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

[Habsfan18]

I’ve flip flopped on Denneny vs Benedict a few times, but I’ve consistently had Gerard as the third. But the more I read, the clearer Gerard’s importance to that team becomes increasingly obvious.

 

[ResilientBeast]

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?

Beat me to saying this...and they did have their run of titles when the western leagues were divided and at their weakest individually.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm not entirely sure Cy Denneny should go before George Boucher.

The only thing I'm sure, is Eddie Gerard > George Boucher. The rest is up for grabs about Ottawa players.

 

[BenchBrawl]

And in my opinion, Harry Cameron > George Boucher. That should tell you how confused I am about ranking this crop.

Cameron was a beauty. He has everything but recognition. Maybe he was some sort of unacceptable human being in that time, one way or another. They paid him the highest in 1919. He exploited George Boucher with his speed. He has the playoff pedigree. The longevity. He has everything you want but his name doesn't resonates somehow.

 

[Habsfan18]

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?

Fair point. I’m not saying I can’t be swayed. It’s possible I’m overrating them. Throughout the process of putting together my initial ballot, I flipped flopped a lot of placements, and I consider many of the names listed here as being pretty close to one another, but I’ve been pretty consistent on all three of Benedict, Denneny and Gerard being in my top 10, and being lumped together. Everything I’ve read on them..they just strike me as being among the best of the best from that era. And perhaps I’ve been a bit biased to the Ottawa players considering the amount of research I’ve done on that team over the years.

But you do raise a good point. That is a lot of players from one team to be ranked this high.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Fact of the matter, Ottawa players performed on the biggest stage, and that's why they all have their place under the sun. Unfair or not, such is the cruel logic of fate.

They got granted an opportunity, and one after the other, they took it.

 

[BenchBrawl]

.

 

[Sturminator]

Fact of the matter, Ottawa players performed on the biggest stage, and that's why they all have their place under the sun. Unfair or not, such is the cruel logic of fate.

They got granted an opportunity, and one after the other, they took it.

Bill James refers to this as "the politics of glory". It is a part of every discussion of this type because what happened happened, and counterfactuals are nothing but echo and smoke.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Bill James refers to this as "the politics of glory". It is a part of every discussion of this type because what happened happened, and counterfactuals are nothing but echo and smoke.

I always try to keep a balance between merit and luck.

 

[rmartin65]

But being on an all time great team doesn’t make you an all time great player (comparatively, of course). Larry Hillman has 4-6 cups, he’s on nobody’s best of all times list. Kunitz has more cups than Toews, who is the better player historically?

Nobody is saying these guys don’t belong on this list; people just want to know if these guys should be top 10. If Nighbor is the tent pole player of the 40-45 years, if Cleghorn is the best D of the 40-45 years, then how good did these guys even have to be to be on winning teams?

 

[BenchBrawl]

But being on an all time great team doesn’t make you an all time great player (comparatively, of course). Larry Hillman has 4-6 cups, he’s on nobody’s best of all times list. Kunitz has more cups than Toews, who is the better player historically?

Nobody is saying these guys don’t belong on this list; people just want to know if these guys should be top 10. If Nighbor is the tent pole player of the 40-45 years, if Cleghorn is the best D of the 40-45 years, then how good did these guys even have to be to be on winning teams?

Each and every one of them had their moment of glory. There were no passengers among any of the candidates here.

Boucher, Benedict and Denneny were all clutch and deserving of their legacy.

The only way out of this spider web is the eye-test, and we don't have access to it.

 

[rmartin65]

Each and every one of them had their moment of glory. There were no passengers among any of the candidates here.

Do the contemporary accounts back that up? And, again, a stacked team should win more than three cups in an era where players played the whole game.

Toews, Kane, and Keith have 3 Cups and weren’t passengers, they all had their moment of glory. Are they each top 10 players from the last 40-45 years?

Boucher, Benedict and Denneny were all clutch and deserving of their legacy.

Never said they didn’t deserve their legacy; I’m wondering if that legacy is a top 10 player of the first 40-45 years.

The only way out of this spider web is the eye-test, and we don't have access to it.

No, we don’t, but we have the comments of people who saw them play. That’s the best we can do.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Do the contemporary accounts back that up? And, again, a stacked team should win more than three cups in an era where players played the whole game.

Toews, Kane, and Keith have 3 Cups and weren’t passengers, they all had their moment of glory. Are they each top 10 players from the last 40-45 years?

Never said they didn’t deserve their legacy; I’m wondering if that legacy is a top 10 player of the first 40-45 years.

No, we don’t, but we have the comments of people who saw them play. That’s the best we can do.

The last 40-45 years isn't exactly comparable to the first 40-45 years of hockey history, even if generous to early eras (~pre-1910).

Who, exactly, do you think should go over the Ottawa secondary players like Boucher, Benedict and Denneny? Because when I made my Round 1 list, I was exceedingly generous to early era guys, and still had those Ottawa players inside my Top 16.

 

[rmartin65]

The Silver Seven won Cups in 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906. Why are their stars not worthy of a top 10 spot? McGee, Pulford, Alf Smith, and Westwick all had their days in the sun and we’re not passengers.

 

[jigglysquishy]

There's a balancing act here. All the Senators (except Boucher) are going to make the top 12 or 13. That's 4 (5 with Cleghorn) guys on a team that won 4 Cups in an era lasting 33 years.

No one from the Silver Sevens is up.

5 Senators in the top 15 isn't selling them short. They were the dynasty of the eligible era and absolutely the best team.

 

[rmartin65]

Who, exactly, do you think should go over the Ottawa secondary players like Boucher, Benedict and Denneny? Because when I made my Round 1 list, I was exceedingly generous to early era guys, and still had those Ottawa players inside my Top 16.

I’m not sure; my list had the Ottawa players listed highly as well. I (and others) are trying to find out if there should be other names, no one is just randomly striking names off a list. Is the third best player from a team better than the best player in the world from a weaker era?

 

[Dr John Carlson]

It might be a round too early for him, but Frank Frederickson deserves a look.

Sturminator wrote a comprehensive biography in the centres project that mostly focuses on his professional career, which, it bears repeating, didn't begin until the age of 25. I can't hope to do better than that as a summary of his time spent in the pros, so I won't, but I think it's useful to add some context to his amateur career.

Unless my brain isn't working, I believe Frederickson is the first player we've dealt with who lost substantial time to World War I, which will increasingly become something we'll need to deal with as the project continues. He enlisted at 22 and returned at 24, missing two seasons of amateur play in the Manitoba Hockey League. He was already a strong scorer in that league, from when he joined at 18 as a winger, to when he left for the war in 1917, at which point he was playing games at both centre and rover.

Press clippings are scant from his earliest years but I was able to find the following in his last year before the war:

The champion Vics will oppose a picked team from the Monarchs and 223rd Battalion tonight at the amphitheatre rink. This promises to be an interesting game because the Bisons will line up the seven players who have represented them in their last two matches, and the All-Stars will be composed of noted puck-chasers... The All-Stars will start with Winkler in goal, Alex Irvin and Will Laughlin on the defense, Frederickson at rover, Browne at centre, Goodmanson and Olson on the wings, Harvey and Bobby Benson will also figure in the game.

Obviously, the major caveat here is that it's an All-Star team in a league with three teams, and one of those teams was ineligible as it would be the opponent for said All-Star team, but it's worth noting as a sign that he had achieved some stature at a young age. And while the rest of the names on that 'All-Star' team may lack star power, keep in mind that Dick Irvin had just left the MHL prior to this season to join the PCHA, and George Hay had helped the Monarchs win the Allan Cup the year prior, before enlisting in 1916. Irvin played centre and Hay played wing, so if both had stayed in the MHL, neither would bump Frederickson off, and the team would look a lot more reasonable. Plus, Hal Winkler is at least a very fringe candidate for this list IMO - I had him as a late cut. There was some talent coming out of Manitoba.

(As an aside, it looks like the MHL dropped the rover position at the conclusion of the 1919 season, conforming to standards set by the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, though the Allan Cup was competed for under typical 'five skaters' rules for a few seasons prior to that.)

Anyway, after the war, Frederickson took little time getting back into top shape, and by the end of his final amateur season, in which the Falcons handily won the Allan Cup, was drawing comparisons to top players:

Falcons have the best team that the west has ever sent east in quest of the Allan Cup. They are much superior to the Winnipeg Ypres of 1918 or Selkirks of 1919... In Frank Frederickson they have a player of Dick Irvin's calibre – a finished skater, stick handler, and a deadly shot.

Frank Frederickson, who looks and acts like Joe Malone, the Quebec centre player, was the best man on the ice. Like the star of the Ancient Capital team, Frederickson is a bright stickhandler and a wonderful marksman. Every time he attacked the danger signal flashed and the local defense appeared worried.

By all accounts, and based off of the lucrative offer given to him by Lester Patrick to go west, he was clearly a star by the time he turned professional. And, I think it's very reasonable to assume that based on his MHL performances both before and after the war, his ascent to stardom would've been hastened had he not lost two key developmental years, in his early 20s, to go fight. So while Frederickson is undoubtedly a short prime player compared to others in this round, the problem there is that his amateur days are often not considered as part of that prime - with context, I think it needs to be considered that he likely would've been a top player for at least two, three, maybe even four years prior to that.

 

[seventieslord]

Beat me to saying this...and they did have their run of titles when the western leagues were divided and at their weakest individually.

Logically this means that the NHL was at its strongest and they still had to come out of that League to face the weak Western team

Not that I'm advocating for all three of those guys to be voted straight in...

 

[jigglysquishy]

By all accounts, and based off of the lucrative offer given to him by Lester Patrick to go west, he was clearly a star by the time he turned professional. And, I think it's very reasonable to assume that based on his MHL performances both before and after the war, his ascent to stardom would've been hastened had he not lost two key developmental years, in his early 20s, to go fight. So while Frederickson is undoubtedly a short prime player compared to others in this round, the problem there is that his amateur days are often not considered as part of that prime - with context, I think it needs to be considered that he likely would've been a top player for at least two, three, maybe even four years prior to that.

He won't go this round, but absolutely could next.

I agree that his amateur career should be considered. He was the best player in the 1920 Olympics.

The Empire on Ice book makes it sound like Fredrickson is a class of his own as a prospect for the era.

 

[Sturminator]

He won't go this round, but absolutely could next.

I agree that his amateur career should be considered. He was the best player in the 1920 Olympics.

The Empire on Ice book makes it sound like Fredrickson is a class of his own as a prospect for the era.

He had more fanfare (and I believe a bigger contract) for a player just turning pro than anyone else I've read about from that era. Hooley Smith comes close, but didn't have quite the fanfare of Fredrickson. Of course, a lot of that is down to those Olympics (and Smith was also an Olympic star), in which he was a man amongst boys, and to the fact that he was older at the time of turning pro, and so already a mature athlete.

I agree, generally, that Fredrickson should be given some credit for his pre-PCHA years, but it is really difficult to know just how to weigh all that stuff. Very fuzzy question.

 

[Sturminator]

It might be a round too early for him, but Frank Frederickson deserves a look.

Danke schön, Dr. John.

Continuing another conversation...snipping a quote from my own work here:

26.12.1924 - Regina Morning Leader:

Frank Fredrickson, Icelandic Cyclone, turned in his best game on local ice since turning pro. He notched three goals and missed others simply because he was skating so fast that he was on the top of the goal before he knew where he was. Frank Boucher, MacKay, Duncan and Arbour worked hard to bring on scores, but the severe back-checking of the Victoria line ruined a lot of their efforts.

So, this is interesting. Here, we have a neutral western paper in Regina just casually calling Fredrickson "Cyclone" in 1924.

Huh.

What does this mean? Was "Cyclone" a common moniker for very active players of various sports in that era? Yes, I think it probably was. Is this a casual comparison of Fredrickson and Taylor - a nonchalant stylistic comment of the type that is common in sportswriting when it's assumed the reader and author are of the same sporting ken? Quite possibly.

But it's very interesting. Maybe it's nothing, but if Taylor were such an icon, why has another great center in the same league stolen his nickname just a year after he retired? In the mind of a neutral sportswriter, no less.

Again...perhaps it's nothing. But every little piece of nothing adds up.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Logically this means that the NHL was at its strongest and they still had to come out of that League to face the weak Western team

Not that I'm advocating for all three of those guys to be voted straight in...

Let me rephrase myself as more of a question

We've briefly touched on the the relative levels of the leagues as the Big4 became the WCHL.

By the end of 1919
- NHL is 3 teams
- PCHA is 3 teams

The following year 1920
- NHL is 4 teams
- PCHA is 3 teams
- Big4 is "amateur" 4 teams

And just eyeballing it it looks like the league sizes stay constant until the WCHL absorbs the PCHA

So through the early 20s there are 7 teams out west to 4 in the east. Assuming an even distribution of talent between eastern and western Canada the western teams should be weaker, and this is reflected partially by the NHL winning 4 straight from 1920-1924.

Shouldn't this be relevant when talking about the resume of PCHA and WCHLers in the 20s?

 

[Professor What]

Let me rephrase myself as more of a question

We've briefly touched on the the relative levels of the leagues as the Big4 became the WCHL.

By the end of 1919
- NHL is 3 teams
- PCHA is 3 teams

The following year 1920
- NHL is 4 teams
- PCHA is 3 teams
- Big4 is "amateur" 4 teams

And just eyeballing it it looks like the league sizes stay constant until the WCHL absorbs the PCHA

So through the early 20s there are 7 teams out west to 4 in the east. Assuming an even distribution of talent between eastern and western Canada the western teams should be weaker, and this is reflected partially by the NHL winning 4 straight from 1920-1924.

Shouldn't this be relevant when talking about the resume of PCHA and WCHLers in the 20s?

Wouldn't that assumption also work favorably for the Ottawa players to some degree? If there are fewer teams to spread half the talent pool around, it's easier to believe that they're concentrated onto one team.

 

[ResilientBeast]

What does this mean? Was "Cyclone" a common moniker for very active players of various sports in that era? Yes, I think it probably was. Is this a casual comparison of Fredrickson and Taylor - a nonchalant stylistic comment of the type that is common in sportswriting when it's assumed the reader and author are of the same sporting ken? Quite possibly.

Given this was also a nickname bestowed to Cy Wentworth.....

 

[overpass]

And while the rest of the names on that 'All-Star' team may lack star power, keep in mind that Dick Irvin had just left the MHL prior to this season to join the PCHA, and George Hay had helped the Monarchs win the Allan Cup the year prior, before enlisting in 1916. Irvin played centre and Hay played wing, so if both had stayed in the MHL, neither would bump Frederickson off, and the team would look a lot more reasonable. Plus, Hal Winkler is at least a very fringe candidate for this list IMO - I had him as a late cut. There was some talent coming out of Manitoba.

There was a lot of talent coming out of Manitoba. Manitoba teams won six of ten Allan Cups in the decade of the 1910s, and that generation of Manitoba players starred in pro hockey for the next decade.

This 1932 article from the Winnipeg Tribune looks back at the golden age of Winnipeg hockey, and mentions that Fredrickson was considered by many to be the greatest player that Winnipeg has produced.

The Winnipeg Evening Tribune, 1932-11-12 (Page 29) | digitalcollections.lib.umanitoba.ca

digitalcollections.lib.umanitoba.ca