Pominville Knows
Registered User
I mean, they finished back to back with a separation of ten total voting points from fifteen ballots.
Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 3
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
I don't believe so, though @ResilientBeast (I think) alluded to it when we were discussing Phillips last round.
I'm very much interested in seeing it, if anyone has it on-hand.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Foyston winning Cups in Toronto, Seattle, and Victoria is a pretty rare accomplishment. He stands out as one of the best playoff performers this round, maybe the best.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Found it in an old bio:
It would be nice to have the actual GP as well, instead of just career compiled playoff goals. Obviously Phillips and McGee stand out in a big way here, with Foyston and Lalonde having much longer careers and more extensive playoffs.
Later on, unless someone beats me to it, I'll see if I can put together the GP stats using the same criteria I was using here. (For Phillips it's 12 games).
A Case for Frank McGee
This post will focus on the positives for Frank McGee, as there really is only one negative to his legacy- his short career, which lasted only 45 games over 4 years. He also missed a game or two per season (some due to injury; he missed time in his last season because he had initially stopped playing), and his team actually withdrew from the CAHL in 1904 after half the season (4 out of 8 games; all of which they had won), both of which harm not only his raw point totals but also things like his VsX equivalent score (see the post from seventies up-thread). However, there is no doubt in my mind, having read the game summaries, comments made by his contemporaries after his career, and the all star teams we’ve come across, that Frank McGee deserves his reputation as one of the greatest players in the world during his career.For starters, let’s look at his history of winning:
Frank McGee made his debut in Senior hockey in 1903. Ottawa HC had previously had a good team (finishing second in the CAHL in 1902 and first (though no Stanley Cup) in 1901), but the addition of McGee immediately made them the preeminent team of the time, as Ottawa won or defended the Stanley Cup in all 4 years of his career (though they also did lose it against the Wanderers in the last games of his career). After his retirement, Ottawa would not win the Cup in the following two seasons. His play in these SC challenge games was exemplary, though, in fairness, we all know that his scoring stats were inflated by playing some rather poor teams.
Secondly, let’s discuss his scoring a bit:
As previously mentioned, McGee definitely looks worse offensively than his legend would lead us to believe- he only led a league in scoring once, and that was the FAHL in 1905. However, if my reconstructed stats are correct, he also tied Bowie for raw point totals in the 1903 CAHL season (both had 23 points, Bowie had six more goals, while I was able to find more assists* for McGee). Also as previously mentioned, per game numbers give a better indication of McGee’s ability due to the reasons mentioned earlier. In 1903 McGee only played 6 of the 8 regular season games. In 1904 McGee only played 4 of the 8 scheduled games due to Ottawa leaving the league. In 1905 McGee again only played 6 of the 8 league games. In 1906 McGee played 7 of the 10 regular season games. In light of this, I think it is clear that McGee was very much a dominant offensive force when he played.
*These assist totals should definitely be taken with some doubt, as they are very much dependent on the whim of the newspaper reporters. I also haven’t checked, but my gut tells me that, especially in the late 1890s and early 1900s, the Ottawa players have a disproportionate number of assists.
Third- McGee was much more than just the scorer that history has reminded him as. Here are a selection of quotes from game summaries alluding to more than just his scoring abilities (all quotes are from CAHL/ECAHA games, as I haven’t transcribed the playoff games yet)-
“It was McGee’s first appearance as a senior hockeyist, and he showed that he was qualified to stay with the best of the kind, and finished strong. Frank was at centre, and he invariably got the better of the face off. He followed up fast* and was always in the vicinity of the puck. He and Gilmour and Westwick played into each others’ hands consistently. There was no selfishness, and the score was accordingly of generous proportions.”
“ Frank McGee at centre was as usual reliable and always where he was needed. It is grand to see the way McGee gets down on the opponent’s goals when the puck goes that way.”
“The ice was sloppy and the Ottawa players, with the exception of Frank McGee, did not exert themselves. McGee was the most aggressive player on the ice”
“But all of this was spoiled by McGee, of the Ottawas, who raced down the ice just as time was up and won the game for his team. McGee did this sort of thing so often during the evening that a good many people were asking what was the matter with McGee. The universal reply was much in his favor. In fact, he gave a splendid exhibition of dashing forward play that any club might be proud of”
“Frank McGee was certainly the man of the night. He fooled even that cute player Bowie and got in time after time on the net”
“McGee is certainly a star always on the puck and always where he is needed for effective play”
“McGee played an excellent game and always manages to secure a position where he would be of the most service”
“Frank McGee suffered much punishment and came in for lots of it. But he was always on his man and always in his position, and Frank McGee in his position is a dangerous opponent to any team”
“The Victorias on Saturday certainly lost any reputation they ever had for being clean players. They started in to punish the Ottawa forward line at the very first and kept it up to the end. Frank McGee was the centre of their attacks, but the game little player never stopped for a minute. He was pounded, tripped, punched, cross-checked and bodied, but no give up, not for him, and anybody who knows Frank knows that he can give about as much punishment as he receives”
“McGee was the player who was closely watched by the Vics and by the spectators who kept yelling ‘Watch McGee!’ Watch McGee!’ Frank was watched and hammered by plugged away with indomitable pluck”
“McGee is certainly a wonder, and the way he rushes in to block the point or cover point’s lift is beautiful”
“Frank McGee has earned for himself the title of ‘Cresceus’. The way he puts his head down and goes into block long lifts makes the most of them wonder”
“When Frank [McGee] checks he checks to win”
“Frank McGee did the most work but everyone has fallen into the habit of looking to Frank to do that and his splendid playing was accepted as quite an ordinary occurrence. It was his trick to follow up fast, block the puck when lifted by a Vic defence man and try a shot or pass to Billy ilmour, who was always close behind him. McGee seemed indefatigable and was going just as fast towards the end of the game as in the beginning. He played Bert Strachan off his feet and invariably got the better of the face-off”
“while the combination work of F. McGee, Westwick and Smith was simply marvellous”
“Frank McGee was very fast and gave Bellingham very little time for lifting”
“Frank McGee and Westwick covered a tremendous amount of territory”
“Sheriff and Marks were in the running all the time too, but McGee and Smith rather kept them under cover”
“Bowie was under close surveillance from McGee, Westwick and Pulford and this told on the work of the Vic captain. Two or three pounced him every time he move, and checked so closely he was powerless to direct the Vic attack in his old time style”
*”following up”, as far as I understand it, is something like forechecking. In the era where defencemen still lifted the puck, the forwards had to follow up and pressure the other team’s defenders to try and regain control of the puck. There are lots of descriptions of forwards taking pucks to the face while attempting to block lifts- it was not for the faint of heart.
