Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 2
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
jigglysquishy
Registered User
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Yay Bowie made it.
Lehman, the player I'm going to ride the hardest through for this entire project. And it's going to come largely the expense of another one of our new candidates MacKay.
Lehman, the player I'm going to ride the hardest through for this entire project. And it's going to come largely the expense of another one of our new candidates MacKay.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
May as well start my campaign. Now I'm not necessarily saying that we should be considering Lehman ahead of Benedict outright.
The common critique of Lehman is despite his lengthy career he only won the cup with Vancouver in 1915 despite many many chances
From my 2018 Bio
Lehman was often considered a benchmark goaltender
His playoff record on the face is sketchy but after doing a deep dive a mix of western (Edmonton based) and eastern (Toronto based) papers give nothing but praise through all the series.
Stanley Cup Series 1915
Game 1
Nothing on Lehman's performance
Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin 03-25-1915
The Ottawa Players electrified the fans with their burst of speed in the first period and when they secured the two goals and had Lehman Vancouver's goaltender dancing in all directions there was not much enthusiasm displayed by the Vancouver fans.
Game 3
Nothing on Lehman's performance
Stanley Cup Series 1918
Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin 03-22-1918
It was Vancouver's worst exhibition of the season according to President Patrick, who was at a loss to account for the indifferent form displated by his champions. In his opinion only Mackay and perhaps Lehman performed up to mark. "Cyclone" Taylor was more or less a disappointment.
Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-27-1918
Two of the Westerners' counters were practically gifts, Taylor taking (???) when he crammed in the goal mouth. Mackay was conspicuous bit he was watched closely by Skinner and at times showed his displeasure at the latter's persistent attention by much slashing. Lehman's work in goal boarded on the marvelous. He had three times the work that Holmes was called upon to do and he undoubtedly saved the visitors from much worse beating.
Game 4
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1918
The first period was decidedly plain, but in the second there were general slashing bees and many penalties imposed. The last chatper was almost a burlesque, the plus at one time playing two men short and it was while they were not at full strength that Vancouver ran up several goals. Holmes had a bad night, letting some easy shots get away from him, while Lehman was almost unbeatable.
Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-01-1918
The last five minutes of the game was the most exciting of the contest. Vancouver threw every man with the exception of the goal-keeper into the attack and had the Torontos back up into their own nets. Mummery several times relieved the tension by lifting the puck the length of the ice. On two occasions the Blues came in on Lehman, but he came out and met the rushes. His great work has been an outstanding feature of the play and he never showed up to better advantage than he did tonight. But for him and Mackay the series would hardly have gone into an extra game.
The Toronto Daily Star
Outside of Denenny's great work the outstanding feature was the marvelous work of Harry Holmes and Hugh Lehman, the rival goalkeepers. No better exhibition of goal-guarding has ever been seen in Toronto than this pair gave Saturday night. They were both wizards. It was positively uncanny the way in which this pair came out and out guessed players who had penetrated the defences.
Stanley Cup Series 1921
Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-22-1921
In the first stage of the game the Ottawas seemed to excel in stick handling but were not so speedy on the ice as theur opponenets. In the last period, however the easterners appeared to grow faster on their skates and made long rushes down the ice. Gerard, Nighbor and Denenny were particularly brilliant. In the last period Ottawas introduced some very clever combination play and only the great defensive tactics of Vancouver and the invincibility of Goalie Lehman kept them from scoring.
Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-25-1921
They went through the PCHA champion defence like sunlight through glass. "Eagle Eye" Lehman saved his team from being hopelessly outdistanced by a remarkable exhibition, practically playing the whole Ottawa team single handed.
Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1921
Lehman's long forward passing from the Vancouver goal bothered the easterners as it did in the first of the series.
...
Desireau on the Vancouver right wing was playing pretty well at large, allowing his opponent Denenny to run wild. As a result it was from the left that most of the shots poured in on Lehman. The Ottawa checked splendidly throughout the period. Darragh carrying the puck part the way and shot from the blue line.
Lehman cleared but the speedy runner gathered in the rebound and snapped it in. The time was 8:08 . One of the features of the is period was the offensive rushes or Eddie Gerard.
Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-05-1921
Lehman was leaving goal continually in the the period checking Ottawa men who broke through. Denneny was on the stars of the team. Rushing dangerously and shooting close in on Lehman constantly...
....
Once Lehman skated out to the blue line after a close puck, and sent in a long shot which got through as far as Benedict.
