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

[Sturminator]

I'm not sure I buy this argument on a general basis (aka not just relating to Bowie). If we look at the players who bridge eras, you can see that the good players remained good players, even as the level of competition supposedly increased.

Exactly this. There was never a watershed moment when one generation of stars just crushed the one that came before it. The rapid emergence of Frank Nighbor to superstardom (he was there well before he came back to Ottawa...it's why they snatched him back from Victoria) is probably the first case where the older generation truly gets smoked by a newcomer, with figures like Jack Walker absolutely paling in Nighbor's shadow.

So you can kinda draw a line at Nighbor and wonder about the level of the talent that came before him. Nighbor is essentially the tent pole to evaluating talent for the early eras in my mind because he was the first player that we know with certainty was truly dominant on a historical level. Even with Taylor, there is some doubt. With Nighbor, there is none, and so measuring how everyone else fits with respect to Nighbor in many ways becomes the task.

Problem is that Nighbor was such a singular figure as a hockey player that there is no way to do this with anything approaching statistical rigor, so we're left to our imaginations, mostly.

 

[rmartin65]

I'll comment here that for all pre-NHL seasons they should almost exclusively be based on the figures from The Trail of the Stanley Cup. That of course means there is likely some discrepancies from more modern research.

That makes sense, thanks for pointing that out.

I have a list of hockey books/volumes I keep trying to find at reasonable prices, and that is certainly one of them.

 

[rmartin65]

Exactly this. There was never a watershed moment when one generation of stars just crushed the one that came before it. The rapid emergence of Frank Nighbor to superstardom (he was there well before he came back to Ottawa...it's why they snatched him back from Victoria) is probably the first case where the older generation truly gets smoked by a newcomer, with figures like Jack Walker absolutely paling in Nighbor's shadow.

So you can kinda draw a line at Nighbor and wonder about the level of the talent that came before him. Nighbor is essentially the tent pole to evaluating talent for the early eras in my mind because he was the first player that we know with certainty was truly dominant on a historical level. Even with Taylor, there is some doubt. With Nighbor, there is none, and so measuring how everyone else fits with respect to Nighbor in many ways becomes the task.

Problem is that Nighbor was such a singular figure as a hockey player that there is no way to do this with anything approaching statistical rigor, so we're left to our imaginations, mostly.

Am I underrating Nighbor? I had him first on my preliminary list and he is currently first on the list for this round, but I didn't realize that he was that level of good.

 

[Sturminator]

Am I underrating Nighbor? I had him first on my preliminary list and he is currently first on the list for this round, but I didn't realize that he was that level of good.

Is this not the case?

The Cup followed Frank Nighbor around. He won the first Hart trophy based on his aura, alone, it seems. They clearly gave it to him that year not because he was any longer the best or most valuable player in the league, but because they would have felt wrong giving the first one to anyone else.

No...not even Taylor is treated with this level of reverence, and there are questions about why his PCHA teams didn't really go anywhere...when he didn't have Nighbor on his left wing, at least.

edit: I'll add that the voters for the 1925 MacLean's list don't seem to have had any question about who was the greatest player of all-time at that point. I haven't tabulated the full voting, but I've seen it, and I'd be shocked if Nighbor didn't have the most rankings on the 1st team of all players by a decent margin.

I realize there are "representation" problems with that list, but when you also consider that Taylor didn't really lead his teams much of anywhere without Nighbor, and I think it becomes clear that they really weren't on the same level in terms of their impact on the game...not just from a purely historical perspective, but also in their respective abilities to affect winning.

Let's not forget that back when the starters played almost the entire game, individual players could have grossly disproportionate effects on team performance...rather like an even more extreme version of the modern NBA.

To continue the NBA analogy, my strong impression is that Nighbor was the Bill Russell of his era, while Taylor was something more like Elgin Baylor...an unmistakable superstar and an innovator at his position, statistically more impressive...but c'mon.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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. An argument could be made that, assuming era parity, Bowie was as strong an offensive player as Taylor and Lalonde. But doing it in a weaker era, and for a shorter time period, makes him clearly behind. Fyffe point out that Bowie's 1901 season (24 goals, next highest is 10) is the most statistically dominant season in the pre-merger era.

