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

[Sturminator]

Except for cases of egregious thuggery according to BB's research, but your interpretation makes sense.

We seem to have something of a contradiction:

Dishing the Dirt

Also, I think Hal Winkler had every bit as much to do with that Bruins run as Fredrickson. In the reports that I've read, Winkler was very highly thought of for a little while during his career. He was apparently quite good, and I would imagine had a good say in what the Bruins did. Also...

forums.hfboards.com

Could it be that the "deferred penalty" system was only used under "Eastern Rules" in the Cup Finals games? that would be weird, but it would be one way to square the circle here.

 

[Sturminator]

Regarding Malone and Fredrickson, I can't give a better summation of Joe Malone's career than overpass has already provided, so here it is:

ATD 2018 Bio Thread

Post them below!

forums.hfboards.com

The information we have on Fredrickson is posted upthread, as is seventies' fudged table, which I think gives a reasonable account of their relative scoring achievements (leaving aside any considerations of league quality, which can cut both ways here).

We should also weigh that Fredrickson carried the offense at something like Taylor-like levels respective to his teammates (I believe this is an accurate statistical comparison...correct me if I'm wrong) for very defensive Victoria teams, while Malone played most of the time with Rusty Crawford, a hall of famer, and for a couple of years with Lalonde. In terms of peak offense, I think Fredrickson and Malone are very close.

Both Malone and Fredrickson are acknowledged as the best player in hockey by multiple sources at different points in their careers. Descriptions of Fredrickson in the superlative begin in his first professional season and continue until his last peak season in the NHL, and we see this sort of language at various points in Malone's career, as well.

In fairness to Joe Malone, the bio we have of him is not quite as comprehensive as the deep-dive I once did on Fredrickson, so we should not expect it to have the same volume of quotes. I do not believe that Frank Fredrickson was considered a better player than The Phantom. I think their star power was about equal. Both were also good two-way players.

Fredrickson's playoff record may be a bit better. He went to the Cup Finals twice in a row with Victoria in the last two split-league seasons, starring in the Vics' 1925 victory over Morenz's Habs and then losing to Nels' Maroons (in an epic series for Nels, himself) the next year. He followed that up in his first year in the NHL by getting traded to a last place Boston team and taking them to the Cup Finals, where they would eventually bow out to the Senators, in that dynasty's final Cup. I don't recall all the details of Frank's performances in those Finals (my work is strewn throughout various ATD bios...maybe the Hooley Smith one? I know I researched his role in that Finals), but it is superficially at least a very strong run. I don't think Malone's playoff record is quite that good.

Joe Malone should go in first, but if Bill Cook hadn't gotten the Icelander one night at the Garden, this would actually be a debate.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I got the impression from game summaries that Frederickson was a good two-way player, while Malone was merely good enough.

Though I will have Malone ahead, mostly on his long offensive prime being too strong to pass up.

 

[Sturminator]

I got the impression from game summaries that Frederickson was a good two-way player, while Malone was merely good enough.

Though I will have Malone ahead, mostly on his long offensive prime being too strong to pass up.

I think that's probably fair. If nothing else, Fredrickson's role in corralling Howie Morenz in the Finals pushes him past Malone for me defensively, as well, but I think it's also a question the voters should answer for themselves by looking at the documentation, such as it is.

 

[kaiser matias]

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.

Alan Livingstone MacLeod's book on the Victoria team, Capitals, Aristocrats, and Cougars: Victoria's Hockey Professionals, 1911–1926, also has glowing praise of Frederickson as he made his way to the PCHA, basing it off reports of the era.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I've noticed people have been willing to 'adjust for era' the longevity of some of the earlier amateur players, correctly pointing out that careers just didn't last as long as they did in the 1910s and 1920s. Happens when the game goes from a hobby for amateurs, with little incentive to continue playing beyond your expiration date, to a job for professionals. My question is, should there also be consideration for the differences in longevity between skaters and goaltenders?

It interested me that the two players available this round with the longest careers, at least when measuring length of time being meaningful players, are the goalies, Lehman and Benedict. I don't think that's a coincidence.

We touched on it in the last thread how we can excuse a bit of loafing from the forwards, considering they were usually playing the full 60, but even with loafing it must've been extremely taxing to pull off - and lower standards of diet and physical fitness would only make it more difficult. Then, you take into account how players seemingly had free rein to just flat-out assault their opponents (Nighbor getting knocked out 3 times in one game being a fair example), which I imagine was easier to do skater-on-skater than skater-on-goalie, and you can understand why those dudes weren't having career arcs like Ray Bourque or Alex Delvecchio.

Compare that to the goaltenders... of course there's much less skating than the forwards and defensemen, but also no flopping allowed would lead to fewer acrobatics, which meant less exertion and theoretically less wear and tear. You didn't need to be a great athlete back then to mind the net, right? Clint Benedict was allegedly playing drunk, and did all right for himself. Lester Patrick famously got it done as a near-geriatric a few years later, at least for a game. Fast forward a couple decades and you still have Conn Smythe telling Turk Broda to stop eating hamburgers if he wants to play goal, yet Turk managed to stick around until he was 37. I'm not talking about the skill required to play the position, rather the athleticism required, and the toll that takes on the body.

I don't want to meander into the realm of being anti-goaltender. I just think it's something to keep in mind when making the dreaded inter-positional comparisons - IMO, a 15 year career for a goaltender isn't the same as a 15 year career for a skater, all else being equal, in the era of the '60 minute men'. And the idea that skaters had it tougher than goalers isn't only a modern perspective, either:

Goalkeeper Bert Lindsay is the same age to a year as [Lester] Patrick, but the fact that he is also playing wonderful hockey is not so noteworthy, as his position, while requiring nerve and good judgment, is not so arduous a one to fill.

 

[seventieslord]

Fair point.

 

[Sturminator]

The Bull Durham aspect of the Tommy Phillips story fascinates me. What must his life have been like?

Bull Durham in the sense that he went around being the best player in a bunch of minor leagues, not that he couldn't have played in a better league, had there been one. He obviously could have.

 

[Pominville Knows]

@ResilientBeast

Sounds like what i was doing with Glenn Hall vs. Sawchuk and Plante around 2014 i guess, to some success.
My point was that he should be right in the thick of them; with a strong although not overwhelming case for being the best of the three.

 

[jigglysquishy]

They played in different leagues, so the comparison is hard. But I think Lehman keeps up with Benedict as an overall resume.

Lehman: 11 times top PCHA goalie
Benedict: 9 times top NHA/NHL goalie

The raw stats lean towards Benedict, but let's look at defensive players who are going to come up and how many seasons they played with each goalie

Benedict
Nighbor - 9 seasons
Cleghorn - 2 seasons
Gerard - 8 seasons
Boucher - 11 seasons (plus another 1.5 seasons on the Maroons)
*King Clancy - 4 seasons
*Red Dutton - 6 seasons

Lehman
Moose Johnson - 3 seasons
Griffis - 5 seasons
Frank Patrick - 5 seasons
Cook - 9 seasons
MacKay - 10 seasons
Taylor - 6.5ish seasons

Point: The amount of help that Benedict got in comparison to Lehman is staggering from a defensive standpoint. 5 HHOF defensemen, with having 2+ on his team at one time pretty much his whole pre-Maroons career. Plus, Nighbor is the best defensive forward of the era and was (almost) unanimously our first pick on the back of defensive play.

Has any major goalie had as much defensive help as Benedict?

Counterpoint: Lehman still had multiple HHOF calibre defensemen in front of him, And Benedict had substantially less help on the Maroons, while still leading the league in GAA.


The Senators were a much more defensive oriented team than the Millionaires, so how much work did Benedict really have? We don't weigh leading in GAA heavily now, since we frequently see Jennings winners are players on elite defensive teams more than elite goalies.

The winning pedigree leans strongly to Benedict, but does this obscure that Lehman had to do more on his own?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

They played in different leagues, so the comparison is hard. But I think Lehman keeps up with Benedict as an overall resume.

Lehman: 11 times top PCHA goalie
Benedict: 9 times top NHA/NHL goalie

The raw stats lean towards Benedict, but let's look at defensive players who are going to come up and how many seasons they played with each goalie

Benedict
Nighbor - 9 seasons
Cleghorn - 2 seasons
Gerard - 8 seasons
Boucher - 11 seasons (plus another 1.5 seasons on the Maroons)
*King Clancy - 4 seasons
*Red Dutton - 6 seasons

Lehman
Moose Johnson - 3 seasons
Griffis - 5 seasons
Frank Patrick - 5 seasons
Cook - 9 seasons
MacKay - 10 seasons
Taylor - 6.5ish seasons

Point: The amount of help that Benedict got in comparison to Lehman is staggering from a defensive standpoint. 5 HHOF defensemen, with having 2+ on his team at one time pretty much his whole pre-Maroons career. Plus, Nighbor is the best defensive forward of the era and was (almost) unanimously our first pick on the back of defensive play.

Has any major goalie had as much defensive help as Benedict?

Counterpoint: Lehman still had multiple HHOF calibre defensemen in front of him, And Benedict had substantially less help on the Maroons, while still leading the league in GAA.


The Senators were a much more defensive oriented team than the Millionaires, so how much work did Benedict really have? We don't weigh leading in GAA heavily now, since we frequently see Jennings winners are players on elite defensive teams more than elite goalies.

The winning pedigree leans strongly to Benedict, but does this obscure that Lehman had to do more on his own?

How was Benedict the top NHA goalie 9 times? How is that possible to know? PHCA had All-Star teams at least (albeit they were often the personal picks of head ref Mickey Ion).

edit:. are you talking GAA? maybe. good points the rest of your post.

 

[ResilientBeast]

They played in different leagues, so the comparison is hard. But I think Lehman keeps up with Benedict as an overall resume.

Lehman: 11 times top PCHA goalie
Benedict: 9 times top NHA/NHL goalie

The raw stats lean towards Benedict, but let's look at defensive players who are going to come up and how many seasons they played with each goalie

Benedict
Nighbor - 9 seasons
Cleghorn - 2 seasons
Gerard - 8 seasons
Boucher - 11 seasons (plus another 1.5 seasons on the Maroons)
*King Clancy - 4 seasons
*Red Dutton - 6 seasons

Lehman
Moose Johnson - 3 seasons
Griffis - 5 seasons
Frank Patrick - 5 seasons
Cook - 9 seasons
MacKay - 10 seasons
Taylor - 6.5ish seasons

Point: The amount of help that Benedict got in comparison to Lehman is staggering from a defensive standpoint. 5 HHOF defensemen, with having 2+ on his team at one time pretty much his whole pre-Maroons career. Plus, Nighbor is the best defensive forward of the era and was (almost) unanimously our first pick on the back of defensive play.

Has any major goalie had as much defensive help as Benedict?

Counterpoint: Lehman still had multiple HHOF calibre defensemen in front of him, And Benedict had substantially less help on the Maroons, while still leading the league in GAA.


The Senators were a much more defensive oriented team than the Millionaires, so how much work did Benedict really have? We don't weigh leading in GAA heavily now, since we frequently see Jennings winners are players on elite defensive teams more than elite goalies.

The winning pedigree leans strongly to Benedict, but does this obscure that Lehman had to do more on his own?

I would avoid using the all-star argument for Lehman. A couple like 1914 I find a little dubious is it seems that Bert Lindsay might've had the better year. Using those teams I think grants too much of a shadow on the rest of PCHAs goaltenders.

My only working PC right now is my work one so not stats until I get that sorted lol

 

[jigglysquishy]

How was Benedict the top NHA goalie 9 times? How is that possible to know? PHCA had All-Star teams at least (albeit they were often the personal picks of head ref Mickey Ion).

edit:. are you talking GAA? maybe. good points the rest of your post.

GAA, ya.

But yes the crux of the post is that Benedict played on a defensive team behind multiple HHOF defenders and Nighbor. While Lehman played on a rushing team that, had strong defensive players, was clearly a tier behind the Senators defensively.

 

[Sturminator]

I would avoid using the all-star argument for Lehman. A couple like 1914 I find a little dubious is it seems that Bert Lindsay might've had the better year. Using those teams I think grants too much of a shadow on the rest of PCHAs goaltenders.

My only working PC right now is my work one so not stats until I get that sorted lol

This is an excellent point. Lehman's perfect 1st team all-star record out west is at least a bit superficial, though it must be credited that if he got some of those nods on reputation alone, he must have had that reputation to begin with.

edit: Hap Holmes is not up for voting yet, but his case is fascinating, and puts Lehman's career into a lot of perspective. Unfortunately, we will probably not get to make that comparison while both are on the clock, but it should be kept in mind. There was another PCHA goalie who never beat Lehman for an all-star nod, but won a bunch more Cups.

edit edit: my oversimplified interpretation is that Holmes to Lehman is sort of like comparing Bower to Hall.

 

[ResilientBeast]

GAA, ya.

But yes the crux of the post is that Benedict played on a defensive team behind multiple HHOF defenders and Nighbor. While Lehman played on a rushing team that, had strong defensive players, was clearly a tier behind the Senators defensively.

Doing this with just old already posted content.

The first table below I posted during the top 200 project when I was advocating for Hugh Lehman.

1912 - The Royals are a tremendous team at keeping the puck out of the net and scoring just enough
1913 - The scoring collapses but the still keep the puck out of the net
1914 - They rebound as a scoring team
1915 - He joins the Millionaires who have scored buckets of goals in all 3 preceding PCHA seasons and they go to another level.

From then the team yo-yos around but they maintain a pretty strong defensive performance.

League	Season	Team	GP	W	L	T	GF	GA	Team O%
PCHA	1911-1912	New Westminster Royals	15	9	6	0	78	77	39.20%
PCHA	1912-1913	New Westminster Royals	13	4	9	0	46	61	32.50%
PCHA	1913-1914	New Westminster Royals	16	7	9	0	75	81	43.10%
PCHA	1914-1915	Vancouver Millionaires	17	13	4	0	115	71	52.24%
PCHA	1915-1916	Vancouver Millionaires	18	9	9	0	75	69	50.00%
PCHA	1916-1917	Vancouver Millionaires	23	14	9	0	131	124	60.47%
PCHA	1917-1918	Vancouver Millionaires	18	9	9	0	70	60	47.83%
PCHA	1918-1919	Vancouver Millionaires	20	12	8	0	72	55	53.65%
PCHA	1919-1920	Vancouver Millionaires	22	11	11	0	75	65	58.60%
PCHA	1920-1921	Vancouver Millionaires	24	13	11	0	86	78	54.25%
PCHA	1921-1922	Vancouver Millionaires	24	12	12	0	77	68	56.30%
PCHA	1922-1923	Vancouver Maroons	30	17	12	1	116	88	48.98%
PCHA	1923-1924	Vancouver Maroons	30	13	16	1	87	80	50.56%
WCHL	1924-1925	Vancouver Maroons	28	12	16	0	91	102	55.56%
WHL	1925-1926	Vancouver Maroons	30	10	18	2	63	90	45.50%

Looking at the ASTs I've gathered and from reading the summaries pre-Holmes

1912 & 1915 - Hugh Lehman
1912 & 1914 - Bert Lindsay

This table is trimmed from the last thread to only include the the best teams by marginal goal expected win% of Lehman and Benedict (once Nighbor joins)

Team-Season	GP	W	L	T	GF	GA	Points	% Offence	e WP
1916-1917Ottawa Senators	20​	15​	5​	0​	119​	63​	30​	0.511468​	0.813433​
1919-1920Ottawa Senators	24​	19​	5​	0​	121​	64​	38​	0.369186​	0.747826​
1914-1915Vancouver Millionaires	17​	13​	4​	0​	115​	71​	26​	0.522388​	0.744444​
1923-1924Ottawa Senators	24​	16​	8​	0​	74​	54​	32​	0.502985​	0.656863​
1922-1923Ottawa Senators	24​	14​	9​	1​	77​	54​	29​	0.374074​	0.646965​
1918-1919Vancouver Millionaires	20​	12​	8​	0​	72​	55​	24​	0.536481​	0.64011​
1922-1923Vancouver Maroons	30​	17​	12​	1​	116​	88​	35​	0.489848​	0.635484​
1918-1919Ottawa Senators	18​	12​	6​	0​	71​	53​	24​	0.366426​	0.621076​

Ottawa's best teams have their success largely attributed to their ability to keep the puck out of the net. Lehman's best Millionaires/Maroons were much more balanced with pretty close to an even split. It's going to be harder to untangle goaltending performance than this at a team level. I know @ImporterExporter during his Hap Holmes research had found shot counts for some games but even that might not tell as much.

Systemically the Sens were designed to give up the fewest goals possible, Vancouver scored buckets of goals while stopping as many as possible.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is an excellent point. Lehman's perfect 1st team all-star record out west is at least a bit superficial, though it must be credited that if he got some of those nods on reputation alone, he must have had that reputation to begin with.

edit: Hap Holmes is not up for voting yet, but his case is fascinating, and puts Lehman's career into a lot of perspective. Unfortunately, we will probably not get to make that comparison while both are on the clock, but it should be kept in mind. There was another PCHA goalie who never beat Lehman for an all-star nod, but won a bunch more Cups.

edit edit: my oversimplified interpretation is that Holmes to Lehman is sort of like comparing Bower to Hall.

We might miss out on Lehman v Holmes

But I'm much more interested in Benedict v Holmes

As I posted earlier in this thread

But if there's a player the cup followed of this era it was Hap Holmes, it's likely more than coincidence that he leaves the Mets in 1918 only to beat the Millionaires with Toronto before coming back to Seattle and going to two more cup finals.

1914 - Toronto Blueshirts - W
1917 - Seattle Metropolitans - W
1918 - Toronto Arenas - W
1919 - Seattle Metropolitans - Tie
1920 - Seattle Metropolitans - L
1925 - Victoria Cougars - W
1926 - Victoria Cougars - L

I find this sort of record far more impressive than Benedicts on the surface, jumping between the two leagues winning 2 cups per coast vs playing behind a juggernaut with the voted best player of the era. And Seattle also played a much more defensive style than Vancouver as well when comparing him to Lehman's support.

 

[Sturminator]

I find this sort of record far more impressive than Benedicts on the surface, jumping between the two leagues winning 2 cups per coast vs playing behind a juggernaut with the voted best player of the era. And Seattle also played a much more defensive style than Vancouver as well when comparing him to Lehman's support.

Ayup. Hap Holmes was money.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I find this sort of record far more impressive than Benedicts on the surface, jumping between the two leagues winning 2 cups per coast vs playing behind a juggernaut with the voted best player of the era. And Seattle also played a much more defensive style than Vancouver as well when comparing him to Lehman's support.

And it doesn't help Holmes case that Seattle might've just been a finely tuned machine. They very nearly won the PCHA in 1918 when he was playing for the cup winning Toronto Arenas.

The Stanley Cup Matchup between Holmes and Lehman was pretty decisively on Lehman's side from an Edmontonian paper

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.

 

[Sturminator]

And it doesn't help Holmes case that Seattle might've just been a finely tuned machine. They very nearly won the PCHA in 1918 when he was playing for the cup winning Toronto Arenas.

Yes.

It's also worth noting that Holmes and Foyston have extremely similar career arcs. If the Cup followed anyone around (besides Frank Nighbor) during this period, it was these two weird Toronto/Seattle/Victoria players, Holmes and Foyston.

edit: ok...I think I may have finally figured out what was going on with those teams. Jack Walker was also there. He was also on all those Toronto/Seattle/Victoria teams that had so much playoff success.

It was a stealthy-dominant triumvirate, in which Walker's defense was likely a vital cog. This should raise our esteem for Jack Walker, I'd think. I had never put the pieces together before.

edit edit: there were also some other fine players who came along for the ride at different times. Bernie Morris and Bobby Rowe both stand out in Seattle, and I believe Harry Cameron (who was a ringer, for sure) was on that Toronto team.

...and then the whole story connects to Fredrickson at the end in Victoria. This is a through-line to the era that I'd never seen clearly before.

 

[Sturminator]

Is there an argument that Tommy Phillips' record in Cup Challenge games is actually superior to Taylor's?

I've never done a deep dive into this, but I remember being very impressed by descriptions of Phillips' play in those matches.

 

[rmartin65]

Is there an argument that Tommy Phillips' record in Cup Challenge games is actually superior to Taylor's?

I've never done a deep dive into this, but I remember being very impressed by descriptions of Phillips' play in those matches.

I think that one could definitely make that case; indeed, I think a lot of Phillips' legacy is based on his Cup Challenge games, so he'd almost have to be one of the better Cup performers in order to rank highly on this list.

 

[rmartin65]

Another Phillips quote-

Tom Phillips, who captained the famous Kenora Thistles, has retired from hockey. At his best Phillips was the greatest player in the game. If Tommy had any weaknesses it was due to the style of game that Thistles played, not to individuality.

As an infividual Tommy was possessed of rare assets. He could outskate nine out of every ten of the speed merchants and for spectacular rushes up the ice and for hard and true shooting from any angle he never had an equal, although eastern writers like to claim the individual honors for McGee, Harry Smith, "Rat" Westwick, and Hod Stuart.

Added to all these flawless qualities, Phillips was endowed with an inordinate amount of gameness. It will be a long time before there is another Tommy Phillips.

 

[Sturminator]

Another Phillips quote-

Ayup. You don't have to squint your eyes too hard to see Phillips as the end boss of his era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Another Phillips quote-

"gameness" is early 20th century speak for what we would now call "clutchness," right?

I think that one could definitely make that case; indeed, I think a lot of Phillips' legacy is based on his Cup Challenge games, so he'd almost have to be one of the better Cup performers in order to rank highly on this list.

absolutely, Tommy isn't here based on his regular season stats for Kenora, where he was basically neck and neck with his center Billy McGimsie for the best scorer on the team. (McGimsie should be a candidate for our list but not for a long time).

he's likely in my top 4-5 this round, but I did need to point out how relatively pedestrian his regular season goal scoring looks for a guy who will in all likelihood end up in our top 10 overall.

 

[Sturminator]

Apropos nothing: we know from the ATD bios that Foyston and Walker were longtime linemates, and were specifically known for being great at working "combination play" together (with whoever else was there, often Bernis Morris, who was also talented).

Jack Walker may be a player we can put a pin on as an obvious victim of the lack of second assists in those days. And of course, even primary assists back then were counted in a way that would today be considered stingy and uneven, but that is a topic for another time.