Finally, McGee’s reputation among his contemporaries is equaled by few others. Several years before his appearance in Senior hockey, McGee was being mentioned by Ottawa papers as someone who would help the Senior team. In 1899 (McGee would have been 16, I believe) one wrote “Frank McGee should be playing on the Ottawa forward line. He is putting up senior hockey” and “Frank McGee would be an acquisition to the forward line”, and in 1900 “Frank McGee would strengthen the Ottawas line”.
Some Rat Portage players were there to watch an Ottawa HC game in 1903. The goalie, Dulmade, reportedly claimed either ‘McGee is the only man on the Ottawa team we are afraid of’ or ‘I have carefully watched the Ottawas this evening, and I think the only player that we need to be afraid of is McGee’ or ‘That McGee is a wonder and we are more afraid of him than any of your other forwards’
“One thing was noticeable, however, there is no Frank McGee on the team”
“Frank McGee was missed”
“Oh, for McGee”
“The line seems demoralized without McGee this winter, and in his absence chances for regaining lost laurels seem none too bright”
McGee was named to the 1905 fan-voted All Star team at center. He was also named by a Montreal writer to his All Star team in the same year, with the following write-ups:
“McGee, with tremendous bursts of speed, swoops down upon the enemy's nets, almost seeming to skate circles around his opponents” and “Both Bowie and McGee have played hockey from the day they graduated from skirts into short pants. Three years ago McGee sacrificed an eye in a hockey game, and has his doctor's word for it that if the puck ever hits his other eye he will probably be blind for life. But he plays the game out of sheer love of the sport, and takes the most dare-devil chances”
A 1912 article about a fanning bee discussed McGee:
"His name is Frank McGee. He could carry the puck on a straight line to the goal like a quarter-back bucks the line. And game!... He played hockey when a crack over the head was about as serious as a minor warning in the present rules of the N. H. A. and then a player with ability was a marked man. Why, he wore more pads than any man on the Ottawa team and after a bruising game would strip black and blue in front, behind, top and bottom. Incidentally he gave about as much punishment as he ever received."
In 1927 Lester Patrick named McGee to his all-time team:
“When I think of a centre ice player, the name of Frank McGee comes to my mind. He was the pivot man of the famous ‘Silver Seven’ of Ottawa”
In 1930 Gene Tunney named McGee to his all-time team:
“Center, Frank McGhee (there's previous explanation of him scoring five goals in a minute in the Stanley Cup match between Ottawa and Dawson City. And that he scored 16 of the 23 goals.)”
Newsy Lalonde named Frank McGee as one of the best centers (alongside Howie Morenz).
A 1941 Ottawa Journal article listed McGee as the center on the “old hockey” All Star team.
Frank McGee made his debut in Senior hockey in 1903. Ottawa HC had previously had a good team (finishing second in the CAHL in 1902 and first (though no Stanley Cup) in 1901), but the addition of McGee immediately made them the preeminent team of the time, as Ottawa won or defended the Stanley Cup in all 4 years of his career (though they also did lose it against the Wanderers in the last games of his career). After his retirement, Ottawa would not win the Cup in the following two seasons. His play in these SC challenge games was exemplary, though, in fairness, we all know that his scoring stats were inflated by playing some rather poor teams.
Secondly, let’s discuss his scoring a bit:
As previously mentioned, McGee definitely looks worse offensively than his legend would lead us to believe- he only led a league in scoring once, and that was the FAHL in 1905. However, if my reconstructed stats are correct, he also tied Bowie for raw point totals in the 1903 CAHL season (both had 23 points, Bowie had six more goals, while I was able to find more assists* for McGee). Also as previously mentioned, per game numbers give a better indication of McGee’s ability due to the reasons mentioned earlier. In 1903 McGee only played 6 of the 8 regular season games. In 1904 McGee only played 4 of the 8 scheduled games due to Ottawa leaving the league. In 1905 McGee again only played 6 of the 8 league games. In 1906 McGee played 7 of the 10 regular season games. In light of this, I think it is clear that McGee was very much a dominant offensive force when he played.