I know Iain Fyffe has used a few different approaches. Is this one of the ones where defensive play is (essentially) ignored? (In which case his small deficit relative to Taylor and Lalonde seems almost trivial). Or is the version where he has some type of "fudge" for defensive play?

Nighbor was a pass-first player playing a a time when assists were probably under-recorded so any straight up "points finishes" likely underrates him compared to a more goal-oriented player like Joe Malone or Newsy Lalonde.

Completely agree.

 

[rmartin65]

Is this not the case?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking for more information.

The Cup followed Frank Nighbor around.

I'm not much of a Cup counter, but yes, the amount of Cup wins is impressive. He also had a lot of good teammates, which I think should be taken into account- whether if that weighs against Nighbor's legacy or against the legacies of his teammates is a discussion we should be having, in my opinion.

He won the first Hart trophy based on his aura, alone, it seems. They clearly gave it to him that year not because he was any longer the best or most valuable player in the league, but because they would have felt wrong giving the first one to anyone else.

This seems like mysticism/mind-reading to me. He was a great player for a long time- name recognition impacts voting, we see it today. Narratives impact voting as well. He very well could have won that Hart because of those reasons and not because it "would have felt wrong giving the first one to anyone else".

Or you are right, and he did have that level of reverence. We'll probably never know, but there are a myriad of possible reasons for his win that year.

 

[Sturminator]

Or you are right, and he did have that level of reverence. We'll probably never know, but there are a myriad of possible reasons for his win that year.

Didn't Howie Morenz genuflect to Nighbor when he won the Hart when Nighbor was like, ancient? I seem to remember that happening, and I've always found it curious because Morenz doesn't seem like the bend-the-knee type, really.

Yes, I'm fairly certain that Frank Nighbor was held in that kind of reverence and that if not for the dissolution of the Ottawa franchise, he still would be.

edit: if there were a franchise to carry his memory, Nighbor would be its Beliveau. If the same were true for Taylor, he would be its Yzerman. These two things are not the same.

 

[Sturminator]

Another thing I find interesting vis-a-vis Taylor vs. Nighbor:

When Frank Frederickson emerged as the next great center in the PCHA, no one compared him to Taylor. I've done more than enough reading of primary sources from the icelander's career to know this. Why not? Was Frederickson's game so different from Taylor's that even western writers didn't see fit to measure him against that bar?

And yet sportswriters were spilling ink comparing other centers to Nighbor until the second world war.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not sure I buy this argument on a general basis (aka not just relating to Bowie). If we look at the players who bridge eras, you can see that the good players remained good players, even as the level of competition supposedly increased. Would an average team from 1920 have beaten an average team from 1905? Almost certainly. But an average team from 2000 would almost certainly have beaten an average team from 1985, but no one would say that the 80s stars were not as good as the lat 90s/early 2000s stars- just look at the HoH lists.

Hell, even returning to our list- Newsy Lalonde made his debut in a weak FAHL (1905) and didn't tear the league apart in the limited time he played (I think it was two games, so a small sample size to be sure). He evolved as the game evolved around him, like any truly great player has throughout history.

Playing a little bit of career overlap, Marty Walsh was second to Bowie in goals for the 1908 ECAHA season (according to Wiki, whose numbers I have not validate yet), but then was the league leader for the 1911 NHA season. Newsy Lalonde was sixth in goals that year (1911). Newsy Lalonde would go on to eventually lead the WCHL in goals in the 1922-23 season. So Bowie beat the guy who beat a player who led a 1920s league in goals. Talent is talent.

I have quite a bit of hesitation about putting players of earlier generations on level ground with their successors, because of the speed at which the game developed in this 50-year period. In that span of time we went from a few dozen country-clubbers playing for fun on weekends, to a fully professionalized international industry in huge stadiums. 10 years makes a huge difference… things were changing that fast.