Stanley Cup Series 1922
Game 1
The Globe 03-18-1922
Great Duel between Lehman and Roach
Particular interest centred in the play of the rival goalkeepers John Ross Roach, the greatest net guardians in the East and Hugh Lehman who has been a star for the last 20 years. And it coult not be said that youth was served to the detriment of Lehman, this time the veteran played equally as well as the St Patrick's Wizard, which in itself is praise enough. Neither is to play for the sh0ts that got past.
....
Lehman however, saved the day and he amazed the spectators by skating over to the rail several times to retrieve the puck. He is remarkably active on his skates
The Toronto Daily Star
Great is Lehman
The big surprise of the evening was not so much St Patrick's defeat as it was the appearance of a goalkeeper who out worked the famous little St Pats cage custodian. Public opinion as to the relative strength of the club was about equally divided before the game. But most fans were willing to Admit that John Ross Roach was the best little Jack in the box in pro hocky
....
But to get back to a goalkeepers Johnny Roach put up a sterling performance last night and no one will try and take any of the credit from him but the fact remains that Hugh Lehman, the ex-Berlin veteran proved himself to be one of the greatest goalkeepers that ever donned a pad. Lehman has been in the game a long time and has been for years considered the one of the best three goalkeepers in Canada, but it was figured that if he slipped back the width of a whisper that Roach would out star him.
But Lehman hasn't slipped and last night's performance made them all sit on and take notice. He is the liveliest goalkeeper I have seen in many a moon. He thinks nothing at all of going over into the corner to get the puck and pass it out to his forwards. He was out of his net three or four times last night, and away out at that.
....
But Lehman had Babe's (Dye) curves figured out, and he beat him time and time again
Game 2
Toronto Daily Star 03-29-1922
In the first part of the third period Lehman scored one for the Irish and knotted the contest up. Cameron shot and Lehman stopped it. The puck nestled around his feet and he fell on the nestled around his feet and he fell on it to stop Denneney from getting it. Denney took a half nelson on Grandad Lehman and gave him a roll and when the referee untangled them the disc was over the line (Seriously that sounds like a clear goalie interference, modern NHL would probs rule it good though)
...
Roach in goal was a tower of strength for the winners. He looked just as good as Lehman at all times
Game 5
The Globe 03-29-1922
"Old Eagle Eye" was not as good as usual, and when his mistakes gave the locals two goals in the first period, all the fight and sash was taken from the Millionaires...
The common critique of Lehman is despite his lengthy career he only won the cup with Vancouver in 1915 despite many many chances
From my 2018 Bio
Lehman was often considered a benchmark goaltender
His playoff record on the face is sketchy but after doing a deep dive a mix of western (Edmonton based) and eastern (Toronto based) papers give nothing but praise through all the series.
Stanley Cup Series 1915
Game 1
Nothing on Lehman's performance
Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin 03-25-1915
The Ottawa Players electrified the fans with their burst of speed in the first period and when they secured the two goals and had Lehman Vancouver's goaltender dancing in all directions there was not much enthusiasm displayed by the Vancouver fans.
Game 3
Nothing on Lehman's performance
Stanley Cup Series 1918
Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin 03-22-1918
It was Vancouver's worst exhibition of the season according to President Patrick, who was at a loss to account for the indifferent form displated by his champions. In his opinion only Mackay and perhaps Lehman performed up to mark. "Cyclone" Taylor was more or less a disappointment.
Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-27-1918
Two of the Westerners' counters were practically gifts, Taylor taking (???) when he crammed in the goal mouth. Mackay was conspicuous bit he was watched closely by Skinner and at times showed his displeasure at the latter's persistent attention by much slashing. Lehman's work in goal boarded on the marvelous. He had three times the work that Holmes was called upon to do and he undoubtedly saved the visitors from much worse beating.
Game 4
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1918
The first period was decidedly plain, but in the second there were general slashing bees and many penalties imposed. The last chatper was almost a burlesque, the plus at one time playing two men short and it was while they were not at full strength that Vancouver ran up several goals. Holmes had a bad night, letting some easy shots get away from him, while Lehman was almost unbeatable.
Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-01-1918
The last five minutes of the game was the most exciting of the contest. Vancouver threw every man with the exception of the goal-keeper into the attack and had the Torontos back up into their own nets. Mummery several times relieved the tension by lifting the puck the length of the ice. On two occasions the Blues came in on Lehman, but he came out and met the rushes. His great work has been an outstanding feature of the play and he never showed up to better advantage than he did tonight. But for him and Mackay the series would hardly have gone into an extra game.
