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

[jigglysquishy]

Malone seems like an easy first here.

I want more on Lehman vs Benedict. Reading through the 1925 Best-Of Lists, Lehman really stands out. @ResilientBeast's posts from the newspapers highlights that he still excelled despite his playoff record.

On the topic of the 1925 lists, Stuart stands out much more than Gerard. The quotes in his ATD bio make it sound like he had immense star power, only second to Bowie for the whole 1900s decade.

Gerard may have been the second cog on a dynasty, but he doesn't have huge separation from Denneny or Benedict in reputation.

Stuart had more separation from his peers. But is that enough to make up for the greater depth of 1920?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tommy Phillips looks to have been more of an impact player in terms of team results than Hod Stuart.

First I'll copy what can be considered something of a Stuart-skeptical post that I made in the Top 200 project:

1. One problem with Hod Stuart's legacy is that the IPHL & WPHL weren't even close in overall quality to Russell Bowie's ECAHA, which was the best league in an overall shallow talent pool.

2. Another problem is that, if Hod Stuart was arguably the best player in the world (as some observers thought), why didn't he, as a defenseman, dominate his weak leagues statistically?

__________

This is illustrated by Iain Fyffe's Points Allocation formula that shows Russell Bowie as, by far, the most "meritorious man" of the 1900s: Hockey Historysis: The Meritorious Players of the 1900s

Notice that defenseman Harvey Pulford is listed above Hod Stuart. I asked Iain about it:

My question:
"I might be missing something, but is there a place where you "showed your work" when coming up with these numbers? I'm just trying to reconcile the fact that every first hand account that I've read from the era seems to think of Hod Stuart more highly than Harvey Pulford, yet Pulford ranks quite a bit higher here. How much of that is due to the fact that Pulford simply played a lot longer?"

Iain's response:
"I haven't show every detail of these calculations, no. There's too much to be detailed in a few blog posts. Now, as to how much of this rating comes from Pulford's longer career, that I can detail.

Stuart's career lasted from his age-19 season to his age-27 season. If we take Pulford's numbers from the equivalent seasons in his career, his rating would be 88.6, still higher than Stuart's 82.0 but obviously much closer. This 6.6-point gap shrinks to 3.8 if you take penalties out of the equation. Descriptions of a player's play often fail to consider the cost to his team of the penalties he takes, and we have Stuart taking more recorded penalties than Pulford, so that's an advantage to the Ottawa point man that is not typically considered.

To reconcile the contemporary reports of Stuart, we have to remember how the system works. Although Stuart is known as the best defenceman of his time, there is only so much fudging we can do in the system in his favour. The fact is that he did play for a very bad team in Quebec. His two years in Quebec was for a team with a combined record of 5-11. The system notes that cover-point is possibly the most important position on the ice, and if Stuart were *that* good, surely his team wouldn't have been 1-7 in 1901.

Pulford, on the other hand, spent most of his career playing the second-most important defensive position on a defensively-dominant team, while contributing next to nothing on offence. This leads to big defensive numbers for him. You don't spend that many years starting for a top-class team without scoring anything unless you bring some serious defence to the game.

Stuart was certainly a more *noticeable* player than Pulford, and it's quite possible that the system still undervalues great players on bad teams (such as Stuart in Quebec). There's only so much that can reasonably be done to make the numbers fit the perceptions. But there always remains the possibility that perceptions were a little off, as well.

If you look at the results of the 1900 and 1901 Ottawas, we see a team that increased its marginal goal percentage from .632 to .782. In the off-season they lost Hod and his brother Bruce, and winger Henry Nolan. Replacing them were Rat Westwick, Art Sixsmith and Peg Duval (at cover-point). Pulford was one of the several returnees. Although Hod was still fairly young at this time, the team lost two Hall of Famers (including Hod) and gained back only one, yet improved by .150.

In summary, a player's contemporary reputation does enter into the system - that's where the fudge factors come from. But there's only so much you can reasonably do, since you have to start with the team results. A player like Stuart will never be shown to be a bad or merely middling player by the system, but he won't necessarily turn out to be the absolute best either. On the other hand, Pulford's advantage, without considering longevity, is certainly small enough such that Stuart could easily be on top if the system were more precise."


_______________

Summary: Hod Stuart was a 60-minute man playing the most important position (cover-point) in a weak league (not even the strongest league in the 1900s), and his teams were regularly bad, both defensively and overall. Ottawa actually got better when young Hod Stuart left. It's impossible to really know if any of that was Hod's fault or not. But how to we reconcile reports that he was arguably the best player in the world with his weak team results?