That being said, you make a good argument for Bowie here. One can acknowledge that the early 1980s NHL was a… loose league, but also note the overlaps which validated the talent of Gretzky and Messier over a decade later, against guys who are just now retiring in the 2020s. It’s not precise and there’s a lot of room for interpretation, but certain players are exceptional enough to earn that benefit of the doubt.

 

[rmartin65]

Didn't Howie Morenz genuflect to Nighbor when he won the Hart when Nighbor was like, ancient? I seem to remember that happening, and I've always found it curious because Morenz doesn't seem like the bend-the-knee type, really.

That rings a bell, but I'd be lying if I said I recalled anything more than that. Thanks for bringing it up!

Yes, I'm fairly certain that Frank Nighbor was held in that kind of reverence and that if not for the dissolution of the Ottawa franchise, he still would be.

None of Taylor's franchises are still around either, though, so why would his legend stay strong while Nighbor's faded?

Another thing I find interesting vis-a-vis Taylor vs. Nighbor:

When Frank Frederickson emerged as the next great center in the PCHA, no one compared him to Taylor. I've done more than enough reading of primary sources from the icelander's career to know this. Why not? Was Frederickson's game so different from Taylor's that even western writers didn't see fit to measure him against that bar?

And yet sportswriters were spilling ink comparing other centers to Nighbor until the second world war.

No idea, but that is another interesting observation.

If I may ask, why the fascination with Nighbor vs Taylor? I think most here have Nighbor at number 1 for the project, so I don't quite get the angle.

 

[ResilientBeast]

edit: I'll add that the voters for the 1925 MacLean's list don't seem to have had any question about who was the greatest player of all-time at that point. I haven't tabulated the full voting, but I've seen it, and I'd be shocked if Nighbor didn't have the most rankings on the 1st team of all players by a decent margin.

Here's the transcribed results from the dishing the dirt thread. Based on the ballots I found in the issue of MacLean's it is not clear cut between Taylor/Nighbor

W.A Hewitt - Toronto Star

G: Percy Leseur
D: Hod Stuart
D: Eddie Gerard
C: Newsy Lalonde
RW: George Richardson
LW: Tommy Phillips

Lester Patrick

G: Hugh Lehman
D: Sprague Cleghorn
D: Hod Stuart
RW: Arthur Farrell
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Tom Phillips

J.E. Abern - Halifax Herald

G: John Ross Roach
D: Hod Stuart
D: Alan Davidson
RW: Dubbie Kerr
C: Mickey MacKay
LW: Newsy Lalonde

Tommy Gorman

G: Georges Vezina
D: Eddie Gerard
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Scott Davidson
C: Frank Nighbor
LW: George Hay

W.J. Morrison - Montreal Gazette

(Modern)
G: Clint Benedict
D: Georges Boucher
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Babe Dye
C: Billy Burch
LW: Cy Dennenay

(Old)
G: Mike Merritt
D: Mike Grant
D: Harvey Pulford
RW: Jim Gardner
C: Frank McGee
LW: Tom Phillips

Sandy Hook (?)

G: Percy Leseur
D: Hod Stuart
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Scotty Davidson
C: Russell Bowie
LW: Harry Watson

Also has kind words for F. Frederickson, T. Phillips, B. Dye. Vezina and E. Gerard

Bruce Boreham - Winnipeg Tribune

G: Georges Vezina
D: Joe Simpson
D: Eddie Gerrade
RW: Babe Dye
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: George Hay

K.G.H McConnell - Edmonton Bulletin

G: Percy Leseur
D: Joe Simpson
D: George Boucher
RW: Alf Smith
C: Duke Keats
LW: Tommy Phillips

Roy Halpin - Quebec Daily Telegraph

G: Georges Vezina
D: Sprague Cleghorn
D: Art Ross
RW: Aurel Joliat
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Joe Malone

Ross MacKay - The Star

G: Georges Vezina
D: Hod Stuart
D: Sprague Cleghorn
RW: Scotty Davidson
C: Frank Nighbor
LW: Tommy Phillips

Harry Scott - Calgary

G: Georges Vezina
D: Ernie Johnson
D: Hod Stuart
RW: Newsy Lalonde
C: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Tommy Phillips