*These assist totals should definitely be taken with some doubt, as they are very much dependent on the whim of the newspaper reporters. I also haven’t checked, but my gut tells me that, especially in the late 1890s and early 1900s, the Ottawa players have a disproportionate number of assists.
Third- McGee was much more than just the scorer that history has reminded him as. Here are a selection of quotes from game summaries alluding to more than just his scoring abilities (all quotes are from CAHL/ECAHA games, as I haven’t transcribed the playoff games yet)-
“It was McGee’s first appearance as a senior hockeyist, and he showed that he was qualified to stay with the best of the kind, and finished strong. Frank was at centre, and he invariably got the better of the face off. He followed up fast* and was always in the vicinity of the puck. He and Gilmour and Westwick played into each others’ hands consistently. There was no selfishness, and the score was accordingly of generous proportions.”
“ Frank McGee at centre was as usual reliable and always where he was needed. It is grand to see the way McGee gets down on the opponent’s goals when the puck goes that way.”
“The ice was sloppy and the Ottawa players, with the exception of Frank McGee, did not exert themselves. McGee was the most aggressive player on the ice”
“But all of this was spoiled by McGee, of the Ottawas, who raced down the ice just as time was up and won the game for his team. McGee did this sort of thing so often during the evening that a good many people were asking what was the matter with McGee. The universal reply was much in his favor. In fact, he gave a splendid exhibition of dashing forward play that any club might be proud of”
“Frank McGee was certainly the man of the night. He fooled even that cute player Bowie and got in time after time on the net”
“McGee is certainly a star always on the puck and always where he is needed for effective play”
“McGee played an excellent game and always manages to secure a position where he would be of the most service”
“Frank McGee suffered much punishment and came in for lots of it. But he was always on his man and always in his position, and Frank McGee in his position is a dangerous opponent to any team”
“The Victorias on Saturday certainly lost any reputation they ever had for being clean players. They started in to punish the Ottawa forward line at the very first and kept it up to the end. Frank McGee was the centre of their attacks, but the game little player never stopped for a minute. He was pounded, tripped, punched, cross-checked and bodied, but no give up, not for him, and anybody who knows Frank knows that he can give about as much punishment as he receives”
“McGee was the player who was closely watched by the Vics and by the spectators who kept yelling ‘Watch McGee!’ Watch McGee!’ Frank was watched and hammered by plugged away with indomitable pluck”
“McGee is certainly a wonder, and the way he rushes in to block the point or cover point’s lift is beautiful”
“Frank McGee has earned for himself the title of ‘Cresceus’. The way he puts his head down and goes into block long lifts makes the most of them wonder”
“When Frank [McGee] checks he checks to win”
“Frank McGee did the most work but everyone has fallen into the habit of looking to Frank to do that and his splendid playing was accepted as quite an ordinary occurrence. It was his trick to follow up fast, block the puck when lifted by a Vic defence man and try a shot or pass to Billy ilmour, who was always close behind him. McGee seemed indefatigable and was going just as fast towards the end of the game as in the beginning. He played Bert Strachan off his feet and invariably got the better of the face-off”
“while the combination work of F. McGee, Westwick and Smith was simply marvellous”
“Frank McGee was very fast and gave Bellingham very little time for lifting”
“Frank McGee and Westwick covered a tremendous amount of territory”
“Sheriff and Marks were in the running all the time too, but McGee and Smith rather kept them under cover”
“Bowie was under close surveillance from McGee, Westwick and Pulford and this told on the work of the Vic captain. Two or three pounced him every time he move, and checked so closely he was powerless to direct the Vic attack in his old time style”
*”following up”, as far as I understand it, is something like forechecking. In the era where defencemen still lifted the puck, the forwards had to follow up and pressure the other team’s defenders to try and regain control of the puck. There are lots of descriptions of forwards taking pucks to the face while attempting to block lifts- it was not for the faint of heart.
Finally, McGee’s reputation among his contemporaries is equaled by few others. Several years before his appearance in Senior hockey, McGee was being mentioned by Ottawa papers as someone who would help the Senior team. In 1899 (McGee would have been 16, I believe) one wrote “Frank McGee should be playing on the Ottawa forward line. He is putting up senior hockey” and “Frank McGee would be an acquisition to the forward line”, and in 1900 “Frank McGee would strengthen the Ottawas line”.
Some Rat Portage players were there to watch an Ottawa HC game in 1903. The goalie, Dulmade, reportedly claimed either ‘McGee is the only man on the Ottawa team we are afraid of’ or ‘I have carefully watched the Ottawas this evening, and I think the only player that we need to be afraid of is McGee’ or ‘That McGee is a wonder and we are more afraid of him than any of your other forwards’
“One thing was noticeable, however, there is no Frank McGee on the team”
“Frank McGee was missed”
“Oh, for McGee”
“The line seems demoralized without McGee this winter, and in his absence chances for regaining lost laurels seem none too bright”
McGee was named to the 1905 fan-voted All Star team at center. He was also named by a Montreal writer to his All Star team in the same year, with the following write-ups:
“McGee, with tremendous bursts of speed, swoops down upon the enemy's nets, almost seeming to skate circles around his opponents” and “Both Bowie and McGee have played hockey from the day they graduated from skirts into short pants. Three years ago McGee sacrificed an eye in a hockey game, and has his doctor's word for it that if the puck ever hits his other eye he will probably be blind for life. But he plays the game out of sheer love of the sport, and takes the most dare-devil chances”
A 1912 article about a fanning bee discussed McGee:
"His name is Frank McGee. He could carry the puck on a straight line to the goal like a quarter-back bucks the line. And game!... He played hockey when a crack over the head was about as serious as a minor warning in the present rules of the N. H. A. and then a player with ability was a marked man. Why, he wore more pads than any man on the Ottawa team and after a bruising game would strip black and blue in front, behind, top and bottom. Incidentally he gave about as much punishment as he ever received."
