrick and Art Ross and for forward spares Russell Bowie and Frank Nighbor.

When asked about current players, he said, "they're good boys, and it's still a great game, but I'm sticking to my nominations."

Lester Patrick picked a team-
Lester Patrick's all time All-Star Team selected from retired players (1927)
Goalies:
Paddy Moran
Percy LeSueur

Defensemen:
Ernie "Moose" Johnson
Hod Stuart
Si Griffis

Forwards:
Frank McGee
Russell "Dubby" Bowie
Fred "Cyclone" Taylor
Tom Phillips
Billy Gilmour

“The name of ‘Dubby’ Russell Bowie could not be left off the line-up of any all-time selection. ‘Dubby’ was built like a grey-hound and was a super-star at all times and never had an ‘off night’”

Bowie was also selected via a fan vote for a 1905 All Star team.
 
Nighbor, Taylor, Lalonde are comfortably top-3 for me. Cleghorn is probably 4th. I also think Philips, Stuart, Denneny, and the goalies can wait a round.

That leaves Malone, Bowie, and Gerard in the middle. I'm interested in Joe Malone. What is there on his last three big seasons, with Quebec/Hamilton? His teams were dreadful, and couldn't keep the puck out of their net... he still put up really strong numbers, only to be used as a spare on a good Montreal team the next season, and then the next, before retiring. It's a question mark for me... at the very least, it doesn't say anything good at all about his two-way game. The quote earlier in the thread about him 'loafing', I can give a pass on that when it's a 60 minute game, no doubt, but if we're (rightfully, imo) giving all the credit in the world to Nighbor for his impact on team record and GAA, it's difficult to turn around and then not wonder about Malone's late career years...
 
Looking at our three defensemen, how would we rank them offensively/defensively?

Stuart and Cleghorn are clearly offensively superior to Gerard.

Gerard has the highest defensive reputation. But he also played behind the presumed greatest defensive player of the era and in front of either our #1 or #2 goalie. How much was his elite defensive reputation born from having the best defensive support of any defenseman we will talk about in the whole project?

Is Gerard's defensive pedigree enough to overcome Stuart? Is Stuart truly weak defensively?

Do either players have an argument over Cleghorn?

I've looked at Cleghorn as the clear cut best defenseman pre Clancy. Can anyone take the crown?
 
Looking at our three defensemen, how would we rank them offensively/defensively?

Stuart and Cleghorn are clearly offensively superior to Gerard.

Gerard has the highest defensive reputation. But he also played behind the presumed greatest defensive player of the era and in front of either our #1 or #2 goalie. How much was his elite defensive reputation born from having the best defensive support of any defenseman we will talk about in the whole project?

Is Gerard's defensive pedigree enough to overcome Stuart? Is Stuart truly weak defensively?

Do either players have an argument over Cleghorn?

I've looked at Cleghorn as the clear cut best defenseman pre Clancy. Can anyone take the crown?

Cleghorn is definitely the best defender up for voting. Sometimes the obvious choice is the right one.

As for Gerard versus Stuart, I think that their reputations are more or less correct.

Looking at WOWY for Gerard's NHL years where he missed time (1917-18, 1919-20, 1921-22, and 1922-23):

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
GP
[/TD]

[TD]
Team
[/TD]

[TD]
GF/GP
[/TD]

[TD]
GA/GP
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
86​
[/TD]

[TD]
with​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.30​
[/TD]

[TD]
3.27​
[/TD]

[TD]
56.8​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
8​
[/TD]

[TD]
without​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.50​
[/TD]

[TD]
4.38​
[/TD]

[TD]
50.7​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
Rel.
[/TD]

[TD]
-0.20
[/TD]

[TD]
-1.11
[/TD]

[TD]
+6.1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Seeing that this was the tail end of Gerard's career, it stands to reason that he had a more substantial impact in during his peak.

As for Stuart, I don't have game logs, but we can do some kind of (even worse?) WOWY by looking at his teams before and after his arrival.

Hod Stuart from Ottawa to Quebec

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Ottawa 1899-00 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
28​
[/TD]

[TD]
19​
[/TD]

[TD]
59.6%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Ottawa 1900-01 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
33​
[/TD]

[TD]
20​
[/TD]

[TD]
62.3%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
-2.7%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Quebec 1900-01 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
21​
[/TD]

[TD]
43​
[/TD]

[TD]
32.8%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Quebec 1899-00 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
33​
[/TD]

[TD]
52​
[/TD]

[TD]
38.8%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
-6.0%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Interestingly, early in Stuart's career, he seemed to be a lower-event player (assuming we can credit him solely for the impact on the two teams here)... but wasn't making as much of an impact.