Mr Young -

G: Hugh Lehman
D: XXX
D: XXX
RW: Russell Bowie
C: Frank Nighbor
LW: Tommy Phillips

Art Ross

G: Paddy Moran
D: Hod Stuart
D: Si Griffis
D: Lester Patrick
F: Russell Bowie
F: Tommy Phillips
F: Cyclone Taylor
F: Frank Nighbor
F: Frank McGee
F: Tony Gingras

Frank Shaughnessey

G: Clint Benedict
D: Hod Stuart
D: Eddie Gerard
RW: Alf Smith
C: Russell Bowie
LW: Tommy Phillips

James T Sutherland's list is hard to follow I'll fix it later

I have 14 lists here accounted for removing Ross's because he refused to list just 6

Taylor - 4/13
Lalonde - 2/13
Bowie - 3/13
Nighbor - 3/13
Tommy Phillips 9/13

Dishing the Dirt

 

[rmartin65]

I have quite a bit of hesitation about putting players of earlier generations on level ground with their successors, because of the speed at which the game developed in this 50-year period. In that span of time we went from a few dozen country-clubbers playing for fun on weekends, to a fully professionalized international industry in huge stadiums. 10 years makes a huge difference… things were changing that fast.

If I may be pedantic- games were held on weeknights, too. The game was also already international, with the major professional leagues of the time (the IPHL and WPHL, if I remember correctly) being either completely US franchises or a mixture of Canadian and US teams.

I'm not here trying to say that the quality of hockey didn't improve- it absolutely did. I just don't think it was this kind of jump that rendered earlier eras obsolete. The addition of European players to the NA leagues didn't make earlier NA stars any less great, so I don't understand why the same idea wouldn't hold water in this case.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The Cup followed Frank Nighbor around

This feels like a pretty big exaggeration, he played one season in Toronto, 2 in Vancouver and then the rest of his career in Ottawa.

He joins Vancouver they win the cup with him Taylor and MacKay all starring.

Then he goes to Ottawa and wins a cup 5 years later with a mature, deep and talented Ottawa team.

You'll say I'm being pedantic, but he's not a cup winning mercenary going from team to team winning cups.

 

[Sturminator]

If I may ask, why the fascination with Nighbor vs Taylor? I think most here have Nighbor at number 1 for the project, so I don't quite get the angle.

I said that Nighbor is the tent-pole from this era against which all others are measured.

Taylor is the only other possible alternative, so it is at least somewhat necessary to compare the two.

This feels like a pretty big exaggeration, he played one season in Toronto, 2 in Vancouver and then the rest of his career in Ottawa.

He joins Vancouver they win the cup with him Taylor and MacKay all starring.

Then he goes to Ottawa and wins a cup 5 years later with a mature, deep and talented Ottawa team.

You'll say I'm being pedantic, but he's not a cup winning mercenary going from team to team winning cups.

When Nighbor went to Taylor's team out west, he was LeBron joining Dwyane Wade, not the other way around.

 

[ResilientBeast]

When Nighbor went to Taylor's team out west, he was LeBron joining Dwayne Wade, not the other way around.

That's a fun comparison for you to attempt to make, but that is absolutely not the case. Nighbor wasn't the best player in hockey in 1914 or in 1915

 

[Sturminator]

That's a fun comparison for you to attempt to make, but that is absolutely not the case. Nighbor wasn't the best player in hockey in 1914 or in 1915

You sure?

 

[ResilientBeast]

You sure?

Based on my extensive reading of game summaries from 1914 & 1915 I'm pretty comfortable being sure that Taylor was held in higher acclaim when they overlapped in Vancouver.

And honestly this is a weird hill for you to die on, 21/22 year old Nighbor vs 29/30 year old Taylor

 

[jigglysquishy]

The impression I get reading the news articles is Nighbor > Taylor more than Nighbor >>> Taylor. More of a Messier to Yzerman. Or stylistically, Beliveau to Hull.

I'm voting Nighbor first, but I haven't seen any evidence that the gap is massive. The 1925 lists don't have a gap.

 

[Sturminator]

Based on my extensive reading of game summaries from 1914 & 1915 I'm pretty comfortable being sure that Taylor was held in higher acclaim when they overlapped in Vancouver.