In 1927 Lester Patrick named McGee to his all-time team:
“When I think of a centre ice player, the name of Frank McGee comes to my mind. He was the pivot man of the famous ‘Silver Seven’ of Ottawa”
In 1930 Gene Tunney named McGee to his all-time team:
“Center, Frank McGhee (there's previous explanation of him scoring five goals in a minute in the Stanley Cup match between Ottawa and Dawson City. And that he scored 16 of the 23 goals.)”
Newsy Lalonde named Frank McGee as one of the best centers (alongside Howie Morenz).
A 1941 Ottawa Journal article listed McGee as the center on the “old hockey” All Star team.
Closing thoughts: McGee had a very short career, made even shorter by regularly missing games for a myriad of reasons (some his fault, others not). However, there is no denying his impact as a hockey player during his short career, and he was more than just the scorer that I think history remembers him as. I think I may have been too aggressive in ranking McGee as highly as I did on my preliminary list, but I do think he belongs in this discussion, as I don't see any other eligible player who peaked as high as he did and impacted games in the manner he did.
I would like to mention the issue of teammates, though, since I was one of the more vocal guys bringing it up against the later Ottawa players- McGee played with some very good players for his day. Pulford, Westwick, and Alf Smith in particular were highly decorated and respected players, and the other guys were no slouches either. The difference between McGee and a guy like Denneny (or Benedict, or Boucher) to me is that McGee was the star of the Silver Seven, whereas Nighbor was the star of those later Sens teams. Being the top dog matters to me in discussions of greatness, and I don't think that you can argue that McGee wasn't one of the top dogs of all time.
Johnson vs. Patrick vs Pitre
Once I saw that these three players were up in the same debate, I wanted to see if we could get a discussion going on them- all three played both forward and defense, and all three also spent time in Senior level hockey in both Eastern and Western leagues (Pitre less so than the other two). Additionally, all three made their debuts in Senior hockey at roughly the same time- 1904 (Johnson in the CAHL, Patrick in the MNWHA, and Pitre in the FAHL). Each of the three also had impressive career lengths, with Johnson playing until 1922, Patrick until 1926, and Pitre until 1923. Johnson starts his career at LW in the CAHL, and by the time the ECAHA is around he has established himself as a good-not-great player- he’s a hard worker, he gets a lot of positive press, but he’s definitely not competing with Bowie or McGee for any retro Harts. He switches to D and goes West, and builds the bulk of his legacy as one of the best defenders in the PCHA, if not the best. He's the most open-and-shut among these players, as I think we have a pretty good handle on his career.
Patrick starts his career at point and cover point, but is shifted up to rover while with the Wanderers of the ECAHA, I believe due to concerns about his defensive play. He stars at rover, to the extent that I would argue that he peaked as the second best at the position in 1906. He moves back to point part way through the 1907 season, however, and it reads as though his defensive play improved greatly, to the extent that, when coupled with his offensive talents, I would consider to have been the top point in the league for that season. He goes West, comes back to play for the Renfrew Millionaires alongside his brother and Cyclone Taylor, then starts up the PCHA and remains in the West for the rest of his career, playing and receiving great praise (though less than Johnson) as a defender. I think Patrick gets less credit than he should on this board because of what I perceive to be a bit of an over-correction in reaction to his contributions to hockey off the ice. He was a legitimate star when he played, regardless of what position he played at.
Pitre is a little harder for me to get a handle on. Though he was the oldest of these three (a couple of months ahead of Patrick, 2.5 years older than Johnson), he took a little longer to get established at the Senior level, playing only two games in the FAHL in 1904 (and not distinguishing himself), 2 games in the CAHL in 1905 with Le National before they withdrew, and then spending the rest of the 1905 season as a professional in the IPHL. I don’t have great visibility on that league, so I don’t really know how to judge those seasons, but then he came back to the ECAHA in 1908, playing cover for the Shamrocks. The Shamrocks had been a bit of a punching bag for the stronger teams in the ECAHA for a couple of seasons, but made some strong additions in Pitre, Nicholson in goal, and Laviolette at point, which resulted in a respectable season. Pitre, however, doesn’t appear to shine as much as Johnson or Patrick had at this point. I’m not finished with the season yet, but I’d be hard-pressed to put him even in the top half of covers for the season based on where I am at. However, he eventually moves back to RW (which, according to IE’s bio, he played while in the IPHL) after a couple years in the NHA, spends a year as a rover in the PCHA, and then back to primarily RW with the Candians in the NHA/NHL until his last couple of years, where he moved back to defense. I confess that I am lower on Pitre than others; after looking at his career a bit, I’m not seeing the high-end peak that I see in other players eligible in this round. If someone wants to go to bat for him I’d be very much interested in reading it, because right now he is trending down for me. We’ve talked a lot about legend/reputation vs reality the last couple weeks (Taylor, McGee, Stuart), and I’m wondering if Pitre’s fame as one of the hardest shots of all time hasn’t boosted his historical standing unduly.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
None of Pitre, Patrick, or Johnson are in my top 5, but I think all are strong candidates for the 6-10 spot.