Hod Stuart from Quebec to Pittsburgh Bankers (WPHL) to Portage Lakes (exhibition)

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Quebec 1901-02 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
26​
[/TD]

[TD]
34​
[/TD]

[TD]
43.3%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Quebec 1902-03 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
30​
[/TD]

[TD]
46​
[/TD]

[TD]
39.5%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
+3.9%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1902-03 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
58​
[/TD]

[TD]
18​
[/TD]

[TD]
76.3%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1901-02 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
27​
[/TD]

[TD]
55​
[/TD]

[TD]
32.9%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
43.4%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1902-03 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
58​
[/TD]

[TD]
18​
[/TD]

[TD]
76.3%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1903-04 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
45​
[/TD]

[TD]
45​
[/TD]

[TD]
50.0%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
26.3%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Hod Stuart from Calumet Miners (IPHL) to Pittsburgh Professionals (IPHL)

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Calumet 1904-05 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
131​
[/TD]

[TD]
75​
[/TD]

[TD]
63.6%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Calumet 1905-06 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
48​
[/TD]

[TD]
108​
[/TD]

[TD]
30.8%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
+32.8%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1905-06 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
121​
[/TD]

[TD]
84​
[/TD]

[TD]
59.0%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1904-05 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
82​
[/TD]

[TD]
144​
[/TD]

[TD]
36.3%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
+22.7%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Hod Stuart from Pittsburgh Professionals (IPHL) to Montreal Wanderers

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1905-06 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
121​
[/TD]

[TD]
84​
[/TD]

[TD]
59.0%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Pittsburgh 1906-07 (w/o Stuart after 4 games)​
[/TD]

[TD]
94​
[/TD]

[TD]
82​
[/TD]

[TD]
53.4%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
+5.6%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]
Team​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF​
[/TD]

[TD]
GA​
[/TD]

[TD]
GF%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Wanderers 1906-07 (w/ Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
105​
[/TD]

[TD]
39​
[/TD]

[TD]
72.9%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Wanderers 1905-06 (w/o Stuart)​
[/TD]

[TD]
74​
[/TD]

[TD]
38​
[/TD]

[TD]
66.1%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Rel.​
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
[/TD]

[TD]
+6.8%​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

By his final seasons (when he was at his peak), Stuart basically had no defensive impact but had a sizable offensive impact.

As for Gerard versus Stuart, my take is that peak Stuart wasn't able to generate more of a swing in goal differential than post-peak Gerard. The only huge swings Stuart was able to generate occurred when he was jumping around Pennsylvania's professional (yet inferior) league. Add Gerard's longevity (although it's hard to fault Stuart for dying in a freak accident), and it's pretty clearly Gerard over Stuart (at least in my humble opinion).
 
Last edited:
“Russell Bowie, like an Indian on skates, if such an expression be permissible, was sneaking around for no good purpose,

Oh lordy. Gotta love lines like these...

Looking at our three defensemen, how would we rank them offensively/defensively?

Stuart and Cleghorn are clearly offensively superior to Gerard.

Gerard has the highest defensive reputation. But he also played behind the presumed greatest defensive player of the era and in front of either our #1 or #2 goalie. How much was his elite defensive reputation born from having the best defensive support of any defenseman we will talk about in the whole project?

Is Gerard's defensive pedigree enough to overcome Stuart? Is Stuart truly weak defensively?

Do either players have an argument over Cleghorn?

I've looked at Cleghorn as the clear cut best defenseman pre Clancy. Can anyone take the crown?

I get the impression that Stuart was somewhat of a babe Pratt who had all the tools, but much more of a toolbox as well. Great size, speed, and lots of physical skills. It's very hard to decide what to do with him. I'm pretty sure he's not cut out for this round, but after this, we have to take a good look at all the times when he's described as not only the best point/cp in the world, but arguably the best player, period. And then we need to take a look at Ian's numbers and acknowledge that, as good as he was, his teams never had very strong results, with him playing the entire game, mainly against players we generally think he was significantly better than.
 