It should also be noted that Stuart spent his prime playing in a different league from Bowie and Phillips (who only spent 1 year in the same league themselves), so people calling one "the best player in the world" didn't necessarily watch the others play.

__________

Compare to Tommy Phillips:

-Phillips was widely considered the best player of a Kenora Thistles team that won an unexpected Stanley Cup challenge. Statistically, the Thistles' center, Billy McGimsie was neck and neck with Phillips in the regular season as a goal scorer, but there was no question among observers as to who the better overall player was. Phillips seemed to do his scoring while also being the primary backchecker among the team's forwards.

-Phillips spend much of his career as the first "hockey mercenary," the guy teams paid big bucks to in an attempt to put him over the edge.

-As shown last round, Phillips' goal scoring record in "competitive" Cup challenge games was excellent

 

[BenchBrawl]

Problem is if we want to punish Ottawa players, all of them except Nighbor must pay for it.

No one was irreplaceable except him.

Connell replaced Benedict.
Boucher replaced Cleghorn as Gerard's partner.
Clancy replaced Gerard/Boucher as the top defenseman.
Darragh, Broadbent, Hooley Smith and Denneny rotated as stars on the wings.

I'd say Gerard's loss was the greatest. Took a few years before they won another cup.

 

[Sturminator]

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.

That's fair. The playmaking abilities of all-time great goalscorers frequently get underrated, here, there, and everywhere.

I didn't mean to imply Dye didn't have any other hockey skills, only that the only one that seems to have been in any way memorable to his contemporaries was his shot.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

On the topic of the 1925 lists, Stuart stands out much more than Gerard. The quotes in his ATD bio make it sound like he had immense star power, only second to Bowie for the whole 1900s decade.

The 1925 list seemed to considered the various generations as equals, so the best defenseman of the early generation was listed above the 2nd best of the new generation. I know some voters specifically said that they submitted 2 separate lists - one for each generation. Same with goalies, where Percy LeSueur, finished 2nd:

1st Team: Georges Vezina
2nd Team: Percy LeSueur
3rd Team: Clint Benedict/Hugh Lehman

(I'll correct my earlier post now to show that Benedict and Lehman tied. Though the list was still criticized as being generally biased against western players).

As for ATD bios, I've seen similar quotes in the Bowie, Stuart, Phillips, and McGee bios, all calling the guy the best in the world.

 

[rmartin65]

I'm glad it looks like we are going to get that Lehman/Benedict battle that a couple people have been hoping for- I have to say, the case for Lehman that has been presented thus far is compelling- and I initially had Benedict rated higher. I'm looking forward to this one throughout the week.

Also exciting to see is that people are analyzing those great Ottawa teams and getting a bit of a 'rack-and-stack' going on- @BenchBrawl , I know you've done a ton of research on this era/team, so I'd love to see more of your thoughts (I read your Denneny post!). 2 players on the team made the top 4, and another 4 are eligible here- that feels like a lot to me, I'm struggling with the idea that 6 (out of seven regulars!) players from a single team were among the top 10 or even 20 players of the first 40-45 years of hockey history. I don't have my original list on hand, but I think I am guilty of having them all ranked highly there.

Nice to see some PCHA representation here. I'm curious to see if there are any conclusions that can be drawn regarding comparing the careers of players like Patrick, Johnson, and Frederickson in how much success they had in the East vs in the West.

Tommy Phillips and Hod Stuart continue to give me issues, so I'm looking to do some research into those guys this week. The legends of these players doesn't seem to line up with the statistical research here. Either one (or both) of these guys could end up near the top of my board, as I value contemporary opinions highly.

Problem is if we want to punish Ottawa players, all of them except Nighbor must pay for it.

No one was irreplaceable except him.

Connell replaced Benedict.
Boucher replaced Cleghorn as Gerard's partner.
Clancy replaced Gerard/Boucher as the top defenseman.
Darragh, Broadbent, Hooley Smith and Denneny rotated as stars on the wings.

I'd say Gerard's loss was the greatest. Took a few years before they won another cup.

This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for regarding this team. Thank you!

 

[jigglysquishy]

Also exciting to see is that people are analyzing those great Ottawa teams and getting a bit of a 'rack-and-stack' going on- @BenchBrawl , I know you've done a ton of research on this era/team, so I'd love to see more of your thoughts (I read your Denneny post!). 2 players on the team made the top 4, and another 4 are eligible here- that feels like a lot to me, I'm struggling with the idea that 6 (out of seven regulars!) players from a single team were among the top 10 or even 20 players of the first 40-45 years of hockey history. I don't have my original list on hand, but I think I am guilty of having them all ranked highly there.