And honestly this is a weird hill for you to die on, 21/22 year old Nighbor vs 29/30 year old Taylor

Who's dying?

 

[Sturminator]

The impression I get reading the news articles is Nighbor > Taylor more than Nighbor >>> Taylor. More of a Messier to Yzerman. Or stylistically, Beliveau to Hull.

I'm voting Nighbor first, but I haven't seen any evidence that the gap is massive. The 1925 lists don't have a gap.

That's fair.

I didn't actually mean to imply that I think the gap is super-massive, either, but I did want to make the point clear that you have to squint your eyes really hard at the facts to not see Nighbor as the tent-pole player of his era.

 

[rmartin65]

That's fair.

I didn't actually mean to imply that I think the gap is super-massive, either, but I did want to make the point clear that you have to squint your eyes really hard at the facts to not see Nighbor as the tent-pole player of his era.

Ah, it looks like we just misread each other then. I wasn't doubting his status as the best pre-merger player; as I said, I do have him tops in the project. I was merely surprised at how effusive your praise was for him in that first post (of the current conversation) and was wondering if I was underrating him.

It looks like we are in relative agreement after all.

 

[overpass]

I just don't think there was any kind of consensus about Nighbor being #1. Yes he was held in immense respect by the NHL of the mid-late 20s, but opinions varied greatly on on all-time lists.

In Baz O'Meara's column of Jan 27, 1950, he makes the point that opinions on the greatest of all time varied, often based on who played with or for the speaker.

The Montreal Star, Jan 27, 1950

Who was the best player In all hockey history. Frank and Lester Patrick will tell you it was "Cyclone" Taylor. Tommy Gorman will plump for Frank Nighbor. Connie Smythe would no doubt vote for Syl Apps, whlle Frank Selke would rate King Clancy at or near the top of his list. Dick Irvin would vary the discussion with for George Hay, the Regina and Portland flash. Old coast fans would be inclined to put Mickey Mackay as top man on their totem pole. Canadien fans would split their votes for Morenz or the Rocket, while of course there would be a rousing show of hands all round Indicating that Eddie Shore was the class of the pack.

When pressed to give his own opinion later in the column, O'Meara was unwilling to narrow it down any more than 15 names.

Durnan, Hod Stuart, Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Shore, Eddie Gerard, King Clancy, Howie Morenz, Frank Nighbor, Bill Cook, Aurel Joliat, Scotty Davidson, Cyclone Taylor, Art Ross, Lester Patrick, Mickey Mackay.

A week and a half later, on Feb 7, O'Meara was more specific with his opinion. He rated Taylor as one of two contenders for player of the half century, along with Morenz and ahead of Shore. (Not that O'Meara's word is gospel, but he's a Montreal based writer who had watched hockey for 30-40 years at this point, so he shouldn't be biased between Nighbor and Taylor.)

Baz O'Meara on Eddie Shore, Cyclone Taylor, and the greatest players of the last century.

Clipping found in The Montreal Star published in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on 2/7/1950. Baz O'Meara on Eddie Shore, Cyclone Taylor, and the greatest players of the last century.

www.newspapers.com

It is our considered viewpoint after watching hockey a great many years that Fred Taylor would have been an even greater sensation in any kind of hockey played in the past half century than Eddie Shore. Morenz, in our book, was also a more spectacular player.

For us, he was the man who did more to sell hockey in the United States than any other individual. Shore is high up in that role too but Morenz was the man of destiny who really impressed the great speed of the game on Americans.

Taylor would have done the same thing. He was a far faster skater than Shore and was one of the few really speedy players who was a dazzling stick handler to boot. He could skate as fast backwards or sideways as forward and he could shoot, was strong as a bull, and in the great company at the coast he was top scorer for years.

We are not detracting from Shore in any way, but if Morenz isn't the man of the half century in hockey then Taylor was close enough to dispute the issue with Shore or anyone else. A good case could be made out for Maurice Richard hut we think he runs behind both Morenz, Taylor, and Shore. When he has played as long as all three, his stature will no doubt he greatly enhanced.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Shame I have time to really start presenting data from my spreadsheets the weekend of first voting. But as part of my efforts to reproduce Iain Fyffe's point allocation history, here at the top 25 NHA/NHL/PCHA teams by single season sorted by expected win percentage.