A Case for Russell Bowie
I had hoped to have been able to provide something like this earlier, but I'm pressed for time this week. So, here is the long story short version of why I think Russell Bowie, the star rover of the Montreal Victorias in the late 1890s-1900s, deserves to be in the top 5 at the latest. His stats are undeniable; I won’t get into that here, largely due to the following reasons;

1) As I think I have shown in the research/discussion thread, stats from the era are notoriously unreliable, with two or even three players receiving credit for the same goal depending on which paper you are reading, or, worse, no goal scorer being listed at all. And that is not even getting into assists being tracked quite poorly. However, I think the fact that Bowie was at the top (or near the top) of the scoring lists for 10 years proves that his offensive dominance was real.

2) Several people, both here on the board and elsewhere online, have done an excellent job of showing just how dominant he was offensively, even if it appears their numbers may not be the most accurate (see above). His level of dominance is Gretzky-like, and his only real contemporary challenger was Frank McGee, who had the benefit of star teammates (I imagine no less than 3 of his teammates will make this list, which means over half of the players on those teams will be represented here). Bowie, on the other hand, was largely on an island while in his prime; while “rookie” Bowie did play on a fairly stacked team (though, I’d argue not stacked to the extent that McGee’s teams were), his prime was performed largely without star teammates, with only Blair Russell as a source of consistent and reliable support.

3) Finally, I don’t feel qualified to perform any real statistical analysis. My “career” in math ended after calculus in high school, which was well over a decade ago now. I’ll do what I can to support any analysis with the raw stat data, but I’ll leave anything more than that to the posters who are better able to do so.

So if I’m not going to hammer on stats to prop up Bowie (but they are awesome, and should by themselves put him in the conversation at this point), what am I going to focus on? Basically, I think there was more to Bowie than just scoring. He was an excellent stick-handler, and seems to have been responsible for leading the rush. He was noted for his “generalship”, which I understand as something like being the guy who directs the other players on the ice. He was gritty, and while he wasn’t a physical force, he didn’t back down from anyone despite being the target of abuse on a regular basis. He protected the puck well, and there are some comments about the occasional defensive play that makes me think he wasn’t a complete zero there. And I’ve already touched on the impressive length of his prime (for the era), so there’s another feather in his cap.

The following are a sample of quotes that I have pulled until about halfway through 1906; they are not everything I have on him, as that would end up with a lot of redundancy (and needlessly lengthen this post), but I think they provide a pretty good picture of his impact/star power. All of these quotes (and more) can be found in the discussion thread in the individual season recaps (well, they will be once I finish 1906).

General positive remarks
“The Shamrocks say that the Victorias have a gem in Russell Bowie, who played with the Junior Vics last season. He is not yet 19 years of age, very fast, and a great shooter”

“Bowie and Ewing fit very nicely into the vacancies on the Vic. forward line made by the absence of Bob McDougall and Graham Drinkwater. Bowie is a particularly fine player”

“Two men on the [Victoria] forward line, Bowie and Russell, did good work and were factors in the game at all times. The other two did their best, but their good work was spasmodic and Ewing spent considerable time in testing his stick on portions of his opponent’s anatomy”

“Bowie’s work was the feature”

“... though they found Ottawa’s defence almost impregnable, the Victoria line, particularly Bowie and Ewing, frustrated the visitors’ forward play time after time. Scintillating brilliancy was evidenced only rarely, then Bowie and Ewing, on Victorias’ right wing contributed the welcome variety”

“Bowie was the star of the visitors' forward line”

“Bowie and Russell were the stars of the Victoria club”

“Bowie, however, distinguished himself. He was always dangerous, scoring three times”

“Bowie, Russell, Locke and Stewart made wonderful dashes, and Bowie was the most prominent on the ice”

Of the Victorias, Bowie was the star, and the manner in which he got through with the puck was marvellous

“Then the Vics, or rather Bowie, for he was practically alone, got into the game and forced the play for a few scores”

“Stuart played well, but the absence of Bowie was keenly felt, and there was no vim about the attack”

“Russell Bowie played and gave an excellent performance in spite of the many difficulties under which he labored”

“Bowie, Howard and Russell did wonderful work, Bowie as ever taking all sorts of chances and rushing, one would think, almost blindly in on the goals”