All of Benedict, Gerard, and Denneny have reputations that would justify them going this round. I too struggle with the idea that 4 of the top 10 players in the first 50 years of hockey all were teammates together in their primes, and another spent a couple years winning Cups with them. Sure, if they combined for 10 Cups I get it. Afterall, voting Harvey/Beliveau/Plante/Richard highly together makes sense. But we're talking about a team that won 3 Cups in their primes. Gerard and Benedict were gone for the 1927 Cup too. We've established Nighbor as the true King of these Sens.

So how do we rank his teammates?

I'm leaning towards Gerard, Benedict, Denneny, but I think they're all very close. I flip on the order. Benedict played great for the Maroons, but Connell steps in to the Sens and basically the machine keeps chugging.

 

[Sturminator]

Seventies' VsX equivalents for current forwards:

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]player[/TD]
[TD]3y[/TD]
[TD]5y[/TD]
[TD]7y[/TD]
[TD]10y[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dye[/TD]

[TD]

103​

[/TD]

[TD]

97​

[/TD]

[TD]

89​

[/TD]

[TD]

66​

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

[TD]

99​

[/TD]

[TD]

98​

[/TD]

[TD]

96​

[/TD]

[TD]

88​

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

[TD]

101​

[/TD]

[TD]

95​

[/TD]

[TD]

88​

[/TD]

[TD]

72​

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

[TD]

105​

[/TD]

[TD]

102​

[/TD]

[TD]

98​

[/TD]

[TD]

87​

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

[TD]

93​

[/TD]

[TD]

88​

[/TD]

[TD]

80​

[/TD]

[TD]

73​

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

I just wanted to say that while I have been highly critical of all "pre-consolidation VsX" systems in the past for reasons I've long since laid out, this does at least pass the smell test for me in the sense that it conforms roughly to where I'd fudge these players into a "complete VsX" table if there ever was one.

...which there never will be. There's a good reason that project begins at consolidation. I just wanted to acknowledge that while I still view this as a big fudge sandwich, I do enjoy the flavor.

 

[Sturminator]

Nice to see some PCHA representation here. I'm curious to see if there are any conclusions that can be drawn regarding comparing the careers of players like Patrick, Johnson, and Frederickson in how much success they had in the East vs in the West.

In the case of Fredrickson, his great first season in a consolidated NHL (before succumbing to a knee injury in year two that would basically end his career) should put aside whatever doubts we may have had about his level of play (vis-a-vis the competition he faced in a late-period and somewhat hollowed-out PCHA) in the western leagues. If Fredrickson was beating up on schlubs and has-beens in the late PCHA, those schlubs and has-beens must have been pretty good, because he was probably the best center in the consolidated NHL in his one peak season there (yes, over Howie Morenz that year).

It's harder to know for the guys who "lived and died" out west like Moose Johnson. We should try to dig into whatever playoff record exists for Moose and Lester, though I don't seem to recall Moose's PCHA teams being all that successful. Zero clue on Lester's playing career, but he must have played the eastern teams at some point, right?

 

[rmartin65]

Small sample size + likely biased reporting warning, but the Ottawa Citizen wrote that "Alf. Smith demonstrated his superiority over Phillips in every way" on 24 January 1907 (page 8), following a game played between Kenora and Ottawa (not for the Cup). Ottawa won 8-2, with Phillips scored one and got the assist on the other Kenora goal.

Also-

"Tom Phillips, the captain and left wing, again proved himself a wonder. He had a magnificent burst of speed, a beautiful wide sweep and seemed to fly rather than skate along. Every once in a while Phillips dashed towards Ottawas' net in an amazing manner, butting a zig-zag course and trusting to a long shot as a rule. He sent the puck at Lesueur like a bullet and it was little wonder that the Ottawa fans frequently arose and exclaimed 'Isn't he a whilrwind?' as Phillips shot up and down the ice. Beaudro was just as fast as Phillips, but lacked the headwork"

"Alf Smith fooled the great and only Phillips, sometimes with ease..."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All of Benedict, Gerard, and Denneny have reputations that would justify them going this round. I too struggle with the idea that 4 of the top 10 players in the first 50 years of hockey all were teammates together in their primes, and another spent a couple years winning Cups with them. Sure, if they combined for 10 Cups I get it. Afterall, voting Harvey/Beliveau/Plante/Richard highly together makes sense. But we're talking about a team that won 3 Cups in their primes. Gerard and Benedict were gone for the 1927 Cup too. We've established Nighbor as the true King of these Sens.