Nighbor Senators teams are in bold. The column besides eWP is the % of the teams GF that the marginal goals formula can say should be attributed to their offense. The Nighbor Sens stand out in a tremendous way from the rest of the teams on this list with such a low %offence meaning their team success can be chalked up largely to defensive performance.

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Team-Season[/TD]
[TD]GP[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[TD]L[/TD]
[TD]T[/TD]
[TD]GF[/TD]
[TD]GA[/TD]
[TD]Points[/TD]
[TD]% Offence[/TD]
[TD]e WP[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1909-1910Montreal Wanderers[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

91​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

22​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.409295​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.822284​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1910-1911Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

16​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

122​

[/TD]

[TD]

69​

[/TD]

[TD]

26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.58871​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.817746​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1916-1917Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

15​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

119​

[/TD]

[TD]

63​

[/TD]

[TD]

30​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.511468​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.813433​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1914-1915Montreal Wanderers[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

14​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

127​

[/TD]

[TD]

82​

[/TD]

[TD]

28​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.675623​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.773834​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1909-1910Renfrew Creamery Kings[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

96​

[/TD]

[TD]

54​

[/TD]

[TD]

17​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.478495​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.770718​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1919-1920Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

19​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

121​

[/TD]

[TD]

64​

[/TD]

[TD]

38​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.369186​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.747826​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1924-1925Montreal Canadiens[/TD]

[TD]

30​

[/TD]

[TD]

17​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

2​

[/TD]

[TD]

93​

[/TD]

[TD]

56​

[/TD]

[TD]

36​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.495536​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.746667​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1914-1915Vancouver Millionaires[/TD]

[TD]

17​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

115​

[/TD]

[TD]

71​

[/TD]

[TD]

26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.522388​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.744444​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1913-1914Quebec Hockey Club[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

111​

[/TD]

[TD]

73​

[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.54698​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.720503​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1912-1913Quebec Hockey Club[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

16​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

112​

[/TD]

[TD]

75​

[/TD]

[TD]

32​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.555256​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.713462​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1925-1926Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

36​

[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

4​

[/TD]

[TD]

77​

[/TD]

[TD]

42​

[/TD]

[TD]

52​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.300847​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.710843​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1924-1925Hamilton Tigers[/TD]

[TD]

30​

[/TD]

[TD]

19​

[/TD]

[TD]

10​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

90​

[/TD]

[TD]

60​

[/TD]

[TD]

39​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.5​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.7​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1916-1917Seattle Metropolitans[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

16​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

125​

[/TD]

[TD]

80​

[/TD]

[TD]

32​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.423318​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.696078​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1917-1918Montreal Canadiens[/TD]

[TD]

22​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

9​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

115​

[/TD]

[TD]

84​

[/TD]

[TD]

26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.620172​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.681287​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1918-1919Seattle Metropolitans[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

11​

[/TD]

[TD]

9​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

66​

[/TD]

[TD]

46​

[/TD]

[TD]

22​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.442149​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.664835​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1913-1914Toronto Blueshirts[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

93​

[/TD]

[TD]

65​

[/TD]

[TD]

26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.437226​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.662476​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1923-1924Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

16​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

74​

[/TD]

[TD]

54​

[/TD]

[TD]

32​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.502985​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.656863​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1915-1916Montreal Canadiens[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

16​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

104​

[/TD]

[TD]

76​

[/TD]

[TD]

33​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.483333​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.652174​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1909-1910Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

9​

[/TD]

[TD]

3​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

89​

[/TD]

[TD]

66​

[/TD]

[TD]

18​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.49929​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.64825​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1922-1923Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

14​

[/TD]

[TD]

9​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

77​

[/TD]

[TD]

54​

[/TD]

[TD]

29​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.374074​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.646965​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1915-1916Portland Rosebuds[/TD]

[TD]

18​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

5​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

71​

[/TD]

[TD]

50​

[/TD]

[TD]

26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.376344​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.645833​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1918-1919Vancouver Millionaires[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

8​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

72​

[/TD]

[TD]

55​

[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.536481​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.64011​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1922-1923Vancouver Maroons[/TD]

[TD]

30​

[/TD]

[TD]

17​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

1​

[/TD]

[TD]

116​

[/TD]

[TD]

88​

[/TD]

[TD]

35​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.489848​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.635484​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1918-1919Ottawa Senators[/TD]

[TD]

18​

[/TD]

[TD]

12​

[/TD]

[TD]

6​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

71​

[/TD]

[TD]

53​

[/TD]

[TD]

24​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.366426​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.621076​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1913-1914Montreal Canadiens[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

13​

[/TD]

[TD]

7​

[/TD]

[TD]

0​

[/TD]

[TD]

85​

[/TD]

[TD]

65​

[/TD]

[TD]

26​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.394819​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.616054​

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

 

[jigglysquishy]

One thing that stands out for me in these best player retrospectives, it seems like people remembered Taylor and Nighbor a tier above Lalonde. Even if the offensive numbers between Lalonde and Taylor are close, opinion seems to skew strongly to Taylor.

In any case, I am very confident in who is our top 3 and the order they are in.

 

[ResilientBeast]

"Was regarded as a speedy rushing defender in the east. (Played rover and center upon moving west) He was a great goal scorer and inspirational leader. He was named many times to western all-star teams.

"When the O'Briens decided to pack the Renfrew team in the newly formed NHA, their plans to win the Cup were predicated on securing Taylor from Ottawa. Although Renfrew never got anywhere in their quest for the Cup, they put on a good show and Taylor was the star."

"Great players like Smokey Harris, Frank Nighbor, Mickey Mackay, Barney Stanley, and Gordon Roberts appeared on the Vancouver forward lines, but Mackay was the only one who seriously challenged Taylor."

Upon his arrival in Houghton/Portage Lakes in 1906 the local newspaper stated:

"Taylor is one of the fastest and most effective, if not the very best player that western Canada has ever produced." (I guess Ontario was considered Western Canada in those days.)

And also: "Taylor is a whirlwind, and has a superior on not any of the league teams."

The likes of Lalonde and several other Hall of Famers played in this league.

Legendary Pittsburgh shortstop Honus Wagner claimed Taylor "was as fine of an athlete as he has ever seen".

The Globe - 17 Apr 1936

M.J Rodden Associate Sports Editor

In reply or in rebuttal I can assurance that the first professional game I ever saw was in the Old Gladstone Rink at Ottawa in 1907. It was between Montreal Wanderers and the famous Silver Seven.

In naming an all-star team since that time I do not expect that man people will agree with me, but there isn't any harm in making the attempt So here they are:

G: Georges Vezina
Defence: Frank Patrick and Eddie Shore
Centre Frank Nighbor
Left Wing: Tom Phillips
Right Wing: Bill Cook
Rover: "Cyclone" Taylor

Other amazing players who deserve recognition and who may have even been superior to those selected are as follows

Goal: Percy Leseur, Paddy Moran, Charlie Gardiner, Roy Worters, "Tiny" Thompson, Clint Benedict, Hugh Lehman, Wilf Cude and John Ross Roach

Defence: Hod Stuart, Lester Patrick, Harry Cameron, Art Ross, Jack Laviolette, Lionel Conacher, Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard, Didier Pitre, "Ching" Johnson and "King" Clancy

Centre - Frank McGee, Frank Boucher, "Cyclone" Taylor, Russel Bowie, "Howie" Morenz, Nelson Stewart and "Dulce" Keats

Left Wing - Aurele Joliat, George Richardson, Harvey Jackson and Alf Smith

Right Wing - Charlie Conacher, "Mush" March, Scotty Davidson and Babe Dye.

Whether rightly or wrongly it is my impression "Scotty" Davidson and "Cyclone" Taylor were the greatest all-around players the sport has ever produced. The could play on defense, the wings, centre or rover with equal effectiveness-in other words they were superstars