Johnson stands out to me as the clear best amongst them. His ~1914-1918 run as the best defenseman in the PCHA gives him an argument for top 5 d men in the whole project. In fact, I think all of Stuart/Boucher/Johnson have good arguments for third defenseman and it wouldn't be outrageous for all to go this round
Patrick is hurt by having his last "full" season in 1918. The Empire of Ice book touches on his corporate priorities and that he missed multiple games in his prime because he was busy with the business/manager/coaching side of things.
Was Patrick at his best better than Johnson at his best? I think that's fair, but close. But Johnson had more games in his prime.
Edit: Stuart should go this round, but Boucher/Johnson could too. Johnson/Fredrickson is an interesting debate. It would represent the best PCHA skater after Taylor. Curious where @ResilientBeast/Ongo Gablogian sits on this as our resident PCHA expert.
I'm assuming we've been talked into Fredrickson>MacKay
Johnson stands out to me as the clear best amongst them. His ~1914-1918 run as the best defenseman in the PCHA gives him an argument for top 5 d men in the whole project. In fact, I think all of Stuart/Boucher/Johnson have good arguments for third defenseman and it wouldn't be outrageous for all to go this round
Patrick is hurt by having his last "full" season in 1918. The Empire of Ice book touches on his corporate priorities and that he missed multiple games in his prime because he was busy with the business/manager/coaching side of things.
Was Patrick at his best better than Johnson at his best? I think that's fair, but close. But Johnson had more games in his prime.
Edit: Stuart should go this round, but Boucher/Johnson could too. Johnson/Fredrickson is an interesting debate. It would represent the best PCHA skater after Taylor. Curious where @ResilientBeast/Ongo Gablogian sits on this as our resident PCHA expert.
I'm assuming we've been talked into Fredrickson>MacKay
Last edited:
The thin margins also indicate (to me, at least) that perhaps not everyone on those Sens teams was as good as this board has (until recently?) believed. Nighbor is certainly beyond reproach, and the voting here bears that out. Cleghorn is the top D of the 40-45 year period by a healthy margin. Clint Benedict has been voted on as the second best goalie as the era, and another top 10 player. So with three top ten players of all time (up to that point) playing together at the same time, if the other parts of that team were particularly strong, how did they have such small margins of victory in the Cups they did win? I think the take away is that the other pieces simply weren't as strong.
I'm looking forward to what you and @BenchBrawl post on the series.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
I'd also love to hear what @BenchBrawl thinks of Harry Cameron this round, IIRC he's higher than most on him. I have him comfortably in my top 10 as of now and I'll try to put something out on him this week, though I may be limited on time.
It's funny that you mention that; I just re-read some of the later Top-200 threads to try and get a better sense of some of the guys who are now eligible, and @BenchBrawl 's support of Cameron is making me re-think my current position (I imagine I'm one of the participants with the lowest ranking for Cameron).
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Fredrickson and Denneny are the two presumed top forwards this rounds. Let's take a look at their offensive years.
Denneny
Early career Denneny is a strong offensive player, but on a stacked team doesn't stand out that strong. Especially when you consider that he played on a absolutely stacked defensive team and is the weakest major player defensively. And we've rightly considered linemate Nighbor to be his clear superior. The offensive numbers from d-men like Cleghorn and Boucher (and Clancy) makes me think his early career is less than the numbers. He's an offensive player that gets outpointed by teammates on occasion and when Denneny leads, teammates are close.
But 1923-1926 Denneny is a much stronger offensive performer in isolation. Nighbor's offensive numbers decline. They lose Cleghorn. They lose Broadbent. As when he was asked to perform a stronger leadership role he took it well. And I think his 1923-1926 career (points of 1,2,2,2) looks very strong without the earlier support.
In sum, 9 strong seasons is a great resume, even if I think his earlier career gets boosted from elite linemates.
Fredrickson
In almost every year, he is completely by himself on his team. The Cougars were not a deep team and he is the clear best player. His paper record does not compare to Denneny's, but in terms of teammates it is a completely different world. Fredrickson has a really strong peak. His 1923 season is the clear best between either player. But Denneny has more better years and a longer prime.
Denneny>Fredrickson has long been canon. And we have also been punishing "lesser" players on deep teams. And we have also been critically evaluating long held canons.
Is Fredrickson>Denneny so crazy? Does Denneny's prime make up for Fredrickson's lack of help? How strongly do we view Fredrickson's stellar year in the consolidated NHL?
Denneny
| Season | Points Placement | Points | Ratio to #2 | Relevant Teammates |
| 1915-16 | 5 | 28 | 0.8 | Duke Keats had one more point, Corb Denneny had 23 points. |
| 1917-18 | 2 | 46 | 1.0 | Gerard, Darragh, and Nighbor finished 8/9/10 in points. But he is ahead of everyone by quite a bit in PPG |
| 1918-19 | 4 | 22 | 0.79 | Outpointed by Nighbor |
| 1920-21 | 3 | 39 | 0.98 | Nighbor was in 5th, but Denneny was clearly ahead offensively |
| 1921-22 | 2 | 39 | 1.0 | Broadbent outgoals and outpoints Denneny |
| 1922-23 | 2 | 34 | 1.0 | Boucher finished 7th in points, but Denneny is clearly the offensive leader on his team |
| 1923-24 | 1 | 24 | 1.10 | Boucher has very strong point finish (4th) as does Clancy. Denneny only 5 more points than d-man Boucher |
| 1924-25 | 2 | 42 | 1.0 | No Senator comes close |
| 1925-26 | 2 | 36 | 1.0 | No Senator comes close |
Early career Denneny is a strong offensive player, but on a stacked team doesn't stand out that strong. Especially when you consider that he played on a absolutely stacked defensive team and is the weakest major player defensively. And we've rightly considered linemate Nighbor to be his clear superior. The offensive numbers from d-men like Cleghorn and Boucher (and Clancy) makes me think his early career is less than the numbers. He's an offensive player that gets outpointed by teammates on occasion and when Denneny leads, teammates are close.