So how do we rank his teammates?

I'm leaning towards Gerard, Benedict, Denneny, but I think they're all very close. I flip on the order. Benedict played great for the Maroons, but Connell steps in to the Sens and basically the machine keeps chugging.

This should give an approximation of how contemporaries viewed them. Originally, I was going to include only Ottawa players, but I'll include all players available this round:

All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries

I always found it interesting to hear what was said about the hockey players of the early era (Pre World War II). Naturally we know the least about these players as we have very limited footage available from games, a few 30 second clips here and there. Very few people are alive today who...

forums.hfboards.com

I'm using TheoKritos' list, and manually adding Lester Patrick's all-time team which was recently posted.

List MAY be biased towards "modern" players.

Defensemen:
(Cleghorn had 14 mentions)
Eddie Gerard: 12 mentions
Lester Patrick: 8 mentions*
Hod Stuart: 8 mentions
Georges Boucher: 4 mentions
Moose Johnson: 2 mentions*

*How to reconcile the fact that Moose Johnson, not Lester Patrick was widely considered the best defenseman in the PCHA, and regularly beat out Patrick on Mickey Ion's All-Star teams? I think Patrick likely gets overrated on these retrospective lists because of his overall impact, rather than just his impact as a player, but I'm open to other interpretations.

Goaltenders:
(Vezina had 10 mentions)
Benedict had 4 mentions
Lehman had 2 mentions

I don't have time to count up mentions of forwards, but if you do a ctrl-F on the page, you can see how much more often Tommy Phillips' name comes up compared to Cy Denneny's.

At least in terms of contemporary opinion, Gerard certainly had a reputation that would 100% justify him going this round. How much of that reputation is because he died relatively young in 1937? I don't know. Benedict and Denneny? Great players. But I don't see the great reputation from contemporaries, especially for Denneny. So much of the modern "reputation" of Benedict and Denneny relies on statistics. But those statistics are really good! Especially for Denneny, the man who doesn't seem to have been respected so much by contemporaries!

Benedict I get. He was a great goalie, but perhaps overshadowed by Vezina There were also specific reasons contemporaries might dislike him - his alcoholism, and his style of play. Nonetheless, he has his historical supporters.

Denneny is the strange one. It's much harder to attribute his gaudy stats to his team than it would be Benedict's GAA, wins, or shutouts. Yet he's the one whom contemporaries even more rarely praise.

 

[rmartin65]

It's harder to know for the guys who "lived and died" out west like Moose Johnson. We should try to dig into whatever playoff record exists for Moose and Lester, though I don't seem to recall Moose's PCHA teams being all that successful. Zero clue on Lester's playing career, but he must have played the eastern teams at some point, right?

They both spent time out east; before going west Johnson as a LW (as of 1907; I know he switches to D at some point, but I haven't gotten there yet), Patrick splitting time at cover and rover (though his highest praise- for his time in the ECAHA- was at rover).

Johnson interests me because he reads as a good-not-great winger while in the CAHL/ECAHA (through 1907, at least, so 4 years)- he works hard, and is noticeable, but he's not one of the top level stars- but then he goes west and goes down in history as a HoF level dman. What happened there?

Patrick was definitely a star, and reads as one of the best players, if not the best player, for the two years he played on those Wanderer teams (in my opinion, of course). His rushes are noted, his leadership, etc. He was a well-known player before he went west.

Lester Patrick showed up big in the playoff series against Ottawa in 1906, so he has that going for him-

The Montreal Star, 19 March 1906 page 2
“... and had it not been for the brilliant individual work of Patrick the Stanley Cup would have remained in the Capital. Patrick and not the Wanderer's team as a combination took it away. Not only was he the best man on his own side, but he ranked with the Harvey Pulford as the most brilliant player upon the ice. The statement perhaps requires a little explanation. Harry Smith might be described as the most brilliant and effect of the Ottawa forwards, but he was aided by the grand work of his brother, McGee, and Westwick, while Patrick was practically alone. He had to initiate everything good. In fact, as compared with their display in Montreal, the Wanderer forwards played like second-raters and it was up to Patrick to rally the line. He did it, and it was he who was responsible for the goals which gave the Wanderers the Stanley Cup. There is no better stickhandler in Canada and no one played a purer, cleaner game. His work as rover was remarkable, and he has many admirers in the Capital”

“Patrick on each occasion. It was a masterly stroke, the genius of a general that told. Here was a team beaten as badly as a team could possibly be, outplayed at every point except for goal, and Patrick among the forwards, and that forward arranging to get the puck passed to him whenever possible, and, single-handed, taking the Stanley Cup away to Montreal. Ottawa sports could not grudge it. It was the acme of good hockey”

 

[Professor What]

My gut feeling at the moment (very subject to change) of the Ottawa players.

1. Gerard
2. Benedict
3. Denneny

I've got Denneny borderline top five (just outside at the moment), but it's got me wondering if there's really room for all three of them to go in this round. I don't want to punish anyone for being a member of a successful team, but there has to be a point where it becomes too much, doesn't there?

 

[Sturminator]

Johnson interests me because he reads as a good-not-great winger while in the CAHL/ECAHA (through 1907, at least, so 4 years)- he works hard, and is noticeable, but he's not one of the top level stars- but then he goes west and goes down in history as a HoF level dman. What happened there?

My impression of Moose is basically that he had everything you'd want in a defenseman (size, speed, etc.), but his hands were a weakness (both literally and figuratively...one of them was disfigured).

Makes sense that he'd do better on defense than the wing, though the apparent level of difference in his play is indeed a little strange. I don't really think Moose's early career out east tells us much about the defenseman he would become, sadly.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Lester's 1913-14 Victoria Aristocrats were the only time his PCHA team made it to the playoff against the NHA challenger

Moose Johnson's 1915-16 Portland Rosebuds were the only time his PCHA team made it to the playoff against the NHA challenger

 

[jigglysquishy]

One of the things that sticks out to me about Johnson: him using a comedically long stick.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Lester's 1913-14 Victoria Aristocrats were the only time his PCHA team made it to the playoff against the NHA challenger

Moose Johnson's 1915-16 Portland Rosebuds were the only time his PCHA team made it to the playoff against the NHA challenger

Both these guys are going to get a lot of mileage out of their time as teammates on the 1905-1907 Wanderers where Johnson was a LW and Lester was the rover and were the dominant team of the mid 1900s.

Then Lester leaves and becomes a cup challenge mercenary for a few years before the foundation of the PCHA

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Both these guys are going to get a lot of mileage out of their time as teammates on the 1905-1907 Wanderers where Johnson was a LW and Lester was the rover and were the dominant team of the mid 1900s.

Then Lester leaves and becomes a cup challenge mercenary for a few years before the foundation of the PCHA

Not that I'm likely to vote for either of them this round, but...

Would it be fair to say that Lester was better than Moose before the founding of the PCHA, and that Moose was better in the PCHA?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Not that I'm likely to vote for either of them this round, but...

Would it be fair to say that Lester was better than Moose before the founding of the PCHA, and that Moose was better in the PCHA?

This makes sense. For reference, when the PCHA was founded in 1911 Patrick was 28, Johnson was 25. So the ages kind of support this too. Johnson was only 19 when he won his first Cup. Patrick was very involved with the corporate side of the league and coached starting in 1912.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Not that I'm likely to vote for either of them this round, but...

Would it be fair to say that Lester was better than Moose before the founding of the PCHA, and that Moose was better in the PCHA?

Yes, they were also each other's direct competition for our "all-star" teams of the time as CPs.

Generally speaking looking over my notes they both have a strong season in 1912 then Johnson seems to get far more mentions until 1915.

Slightly long winded way of saying yes.

 

[Habsfan18]

I’d be interested in someone making a case for anyone OTHER than Malone and the Ottawa 3 to be 1-2-3-4 this round. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d have to be convinced to move anyone else up.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I’d be interested in someone making a case for anyone OTHER than Malone and the Ottawa 3 to be 1-2-3-4 this round. Maybe it’s just me, but the only candidate to potentially jump ahead of one of them would be Bowie.

Bowie (thankfully) is already in.

I can buy Gerard being in the top 2 but I'm having a harder time with Denney and Benedict.

 

[Habsfan18]

Bowie (thankfully) is already in.

I can buy Gerard being in the top 2 but I'm having a harder time with Denney and Benedict.

Brain fart on my end. Been a long ass day. Bowie is indeed already in.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I just hope we discuss Lehman vs Benedict more as I think it's more mixed of a result.

Or Lehman/Gerard or Malone/Gerard.

 

[rmartin65]

I’d be interested in someone making a case for anyone OTHER than Malone and the Ottawa 3 to be 1-2-3-4 this round. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d have to be convinced to move anyone else up.

You really want 5 players from the same team to be in the top 10 of a list covering 45-50 years? If these guys were all that good, why didn't they win more championships?