The Toronto Daily Star
Outside of Denenny's great work the outstanding feature was the marvelous work of Harry Holmes and Hugh Lehman, the rival goalkeepers. No better exhibition of goal-guarding has ever been seen in Toronto than this pair gave Saturday night. They were both wizards. It was positively uncanny the way in which this pair came out and out guessed players who had penetrated the defences.
Stanley Cup Series 1921
Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-22-1921
In the first stage of the game the Ottawas seemed to excel in stick handling but were not so speedy on the ice as theur opponenets. In the last period, however the easterners appeared to grow faster on their skates and made long rushes down the ice. Gerard, Nighbor and Denenny were particularly brilliant. In the last period Ottawas introduced some very clever combination play and only the great defensive tactics of Vancouver and the invincibility of Goalie Lehman kept them from scoring.
Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-25-1921
They went through the PCHA champion defence like sunlight through glass. "Eagle Eye" Lehman saved his team from being hopelessly outdistanced by a remarkable exhibition, practically playing the whole Ottawa team single handed.
Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1921
Lehman's long forward passing from the Vancouver goal bothered the easterners as it did in the first of the series.
...
Desireau on the Vancouver right wing was playing pretty well at large, allowing his opponent Denenny to run wild. As a result it was from the left that most of the shots poured in on Lehman. The Ottawa checked splendidly throughout the period. Darragh carrying the puck part the way and shot from the blue line.
Lehman cleared but the speedy runner gathered in the rebound and snapped it in. The time was 8:08 . One of the features of the is period was the offensive rushes or Eddie Gerard.
Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-05-1921
Lehman was leaving goal continually in the the period checking Ottawa men who broke through. Denneny was on the stars of the team. Rushing dangerously and shooting close in on Lehman constantly...
....
Once Lehman skated out to the blue line after a close puck, and sent in a long shot which got through as far as Benedict.
Stanley Cup Series 1922
Game 1
The Globe 03-18-1922
Great Duel between Lehman and Roach
Particular interest centred in the play of the rival goalkeepers John Ross Roach, the greatest net guardians in the East and Hugh Lehman who has been a star for the last 20 years. And it coult not be said that youth was served to the detriment of Lehman, this time the veteran played equally as well as the St Patrick's Wizard, which in itself is praise enough. Neither is to play for the sh0ts that got past.
....
Lehman however, saved the day and he amazed the spectators by skating over to the rail several times to retrieve the puck. He is remarkably active on his skates
The Toronto Daily Star
Great is Lehman
The big surprise of the evening was not so much St Patrick's defeat as it was the appearance of a goalkeeper who out worked the famous little St Pats cage custodian. Public opinion as to the relative strength of the club was about equally divided before the game. But most fans were willing to Admit that John Ross Roach was the best little Jack in the box in pro hocky
....
But to get back to a goalkeepers Johnny Roach put up a sterling performance last night and no one will try and take any of the credit from him but the fact remains that Hugh Lehman, the ex-Berlin veteran proved himself to be one of the greatest goalkeepers that ever donned a pad. Lehman has been in the game a long time and has been for years considered the one of the best three goalkeepers in Canada, but it was figured that if he slipped back the width of a whisper that Roach would out star him.
But Lehman hasn't slipped and last night's performance made them all sit on and take notice. He is the liveliest goalkeeper I have seen in many a moon. He thinks nothing at all of going over into the corner to get the puck and pass it out to his forwards. He was out of his net three or four times last night, and away out at that.
....
But Lehman had Babe's (Dye) curves figured out, and he beat him time and time again
Game 2
Toronto Daily Star 03-29-1922
In the first part of the third period Lehman scored one for the Irish and knotted the contest up. Cameron shot and Lehman stopped it. The puck nestled around his feet and he fell on the nestled around his feet and he fell on it to stop Denneney from getting it. Denney took a half nelson on Grandad Lehman and gave him a roll and when the referee untangled them the disc was over the line (Seriously that sounds like a clear goalie interference, modern NHL would probs rule it good though)
...
Roach in goal was a tower of strength for the winners. He looked just as good as Lehman at all times
Game 5
The Globe 03-29-1922
"Old Eagle Eye" was not as good as usual, and when his mistakes gave the locals two goals in the first period, all the fight and sash was taken from the Millionaires...
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Dye seems to have been the first player in hockey who singularly stood out for having had an incredible shot.
He is known for literally nothing else.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Ian Fyffe's Point System
The Stuart and Frederickson scores being very low stands out to me. Fredrickson being arguably the best western forward post-Taylor pre-merger.