But 1923-1926 Denneny is a much stronger offensive performer in isolation. Nighbor's offensive numbers decline. They lose Cleghorn. They lose Broadbent. As when he was asked to perform a stronger leadership role he took it well. And I think his 1923-1926 career (points of 1,2,2,2) looks very strong without the earlier support.
In sum, 9 strong seasons is a great resume, even if I think his earlier career gets boosted from elite linemates.
Fredrickson
| Season | Points Placement | Points | Ratio to #2 | Relevant Teammates |
| 1920-21 | 1 | 32 | 1.0 | Dunderdale finished 9th, way way back of Fredrickson |
| 1921-22 | 3 | 25 | 0.96 | Dunderdale finished 6th, Oatman finished 8th. Fredrickson clear offensive leader on team |
| 1922-23 | 1 | 55 | 1.38 | Fredrickson doubles closest teammate (Meeking) |
| 1923-24 | 2 | 27 | 1.0 | Hart/Loughlin come 9th/10th, but Fredrickson way ahead |
| 1924-25 | 5 | 30 | 0.91 | No Cougar comes close |
| 1925-26 | 8 | 24 | 0.67 | No Cougar comes close. Injuries piling up. Fredrickson's 16 goals compares to Walker's 9 |
| 1926-27 | 4 | 31 | 0.86 | Not by himself on Detroit, but really separates himself from his Boston peers |
In almost every year, he is completely by himself on his team. The Cougars were not a deep team and he is the clear best player. His paper record does not compare to Denneny's, but in terms of teammates it is a completely different world. Fredrickson has a really strong peak. His 1923 season is the clear best between either player. But Denneny has more better years and a longer prime.
Denneny>Fredrickson has long been canon. And we have also been punishing "lesser" players on deep teams. And we have also been critically evaluating long held canons.
Is Fredrickson>Denneny so crazy? Does Denneny's prime make up for Fredrickson's lack of help? How strongly do we view Fredrickson's stellar year in the consolidated NHL?
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Hopefully BB has the time.
My bird's eye view of Cameron is that he was 100% a money player, in both the good and bad sense.
Evidently a wounded human being, but a f***ing dynamic player if you could stand him. Like an early Pilote with some behavioral issues, perhaps?
Black Gold Extractor
Registered User
- May 4, 2010
- 3,092
- 4,967
To put this in perspective, I prorated McGee's scoring and compared him to Bowie when they were competing in the CAHL/ECAHA. I'm using the goal totals from Total Hockey and the confirmed assists that you've on provided for everyone on HoH. (I might as well take the opportunity to thank you for your hard work!) There's obviously going to be some fuzziness due to the "maybe" assists, but this gives a decent picture.
Name | Club | GP | G | A | P |
Russell Bowie | Victorias | 7 | 22 | 3 | 25 |
Frank McGee | Ottawa | 6 | 14 | 9 | 23 |
Frank McGee (prorated) | Ottawa | 7 | 16 | 11 | 27 |
Name | Club | GP | G | A | P |
Russell Bowie | Victorias | 8 | 27 | 0 | 27 |
Frank McGee | Ottawa | 4 | 12 | 1 | 13 |
Frank McGee (prorated) | Ottawa | 8 | 24 | 2 | 26 |
Name | Club | GP | G | A | P |
Russell Bowie | Victorias | 9 | 30 | 6 | 36 |
Frank McGee | Ottawa | 7 | 28 | 2 | 30 |
Frank McGee (prorated) | Ottawa | 9 | 36 | 3 | 39 |
TOTALS
Name | Club | GP | G | A | P |
Russell Bowie | Victorias | 24 | 79 | 9 | 88 |
Frank McGee | Ottawa | 17 | 54 | 12 | 66 |
Frank McGee (prorated) | Ottawa | 24 | 76 | 15 | 91 |
As far as I can tell, there's not much difference between Bowie and McGee (at least in the years where they were competing against each other).
Bowie (born August 24, 1880) was 20 years old during the 1901 CAHL season. He was 25 during the 1906 ECAHA season (McGee's final). From what we know about age curves, it's more than reasonable to assume that McGee was still playing against Bowie in his prime years.
With regard to the bolded, I actually regret ranking McGee as far down as I did. The more I think about it, the more I'm pretty certain that he is the actual best player of the amateur era.
That being said, McGee is likely the hardest player to rank in the project. It's like trying to rank a hypothetical Gretzky who played only from 1983-84 through 1987-88 against Gordie Howe. I'd be stumped. (I'm still stumped, for that matter... thinking myself into a pretzel.)
overpass
Registered User
Harry Cameron’s winning record is pretty good, with Stanley Cups in 1914, 1918, and 1922. My perception is that each time he was one of the stars, although more research may be needed here.
And yet he didn’t place on the all-time great list from Macleans in 1925, and he rarely featured on all-time teams named by his contemporaries in later years. Clearly there’s something going on. Maybe it was his lack of attention to training or maybe he was just uncoachable…but would that really colour his on-ice memories so much?
Mike Rodden (born in 1891) wrote about the great defencemen in a 1958 column.
www.newspapers.com
Here we read that Cameron’s greatest fault was his “carefree attitude and lack of interest in ‘who was who’”. Does that just mean he didn’t listen to his coaches? Or did it mean he was bad defensively?
And yet he didn’t place on the all-time great list from Macleans in 1925, and he rarely featured on all-time teams named by his contemporaries in later years. Clearly there’s something going on. Maybe it was his lack of attention to training or maybe he was just uncoachable…but would that really colour his on-ice memories so much?
Mike Rodden (born in 1891) wrote about the great defencemen in a 1958 column.
Newsy Lalonde rates Harvey over Shore. Mike Rodden remembers the great defenders
Clipping found in The Kingston Whig-Standard published in Kingston, Ontario, Canada on 1/3/1958. Newsy Lalonde rates Harvey over Shore. Mike Rodden remembers the great defenders
www.newspapers.com
Rodden mentioned Cameron three times in this column. He notes that Frank Nighbor considered Cameron the greatest of them all. Nighbor and Cameron both came out of Pembroke, ON, with Cameron a couple of years older, and they played together in Toronto and Ottawa. Even so, it’s a little surprising that Nighbor rated Cameron over Eddie Gerard, Sprague Cleghorn, and others.
Here we read that Cameron’s greatest fault was his “carefree attitude and lack of interest in ‘who was who’”. Does that just mean he didn’t listen to his coaches? Or did it mean he was bad defensively?
overpass
Registered User
I should have posted this quote as well, from Nighbor via Rodden’s column of Feb 9, 1950. Maybe it doesn’t add so much information but it does drive the point home about Nighbor’s opinion and adds some colour.
Again, how does did the fact that Cameron didn’t “take hockey seriously” play out on the ice?
www.newspapers.com
There’s also something interesting in the fact that Nighbor, with his great metronomic consistency, admired the erratic and brilliant Cameron.
Again, how does did the fact that Cameron didn’t “take hockey seriously” play out on the ice?
Mike Rodden and Frank NIghbor on Harry Cameron
Clipping found in The Kingston Whig-Standard published in Kingston, Ontario, Canada on 2/9/1950. Mike Rodden and Frank NIghbor on Harry Cameron
www.newspapers.com
There’s also something interesting in the fact that Nighbor, with his great metronomic consistency, admired the erratic and brilliant Cameron.
Last edited:
Pominville Knows
Registered User
That is a great thought experiment i think, perhaps useful for everyone to individually ponder over.
Gretzky with four Cups and three times scoring 200+.
With the caveat that the thought experiment(the comparison) is actually more or less fully accurate; i'd still take Gretzky becouse he was clearly the better player over a in his case more than obviously good enough sample. Perhaps it's mostly here that McGee's short seasons with missed games is not a fully worthy comparison to this hypothetical #99 vs. real life #9(Although his ppg seems consistent over the duration!)
And obviously; not everyone have to agree to put this hypothetical Gretzky ahead.
Last edited:
Pominville Knows
Registered User
Harry Cameron’s winning record is pretty good, with Stanley Cups in 1914, 1918, and 1922. My perception is that each time he was one of the stars, although more research may be needed here.
And yet he didn’t place on the all-time great in list from Macleans in 1925, and he rarely featured on all-time teams named by his contemporaries in later years. Clearly there’s something going on. Maybe it was his lack of attention to training or maybe he was just uncoachable…but would that really colour his on-ice memories so much?
Mike Rodden (born in 1891) wrote about the great defencemen in a 1958 column.
Newsy Lalonde rates Harvey over Shore. Mike Rodden remembers the great defenders
Clipping found in The Kingston Whig-Standard published in Kingston, Ontario, Canada on 1/3/1958. Newsy Lalonde rates Harvey over Shore. Mike Rodden remembers the great defenders
Rodden mentioned Cameron three times in this column. He notes that Frank Nighbor considered Cameron the greatest of them all. Nighbor and Cameron both came out of Pembroke, ON, with Cameron a couple of years older, and they played together in Toronto and Ottawa. Even so, it’s a little surprising that Nighbor rated Cameron over Eddie Gerard, Sprague Cleghorn, and others.
Here we read that Cameron’s greatest fault was his “carefree attitude and lack of interest in ‘who was who’”. Does that just mean he didn’t listen to his coaches? Or did it mean he was bad defensively?
I believe Nighbor's comment about the obviously offensively gifted defenseman Cameron means that he did not shadow and check opponents like a defenseman should.
That it was Nighbor of all people who said it only makes it more obvious to me.
All this could also explain why Cameron is missing on many of the all-time teams from his contemporaries and others of the time.
Nighbor "also" seemed to admire the 'erratic and brilliant' Cameron.
What remains is to decide if he then and as far as Nighbor was concerned; in his time; was a Coffey, Leetch, Karlsson, Housley, Gary Suter, Rob Blake, Kevin Hatcher, Bryan McCabe, Iafrate, Jeff Brown, Reed Larson,
or more in jest; Marc-André Bergeron?
By the numbers and through Nighbor's praise it would seem like one of the first five i would say, although a guy like Jeff Brown, perhaps, can't be dismissed entirely.
Last edited:
jigglysquishy
Registered User
I think it's time for Stuart.
The contemporaries view him as the clear best defenseman ever pre 1910. We have accounts of him flirting with best player in the world. His offensive exploits are well known, but we gets lots of quotes in the ATD bios about being strong defensively too.
The 1925 MacLeans list has him on the first team with Cleghorn. Gerard and Boucher on second team. Sure, there is a definite trend of being complimentary to the dead. And a trend to disregard era depth. But he was held in very high esteem during and after his career.
Lester Patrick's all-time team in 1925 had Cleghorn and Stuart, over Boucher and Gerard.
The 1912 Calgary Herald article lists him as the clesr best defenseman ever.
Stuart's prime of 1900-1907 is exceptional for his era. There is simply no defenseman pre 1912 who was as good for as long.
When looking at the 1900-1910 period there is a clear top 4 in players: Bowie, McGee, Stuart, Phillips. 2 are already inducted. Stuart doesn't have the playoff heights as McGee, but has a prime about twice as long as McGee's career.
He's the only defenseman eligible who was the best player at his position for 5+ years. That has to factor in.
The contemporaries view him as the clear best defenseman ever pre 1910. We have accounts of him flirting with best player in the world. His offensive exploits are well known, but we gets lots of quotes in the ATD bios about being strong defensively too.
The 1925 MacLeans list has him on the first team with Cleghorn. Gerard and Boucher on second team. Sure, there is a definite trend of being complimentary to the dead. And a trend to disregard era depth. But he was held in very high esteem during and after his career.
Lester Patrick's all-time team in 1925 had Cleghorn and Stuart, over Boucher and Gerard.
The 1912 Calgary Herald article lists him as the clesr best defenseman ever.
Stuart's prime of 1900-1907 is exceptional for his era. There is simply no defenseman pre 1912 who was as good for as long.
When looking at the 1900-1910 period there is a clear top 4 in players: Bowie, McGee, Stuart, Phillips. 2 are already inducted. Stuart doesn't have the playoff heights as McGee, but has a prime about twice as long as McGee's career.
He's the only defenseman eligible who was the best player at his position for 5+ years. That has to factor in.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
My read is that Frank knew Harry pretty well personally and wanted to give the man some flowers because he'd perceived that nobody else would.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
There's going to be a lot of diversity in the back end votes. Lehman, Denneny, Stuart, and Fredrickson should all go but after that it's wide open.
Anyone want to make a case for Holmes?
Anyone want to make a case for Holmes?
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Holmes is tough. I can totally buy that his reputation as being 'solid yet unspectacular' can be chalked up to him being less willing to risk it for the biscuit, a la Lehman and others, who were often noted for meandering from the cage and getting burnt for it. Substance over style is usually a good thing if you want to win, and his much better record than Lehman reflects that, but man, Happy sure had a knack for finding himself on teams with really good players. I appreciate a player whose game travels, but it's so hard to get a read for how impactful his game really was.
I'm good with him waiting a little while. I'd at least like to look at him vs the next tier of goalies in LeSueur and Moran - speaking of, I'd really like to dig into those two against each other when the time comes, I think Paddy compares quite well, the more I read of him.
I'm good with him waiting a little while. I'd at least like to look at him vs the next tier of goalies in LeSueur and Moran - speaking of, I'd really like to dig into those two against each other when the time comes, I think Paddy compares quite well, the more I read of him.
Alright everyone, it's about that time again- voting is open, please try to get your ballots in by tomorrow night at 9:00 PM EST.
Please remember to use the same PM thread you have been using for your Round 2 ballots.
This week was a bit light in terms of discussion, but these things happen; I was certainly less active than I planned to be, though I am glad I was able to state my case for McGee. If everyone has any last minute thoughts, now is the time to share them.
Please remember to use the same PM thread you have been using for your Round 2 ballots.
This week was a bit light in terms of discussion, but these things happen; I was certainly less active than I planned to be, though I am glad I was able to state my case for McGee. If everyone has any last minute thoughts, now is the time to share them.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
I'm still struggling with my back 3 or 4 names. McGee might actually end up ranked for me.
Pouring through the ATD bios, Boucher looks very good. I struggle with how to place him in relation to Moose Johnson, but I have them back to back. I just keep changing who is ahead.
Foyston rose a lot for me.
Denneny and Stuart are the last names from vote 1 and both are in my top 3 with Lehman
Pouring through the ATD bios, Boucher looks very good. I struggle with how to place him in relation to Moose Johnson, but I have them back to back. I just keep changing who is ahead.
Foyston rose a lot for me.
Denneny and Stuart are the last names from vote 1 and both are in my top 3 with Lehman
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,059
- 13,987
Apologies for this week. Couldn't find the time for this.
I don't have much to add on Harry Cameron, just a collection of intuitions accumulated over the years researching other players and sensing that Cameron was a better player.
He was a star basically from 1913 to 1922.
Highest paid player in the NHA circa 1918-1919.
Multiple Stanley Cups as a top player (but I didn't research the actual series so can't confirm his impact).
Here's a random quote from before the 1922 playoffs that tells me he was better than Boucher or at least exploited him, for example:
Ottawa Citizen Mar 11, 1922
Harry Cameron is the dangerous man on the Toronto team and will have to be held down if Ottawas are to bring back the championship. He has done great execution against the Senators to date as he invariably waits until he gets Georges Boucher down the ice and then breaks up "Buck's" side of the ice at terrific speed.