“Bowie is certainly a wonder, and a tower of strength to the Vics team”

“Bowie is a wonderful player, he has the confidence of the Victoria crowd, and his scoring gave them a feeling of security”
“Bowie threw himself into the breach time and again, but with all his dare-devil work, and all his impetuous rushes in which he was to the best of their ability supported by men who showed the wear and tear of the fast pace more than he did, he could not stem the tide”

“Bowie was the hero of the game”

“The fine work of Russell Bowie was practically responsible for the victory. He worked like a demon and his body play in the early stages of the second half counted”

“Bowie’s aptitude to slip into proper position in front of the net being particularly useful”

The Quebeckers put up a strong game against them, but their practical experience of the sport was not sufficient to conquer such men as Russell Bowie, the trickiest forward probably known to-day”

“Bowie, the wonderful, scored the first game”

Russell Bowie, the captain and rover, is the king-pin of the seven and without doubt one of a half dozen men who may be looked upon as the greatest exponents of the game playing at the present time. Of the men playing in the East today, McGee, of Ottawa, is Bowie’s only rival in centre ice. Bowie depends not so much on speed as on head work and as a tricky scorer is without equal. He is the terror of all goal minders and takes all kinds of chances when the opportunity to score presents itself”

“Of the seven Bowie was once more the star performer. In the first half, between his own hard luck and Moran’s sensational topping, he failed to connect with the nets, with no one to get by the goaler, were foiled by Moran rushing out and blocking his shot. In the second half things broke better for him, and he tallies six times. As usual, his best work was done when the Vics were apparently falling back, and it was mainly through his individual effort that his team changed a Quebec lead of three into a Vic lead of two”

“Anti-Victoria supporters always hoot at Bowie. It is a tribute to one of the slickest players the game of hockey has ever seen”

“With a Russell Bowie to handle the puck at the critical moments they would early have had a lead and probably the game”

“Bowie was the most conspicuous player on the ice and is evidently rounding into championship form. He was down the ice with every rush, always in his place, and the goals he did not actually score were all netted with his assistance”

“The Vic attack, as usual, revolved around Bowie, and the winners’ success was largely due to his clever work.”

“The real clever head work in the match was that of Bowie’s. He used his brain as well as his stick, and his passing was so clever that in every game scored by his team he either shot into goal himself of passed to somebody else who did the trick for him”

Stickhandling/Skating/Shooting
Bowie and Russell on the Vic’s forward line were the best skaters and stickhandlers the visitors had, and they did a pile of work without adequate support from the rest of the team”

“From a Vic point of view there was only one man on the ice. That was Russell Bowie. Speedy, a beautiful stick handler and a rattling shot, he won the match for the Vics”

“Bowie, on fast ice, would be a dangerous man. He is a very speedy skater”

“He [Bowie] was as tricky as ever, as fast and as aggressive. Some of the jumps he made were really wonderful. He made the score one to one and the crowd roared some more”

“Bowie was even more brilliant than usual, and with Blair Russell’s aid, worked in some combination tricks that phased the Westmount’s defence time and again.”

“Russell and Bowie were the mainstays on the forward line. Bowie’s stick handling is as near perfection as anything could possibly be”

“Bowie’s stick handling was a feature and a sight for sore eyes”

“Said an old Shamrock man: ‘There are some good players on the ice, but I don’t see anyone who can handle a stick with Bowie of the Vics’”

“The sixth went to the Vics, Umpire Ewing holding up his hand on a shot from Bowie. The thud of the puck against the end of the rink was taken by the Quebec crowd as an indication that the goal had not been scored, and an outcry was immediately raised. Umpire Ewing pointed to a large hole in the corner of the net”

Generalship
“The loss of Bowie was inestimable from the standpoint of the Vics, not so much for his playing ability as for his generalship. There was no one to direct the attack. The centre men did not feed the wings and all four wandered away from their positions”

“What Westwick was to Frye Bowie was to Haig and Pulford, and the Vic captain time and again emerged from rushes around the Ottawa goals with stick and arms gesticulating at the Ottawa point and goal. So eager was Bowie on one occasion to help out a shot from Russell that he landed in a heap behind Haig”

“It was largely due to the good generalship and strong individual play of Bowie’s Quebec was both out-generaled and out-played”

Grit/Hard Work
“The hard work told on the Victoria line and soon the only men doing any sort of work were Russell and Bowie. Both of these men worked hard throughout the match, and Russell ought to be a fixture on the Victoria team from this henceforth”

“Bowie worked harder than any man on the ice. He made a number of rattling runs. In the second half he passed through the Montreal defence several times, and only splendid goal keeping on Nicholson’s part saved a larger score”

“Of the visitors, Bowie, the captain, was a glutton for work and kept pegging away in spite of the mushy ice.”