His point finishes in the PCHA
A strong run, for producing a really low Fyffe score. A strong Cup in 1925, and the iconic Olympic Gold.
| Player | Fyffe Points |
| Georges Boucher | 112.9 |
| Clint Benedict | 108.6 |
| Moose Johnson | 108.1 |
| Lester Patrick | 103.5 |
| Eddie Gerard | 103.1 |
| Hugh Lehman | 101.9 |
| Joe Malone | 101.7 |
| Mickey MacKay | 99.3 |
| Cy Denneny | 98.0 |
| Tommy Phillips | 91.2 |
| Frank Fredrickson | 84.9 |
| Babe Dye | 83.3 |
| Hod Stuart | 82.0 |
The Stuart and Frederickson scores being very low stands out to me. Fredrickson being arguably the best western forward post-Taylor pre-merger.
His point finishes in the PCHA
| Season | Finish | Points | Vs2 |
| 1920-21 | 1 | 32 | 1.00 |
| 1921-22 | 3 | 25 | 0.96 |
| 1922-23 | 1 | 55 | 1.38 |
| 1923-24 | 2 | 27 | 1.00 |
| 1924-25 | 5 | 30 | 0.91 |
| 1925-26 | 8 | 24 | 0.67 |
| 1926-27 (consolidated) | 4 | 31 | 0.86 |
A strong run, for producing a really low Fyffe score. A strong Cup in 1925, and the iconic Olympic Gold.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
For Frederickson, after work I'll post Victoria's marginal goals summaries but they were a good team because of incredible defensive performance with Frank as kind of the lone offensive threat. I'm really surprised it's that low but if the system is only allocating ~30% of the teams success to offense there won't be many points for him to accumulate.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Honest question: should we be using these Fyffe scores, at all, here?
It's been a while since I've deep dived into Iain's work, but I recall thinking it was basically just an arbitrary black box the first time I did.
It's been a while since I've deep dived into Iain's work, but I recall thinking it was basically just an arbitrary black box the first time I did.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
He doesn't post the formula so I can't replicate the work. But I don't know of any other numerical comparison besides straight offense.
There are a lot of oddities. Cleghorn has like the 5th highest score of any defenseman. Bowie is Gretzky level of breaking the charts.
Professor What
Registered User
I'm interested in the discussion on Lehman. He was the only one of my top 12 that didn't make the first ballot.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Just because we don't have any other comprehensive numerical system for comparing these players doesn't mean we should use a potentially very broken one whose inner workings we cannot discern.
This seems rather naive to me.
edit: if Iain wants to come and explain his work here, I will listen, but until we know how the sausage is made I find his system nothing more than a distraction.
Last time I read his work, Fyffe put forth the argument that Bowie was a Gretzky-level talent due to his statistical dominance of mostly a bunch of players whose names we'd all have to look up. That stretches credulity past the breaking point for me.
Last edited:
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
You can get about as far as I have which is just the raw data without any league correction or positional correction.
It's still useful but I wouldn't post the player specific data without more rigorous testing.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It's just one piece of information among many.
When a player shows up a lot higher or lower in his system than our perception has him, it's certainly worth looking into: for example, Hod Stuart. It's a good reminder that his teams went nowhere, which might mean he wasn't as good as some quotes say.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Seventies' VsX equivalents for current forwards:
Phillips didn't play enough seasons in leagues covered by my spreadsheets.
What we can see from this is:
- Malone is the overall strongest producer
- You could say that Dye, Dennedy and Malone are more or less equal as producers, with these numbers being such an inexact science. You need to know what kind of acclaim they were held in, as well as the circumstances that allowed them to score what they did (teammates)
- Denneny had to be remarkably consistent, to be 4th best in 3y and best in 10y
- MacKay lags behind all the rest the whole way, pulling ahead of Dye at the end only because he had a long, graceful aging curve and Dye burned out brightly
- These numbers overrate Dye because assists are so underrepresented, and unlike the other players in this list, he had like three assists ever
| player | 3y | 5y | 7y | 10y |
| Dye | 103 | 97 | 89 | 66 |
| Denneny | 99 | 98 | 96 | 88 |
| Fredrickson | 101 | 95 | 88 | 72 |
| Malone | 105 | 102 | 98 | 87 |
| MacKay | 93 | 88 | 80 | 73 |
Phillips didn't play enough seasons in leagues covered by my spreadsheets.
What we can see from this is:
- Malone is the overall strongest producer
- You could say that Dye, Dennedy and Malone are more or less equal as producers, with these numbers being such an inexact science. You need to know what kind of acclaim they were held in, as well as the circumstances that allowed them to score what they did (teammates)
- Denneny had to be remarkably consistent, to be 4th best in 3y and best in 10y
- MacKay lags behind all the rest the whole way, pulling ahead of Dye at the end only because he had a long, graceful aging curve and Dye burned out brightly
- These numbers overrate Dye because assists are so underrepresented, and unlike the other players in this list, he had like three assists ever
Sturminator
Love is a duel
If VsX weren't open-source, would you take its results seriously?
I might die of hypertension from the grain of salt with which I take all "comprehensive black box" numerical systems, whether they're being sold by a stockbroker or a hockey historian.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Excellent, I've been looking for early VsX numbers.
Honestly, Malone stands out to me on top here.
In 1917, no one on the Bulldogs even approaches his scoring. He gets more help in Montreal the next year, but he's still in a category of his own.
Babe Dye had a very deep team throughout the early 20s, and with the way assists were counted, likely did not have the offensive peak that Malone did. And only really has one strong offensive season once we start getting quotes about his defense.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,233
- 14,221
Cy Denneny is not a king of intangibles and all-around play, but he may have a little more than some people give him credit for. I've seen him described as a unidimensional sniper with fighting skills, which I think is too harsh and downplays some of his all-around abilities.
Just looking at playoff games:
Mar 23, 1920, Ottawa Journal: Denneny did some great shooting and back checking.
Mar 11, 1921, Ottawa Journal: If stars there were on the Ottawa team Denneny and Boucher deserve the honors. The tireless playing of Denneny and his splendid carrying and backchecking enabled Ottawas to win.
Mar 15, 1921, Ottawa Journal: Cy Denneny was as peppery as a bantam and was willing to mix with anybody on the ice. Randall seemed to have a pick in his direction but the portly kid gave back as good as he got.
Apr 1, 1921, Vancouver Daily World: Two of the Ottawa penalties were of the major brand, Darragh receiving a ten-minute sentence in the second period for using foul language to Referee Ion, and Denneny a like sentence for an unwarranted and brutal attack on Harris in the final session.
Mar 13, 1922, Ottawa Journal: Denneny pranced up and down left wing giving Dye a bitter battle all the way
Mar 13, 1922, Ottawa Citizen: Boucher and Gerard were strong both defensively and offensively, while Cy Denneny and Broadbent played aggressive games on the wings.
Mar 24, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: Both Cy Denneny and Broadbent, the other two regulars, stood an unmerciful pounding throughout the match, but they gave back a receipt for every thump they took.
Mar 27, 1923, Vancouver Sun: Nighbor, Broadbent and Denneny again combined smartly on the attack and their back-checking and general defensive work was better than in any of the previous game.
Mar 27, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: On the wings Cy Denneny and Harry Broadbent just would not be held in check, the latter's five goals during the series speaks for his effectiveness, while Denneny stands out as the possessor of hockey knowledge. Cy did not shine as a goal getter, but his persistency was equally effective, as his ceaseless plugging brought his much larger opponents down to his own size, and he was indirectly responsible for several of the Senators' tallies.
Mar 30, 1923, Ottawa Journal:
The incessant pouding along the rail of Broadbent and Denneny, and the calculated playing of Nighbor, which, while not flashy, was very effective, helped Ottawas to take down the verdict.
Art Gagne was rendered ineffective by the playing of Denneny; Broadbent kept after Ty Arbour, who really had a great game, and Nighbor made Keats and Simpson his study. Keats never was given such a mauling, and he was frequently forced off for relief.
Apr 2, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: Denneny and Broadbent, never spectacular, were always effective. They played their position to perfection, and gradually wore down their opponents. As in the case of Nighbor, both Cy and "Punch" were called upon to give more attention to the Senators' defence than usual. This they did well and their persistent back-checking had its effect.
Apr 2, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: Benedict gave a magnificient exhibition in the nets, Denneny and Broadbent checked their men to a standstill, combined for winning goal, and they played such a great defensive game that the Eskimos were held scoreless.
Apr 2, 1923, Vancouver Sun: Both Denneny and Broadbent played remarkable defensive hockey along with Nighbor, and between the two of them they did most of the attacking.
Just looking at playoff games:
Mar 23, 1920, Ottawa Journal: Denneny did some great shooting and back checking.
Mar 11, 1921, Ottawa Journal: If stars there were on the Ottawa team Denneny and Boucher deserve the honors. The tireless playing of Denneny and his splendid carrying and backchecking enabled Ottawas to win.
Mar 15, 1921, Ottawa Journal: Cy Denneny was as peppery as a bantam and was willing to mix with anybody on the ice. Randall seemed to have a pick in his direction but the portly kid gave back as good as he got.
Apr 1, 1921, Vancouver Daily World: Two of the Ottawa penalties were of the major brand, Darragh receiving a ten-minute sentence in the second period for using foul language to Referee Ion, and Denneny a like sentence for an unwarranted and brutal attack on Harris in the final session.
Mar 13, 1922, Ottawa Journal: Denneny pranced up and down left wing giving Dye a bitter battle all the way
Mar 13, 1922, Ottawa Citizen: Boucher and Gerard were strong both defensively and offensively, while Cy Denneny and Broadbent played aggressive games on the wings.
Mar 24, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: Both Cy Denneny and Broadbent, the other two regulars, stood an unmerciful pounding throughout the match, but they gave back a receipt for every thump they took.
Mar 27, 1923, Vancouver Sun: Nighbor, Broadbent and Denneny again combined smartly on the attack and their back-checking and general defensive work was better than in any of the previous game.
Mar 27, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: On the wings Cy Denneny and Harry Broadbent just would not be held in check, the latter's five goals during the series speaks for his effectiveness, while Denneny stands out as the possessor of hockey knowledge. Cy did not shine as a goal getter, but his persistency was equally effective, as his ceaseless plugging brought his much larger opponents down to his own size, and he was indirectly responsible for several of the Senators' tallies.
Mar 30, 1923, Ottawa Journal:
The incessant pouding along the rail of Broadbent and Denneny, and the calculated playing of Nighbor, which, while not flashy, was very effective, helped Ottawas to take down the verdict.
Art Gagne was rendered ineffective by the playing of Denneny; Broadbent kept after Ty Arbour, who really had a great game, and Nighbor made Keats and Simpson his study. Keats never was given such a mauling, and he was frequently forced off for relief.
Apr 2, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: Denneny and Broadbent, never spectacular, were always effective. They played their position to perfection, and gradually wore down their opponents. As in the case of Nighbor, both Cy and "Punch" were called upon to give more attention to the Senators' defence than usual. This they did well and their persistent back-checking had its effect.
Apr 2, 1923, Ottawa Citizen: Benedict gave a magnificient exhibition in the nets, Denneny and Broadbent checked their men to a standstill, combined for winning goal, and they played such a great defensive game that the Eskimos were held scoreless.
Apr 2, 1923, Vancouver Sun: Both Denneny and Broadbent played remarkable defensive hockey along with Nighbor, and between the two of them they did most of the attacking.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,619
- 16,374
Here are Iain Fyffe's articles about point allocation on offense and defense.
First point, and I've said this before - I think very highly of Iain. He knows his stuff and I've always found him to be consistent, logical, and rigorous in his thinking.
That being said - there's a "fudging" in the numbers, which Iain acknowledges. The way he calculates offense points is probably reasonably accurate. Defensive PA is messy. There are a number of subjective adjustments that go into it, which, as far as I know, have never been disclosed:
"Before we allocate defensive points to players, we first divide them between the team's goaltenders and its skaters. On a league-wide basis, this is done in order to make netminders (who receive no offensive points) as valuable, on average, as any other position. And then we have our first fudge factor. The reputation of a team's goaltender, versus that of its skaters, is considered when dividing defensive points among them. We can't assume a constant ratio of goalie to skaters points for every team in a league; that's just not realistic. And since we don't have anything like save percentage to evaluate goaltenders on something other than team goals-against average, we need this adjustment. Defensive Point Allocation is just full of fudgy goodness, and all the better for it."
"On top of this, and the adjustment mentioned above, we have the other big 'ole fudge factor. Players with excellent defensive reputations have their defensive value adjusted upwards, and those with poor reputations are adjusted downwards. It's as much art as science, of course, but just doing straight computations on these numbers will produce less accurate results than if we apply what we know about these players, that is not necessarily reflected in their stats"
It's hard to place a lot of confidence in a system that has so many subjective adjustments (especially when they haven't been disclosed for others to review). The end result is probably more accurate (in the sense that we shouldn't pretend that Frank Nighbor and Babe Dye were equally good defensively), but it's also less objective and less rigorous. (Point Allocation from hockey-reference.com, for all of its flaws, can at least be verified. This system can't).
First point, and I've said this before - I think very highly of Iain. He knows his stuff and I've always found him to be consistent, logical, and rigorous in his thinking.
That being said - there's a "fudging" in the numbers, which Iain acknowledges. The way he calculates offense points is probably reasonably accurate. Defensive PA is messy. There are a number of subjective adjustments that go into it, which, as far as I know, have never been disclosed:
"Before we allocate defensive points to players, we first divide them between the team's goaltenders and its skaters. On a league-wide basis, this is done in order to make netminders (who receive no offensive points) as valuable, on average, as any other position. And then we have our first fudge factor. The reputation of a team's goaltender, versus that of its skaters, is considered when dividing defensive points among them. We can't assume a constant ratio of goalie to skaters points for every team in a league; that's just not realistic. And since we don't have anything like save percentage to evaluate goaltenders on something other than team goals-against average, we need this adjustment. Defensive Point Allocation is just full of fudgy goodness, and all the better for it."
"On top of this, and the adjustment mentioned above, we have the other big 'ole fudge factor. Players with excellent defensive reputations have their defensive value adjusted upwards, and those with poor reputations are adjusted downwards. It's as much art as science, of course, but just doing straight computations on these numbers will produce less accurate results than if we apply what we know about these players, that is not necessarily reflected in their stats"
It's hard to place a lot of confidence in a system that has so many subjective adjustments (especially when they haven't been disclosed for others to review). The end result is probably more accurate (in the sense that we shouldn't pretend that Frank Nighbor and Babe Dye were equally good defensively), but it's also less objective and less rigorous. (Point Allocation from hockey-reference.com, for all of its flaws, can at least be verified. This system can't).
overpass
Registered User
Thanks for the quotes. I don’t think I have much evidence that Denneny was a one-dimensional player, except for late in his career when he was definitely a slow shooter.
My questions about Denneny’s overall impact are based on the perception that it didn’t seem matter very much whether Cy Denneny, Punch Broadbent, Jack Darragh, or even d-men George Boucher or King Clancy were playing the wing for Ottawa. Particularly in Ottawa’s best season, 1919-20, where Denneny missed half the season and nobody really noticed (edit: I should say he came off the bench, he didn’t miss time) and then in the Cup final their best winger was the defence sub Boucher. Very different from the experience when Nighbor was out, and I think Gerard and Boucher were also missed more if they were out.
Now maybe that’s unfair to Denneny because he was a better goal scorer than them and it’s the kind of impact that gets underrated by newspaper articles about single games. Some have noted that the top players as named by newspaper summaries of the day were surprisingly often not the same players who were scoring the goals. Maybe they underrated the value of Denneny’s ability to finish, and of players like Denneny.
Or maybe I’m wrong and if you read anough summaries Denneny does separate himself from Broadbent and Darragh. Or maybe Broadbent and Darragh were also very good (but then we’re back to the question of allocating credit on those Sens teams.)
What do you think?
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
First impressions:
-Joe Malone probably has to go near the top of the list I would think.
-Eddie Gerard absolutely was seen as the 2nd most indispensable player on Ottawa after Frank Nighbor. Less longevity than Benedict or Dennney, but he starts this round the highest ranked Ottawa player for me.
-Based on star power, Hugh Lehman should be the 2nd PCHA star to go after Cyclone Taylor. Just 2 brief tidbits on Lehman:
1) Despite the 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list generally being seen as biased against Western Players, Lehman tied with Clint Benedict as the 2nd best of his generation (behind Vezina). Edit: Again, that list did come out during a down-time in Benedict's career, which may or may not matter.
2 When I spent a lot of time researching primary sources on Charlie Gardiner (a very interesting player not directly relevant to this project), it was eye-opening to me that when writers and other hockey insiders were pondering whether he was the best goalie of all-time, Georges Vezina and Hugh Lehman were the guys they talked about him needing to surpass. Benedict's name wasn't really mentioned. Now some of that is because fans of Western hockey remembered Lehman from before the consolidation, but I still find it noteworthy.
-Not sure if it's quite time for Tommy Phillips yet, but there definitely should be a gap between him and Hod Stuart, in Phillips' favor
-Clint Benedict and Cy Denenny? They either just make it or just miss it this round for me.
-Too early for Moose Johnson and Lester Patrick. I think they were generally lesser players than MacKay, Fredrickson and the unavailable Duke Keats out west. And among defensemen, Georges Boucher seems to have been more highly thought of - he also finished ahead of them on the 1925 MacLean's list). My reading of it is that contemporary observers thought that the PCHA was comparable to the NHA in most positions, but the NHA generally had the better defensemen. Of course, Johnson and Patrick will make our list, but not until Georges Boucher does. And hopefully not until other NHA guys like Harry Cameron and Art Ross become available.
-I also think it's a bit early for Babe Dye. Lots of goals and little else, doesn't seem like the overall impact player of Fredrickson, MacKay, or Keats.
-Joe Malone probably has to go near the top of the list I would think.
-Eddie Gerard absolutely was seen as the 2nd most indispensable player on Ottawa after Frank Nighbor. Less longevity than Benedict or Dennney, but he starts this round the highest ranked Ottawa player for me.
-Based on star power, Hugh Lehman should be the 2nd PCHA star to go after Cyclone Taylor. Just 2 brief tidbits on Lehman:
1) Despite the 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list generally being seen as biased against Western Players, Lehman tied with Clint Benedict as the 2nd best of his generation (behind Vezina). Edit: Again, that list did come out during a down-time in Benedict's career, which may or may not matter.
2 When I spent a lot of time researching primary sources on Charlie Gardiner (a very interesting player not directly relevant to this project), it was eye-opening to me that when writers and other hockey insiders were pondering whether he was the best goalie of all-time, Georges Vezina and Hugh Lehman were the guys they talked about him needing to surpass. Benedict's name wasn't really mentioned. Now some of that is because fans of Western hockey remembered Lehman from before the consolidation, but I still find it noteworthy.
-Not sure if it's quite time for Tommy Phillips yet, but there definitely should be a gap between him and Hod Stuart, in Phillips' favor
-Clint Benedict and Cy Denenny? They either just make it or just miss it this round for me.
-Too early for Moose Johnson and Lester Patrick. I think they were generally lesser players than MacKay, Fredrickson and the unavailable Duke Keats out west. And among defensemen, Georges Boucher seems to have been more highly thought of - he also finished ahead of them on the 1925 MacLean's list). My reading of it is that contemporary observers thought that the PCHA was comparable to the NHA in most positions, but the NHA generally had the better defensemen. Of course, Johnson and Patrick will make our list, but not until Georges Boucher does. And hopefully not until other NHA guys like Harry Cameron and Art Ross become available.
-I also think it's a bit early for Babe Dye. Lots of goals and little else, doesn't seem like the overall impact player of Fredrickson, MacKay, or Keats.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,233
- 14,221
Denneny doesn't separate himself from Darragh and Broadbent except through the fact he played for all Ottawa cups. But, is that really a mark against Denneny, when Darragh was singled out as extremely clutch in the 1920 and 1921 cups, and Broadbent was a superstar in his (very) short peak?
I agree with your assessment of Denneny as a slow pure sniper later in his career (but he was clutch!).
Also, 1920 was clearly not Denneny's year. He didn't seem important to that team for whatever reason. I wouldn't judge his overall body of work based on that year, although it's still a mark against him.
As for the question on how to credit those Sens teams, I see the rotation of top players like Darragh, Broadbent, Clancy, Cleghorn, who weren't core players for all 4 cups, a bit like I see the Canadiens in the late-1960s to early-1970s. Somehow, they always found a replacement. Is this strictly because the core guys like Nighbor enabled all those guys to become stars? Maybe, but I don't have this impression. It seems the Darragh's and Broadbent's were just good then left/declined.
Last edited:
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Not nothing else. He finished 2nd in the NHL in assists in 1923, and generally only fell slightly behind the assists pace of his linemates — while scoring a boatload of goals.
His goal scoring numbers are legitimately dominant. To this day, only 7 players have led the NHL in goal scoring more times than Dye. In two seasons (‘24 and ‘27) he came a Cy Denneny or Bill Cook injury away from tying Gretzky/Howe/Richard/Conacher in that category.
Asterisk all of this because he did it during the split league era, but still… his 38 goals in 1925 was not likely to be caught by anybody in either league. That’s in a very competitive environment compared to most of what we’ve discussed in this project so far. He scored 9 goals in 5 games against the Senators team that had Nighbor, Boucher, Clancy, Hitchman, Connell.
I say all this in full knowledge that I might not vote for him this round. But I do think he is here for a good reason… given the quality of competition he faced, he was a more-than-prolific scorer and apparently a fair playmaker. He and Denneny make an interesting comparison in terms of peak vs longevity.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Lehman is a player much maligned in the ATD for his legendary and perhaps at least partially apocryphal playoff f*** ups, but he had a lot of star power in his day.
To be fair to Lehman, he is also frequently cited as the star of playoff games for that Vancouver team on the nights when he wasn't giving up bad goals. The albatross around Hugh Lehman's neck is that he seems to have been bad at tracking long shots, and this proved to be his downfall in the playoffs on more than one occasion.
Nevertheless, he deserves to be very high on the list this round.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I think it would be fair to call Hugh Lehman something like the Tony Esposito of his day.
And Tony was really good.
And Tony was really good.