“Captain Bowie, whose ability to play before the match was doubtful owing to an injured ankle turned out and played with his team”

“The crowd seemed to think that Bowie, the Victorias’ captain, was the worst offender. His bad temper was apparent many times, and he showed a nasty habit of using his elbow on the heads of his opponents. The big captain was evidently angered at the manner which the opposing forwards chased him and slashed at his lame ankle”

“Bowie played a hard, effective game

“Of the four, Dunlop proved of most value, and while he lasted kept the Wanderers’ defence busy. His style is reminiscent of Russell Bowie, and he bores right in on the nets”

“Few games pass in which Moran is goaltend and Bowie forward without a mix-up of some sort between the two. Moran wants no one to bother him in the nets, and Bowie accepts all chances and goes in to score when the opportunity offers”

“The Quebec defence gave Bowie a toss nearly every time he went down the ice, but Bowie has a specialty of being able to score standing on his head”

“For the Victorias Bowie was easily the most prominent worker and the fast rover stamped himself as one of the cleverest and grittiest players at present in the game.”

“To Bowie once more fell the honors on the Vics side and he was probably not only the most conspicuous player on his team but of the whole fourteen on the ice. He took a tremendous amount of punishment from the Ottawa defence but never wilted”

Puck Protection/Defensive abilities
“Bowie, of course, was all over the ice, breaking up the Shamrock rushes and doing the bulk of the work for his team”

“Bowie set his teeth and made for the vicinity of the QUebec goals, which he hardly left except when it was absolutely necessary to go back a little on account of the hard work of the Quebec forwards, till he managed to get hold of the perper puck to score”

“It did seem that on half-a-dozen occasions Blair Russell fairly flew over from his wing and interfered with some Montreal player just at the moment when the latter was in a dangerous position. Bowie was no less useful on such occasions, and this feature of the work done by the Victoria forwards had much to do with the result”

He also gets brought up in the early lists of the best players of all-time, when the position of rover was still fresh in everybody’s minds. As the memory of that position faded, so too did the memory of Bowie- his position was gone, so there was nowhere to list him on all-star teams.

“Russell Bowie, like an Indian on skates, if such an expression be permissible, was sneaking around for no good purpose, as far as Montreal was concerned, and some of the Montreal rooters on the rail noticed it, and warning shouts went up of ‘Watch Bowie!’ Watch Bowie!’.

“When it did get away, however, Russell Bowie had it, and he clings to a puck like a miser to his hoard, like a Kangaroo mother to its leaping babe, and only death or violent collision can part him from it”

“It was something unusual to see Bowie allow a man to steal the puck from him without the slightest resentment on his part or the slightest effort to recover it.”

In the interest of fairness, Bowie does have this one thrown against him after one game- “Bowie seldom rushes back to help the defence. His specialty is putting the puck in the net”

From the All TIme Best Players- Lists by Contemporaries thread:


1929/30

Malcolm Brice [1876-1971]
Legendary sports editor for the Ottawa Free Press who saw all the early greats play. He is the one who first gave Fred “Cyclone” Taylor his nickname and was instrumental in getting Cyclone to Ottawa. He also gave Percy LeSueur his nickname “Peerless Percy.”

He gave some insight of the earliest hockey stars

Art Ross picked a team-


The World's Best Hockey Players
Fanning Bee Brings Out Some Candidates
The Victoria Daily Times (1884-1971); Victoria, British Columbia [Victoria, British Columbia] 30 Jan 1912: 6.


Lester Patrick picked a team-


Bowie was also selected via a fan vote for a 1905 All Star team.

The best case for Bowie is that his offensive dominance was unmatched until Gordie Howe came along.

Even if you take his best peers’ top years and compare them to Bowie’s lesser years, he still beats them…

Obviously the the competition issue is a tough one to wrestle with.

Oh lordy. Gotta love lines like these...

Cancel that man!!!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad