Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 4
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Wide open for me. I'm leaning towards Moose Johnson in first, but the case for McGee as the last remaining best-player-in-the-world is convincing.
Pulford and Grant for best 1890s player.
Patrick and Pitre and Foyston all stick out.
MacKay is a strong name. So are Dye and Keats.
A bit of discussion on Cameron last round. Would love to learn more.
This is the first vote where a top 2/3/4 doesn't immediately jump out.
Pulford and Grant for best 1890s player.
Patrick and Pitre and Foyston all stick out.
MacKay is a strong name. So are Dye and Keats.
A bit of discussion on Cameron last round. Would love to learn more.
This is the first vote where a top 2/3/4 doesn't immediately jump out.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,055
- 13,976
For info on George Hay, here's the bio Sturminator and I did last year:
forums.hfboards.com
His defensive reputation is beyond doubt. It is all over the place in the documents, all the way throughout his career, including his pre-professional years.
ATD 2022 Bio thread
Steven Stamkos Awards and Achievements: Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy 2010, 2012 NHL Second All-Star Team 2011, 2012 Runner up for the Hart Memorial Trophy in 2012. World Championship All-Star Team 2009 Stanley Cup Champion 2020, 2021 World Cup of Hockey Champion 2016 One of...
His defensive reputation is beyond doubt. It is all over the place in the documents, all the way throughout his career, including his pre-professional years.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
Was really expecting to see Jack Walker up for voting - in this group he'd be a contender for my top-5.
I had Art Ross so low on my round 1 list, which in retrospect was an error.
Pulford's length of prime is insanely good for his era. rmartin65's season recaps paint his offensive game in a better light than I expected, though of course the numbers don't reflect it. I think he's comfortably ahead of Mike Grant.
I had Art Ross so low on my round 1 list, which in retrospect was an error.
Pulford's length of prime is insanely good for his era. rmartin65's season recaps paint his offensive game in a better light than I expected, though of course the numbers don't reflect it. I think he's comfortably ahead of Mike Grant.
I have Mickey MacKay, Moose Johnson and Lester Patrick ahead of the pack here. But this is the point when it starts to get very difficult.
Professor What
Registered User
jigglysquishy
Registered User
So we have the ability to vote for best player in hockey history pre Bowie.
Is Pulford that player? I first lean towards McDougall, but Pulford's career length pre 1905 is a category of his own. I think the Pulford/Grant discussion is interesting. The Ultimate Hockey book is firmly on the Grant team.
Chronologically
?
?
?
Bowie
Taylor
Nighbor
Is Pulford that player? I first lean towards McDougall, but Pulford's career length pre 1905 is a category of his own. I think the Pulford/Grant discussion is interesting. The Ultimate Hockey book is firmly on the Grant team.
Chronologically
?
?
?
Bowie
Taylor
Nighbor
Professor What
Registered User
I was hoping that MacDougall would come up in this round alongside Grant. It would have been a nice discussion to have had. Oh well. Maybe next time (which I definitely already think there should be).
I actually had Pulford ahead of Grant, by a single slot, on my initial ballot. McDougall was down about 20 slots lower. I’d like to read more about him over the next little while and will try to do so. Of course I’m open to anyone making a case for him.
Quick hits-
I like adding Ross to the Patrick/Johnson/Pitre discussion (Ross started off as a rover with Montreal Westmount). Having done more research/reading, I think I've changed up the order from my preliminary list, but I'd love to hear more people's thoughts on how these four stack up. Patrick and Ross made the HoF before the others, for what it is worth, and Johnson made it quite a bit ahead of Pitre.
Pulford vs Grant is a fun one. I wish Young was in this debate too, but we'll have to set that aside for now. Grant definitely had a better start to his career- he hit the AHAC as pretty much a finished product, whereas Pulford took a bit to find his stride. Pulford, however, would then be the single most impressive example of a player improving over the course of his career during my readings of the Amateur Era, and he did it without losing the part of his game (physicality/defense) that made him a Senior level player in the first place. Even if his skating was never great, he still found a way to provide value offensively without sacrificing his defense. I definitely rated him too low in my primary list- I had the quote about him being "the worst skater in Senior hockey" (I can't remember the exact quote, but that was the gist) ringing in my head, and unfairly (IMO) punished him for it. Pulford was an impact player for a long time. Grant, on the other hand, may have burned brighter earlier, but he also burned out. His last couple of years were not great, and even at the height of his abilities, there is a disconnect for me between what I read in the primary sources and what I have read from secondary sources. Both players, it should be noted, had the advantage of strong teammates. Grant was probably more of a star than Pulford, but Pulford's longevity is really impressive. Like I said, this is a fun one.
McGee is an easy vote for me, probably the most dynamic player I've read about over the AHAC/CAHL/ECAHA years. A short career made shorter by missing time hurts his case, so I definitely get why he may not have everyone's support at this point, but I can't get over just how much he impacted the game when he played. And he was remembered well by his contemporaries. Honestly, if I'm selecting a team from among players from 1887-1908 to win a game, my first pick is almost certainly McGee.
Keats vs Foyston vs Hay- someone help me here. I'll admit that Hay was one of those guys I kind of overlooked/undervalued until I read @BenchBrawl and @Sturminator's bio last year. Now I'm still struggling with where he belongs.
Holmes is kind of in no man's land without another goalie to compare him to. His record of winning is really impressive to me, but, I don't know, I'm underwhelmed by contemporary reviews.
I'm still struggling with Cameron. And Dye, actually. These two (and Holmes, actually) were voted into the HoF quite a bit after their careers ended, which gives me some pause.
That leaves Gardner- I'm going to level, I could use help here, too.
Mmm. We are going to get a little bit off track here (talking about ineligible players for this round), but I think you have to have Campbell as the first star. The 1890s get a little murky, though, due to short careers and limited coverage. I think Weldy Young was every bit as good as Grant and Pulford. Grant, however, won Cups on a stacked Victorias team (though he was by no means a passenger, he deserves full credit there), while Pulford had a freakishly long career for the time and had the fortune of playing the back half of his career on stacked teams (though, again, he wasn't carried to Championships).
I had Grant ahead of Pulford on my primary list (and by not a small amount), but as I previously mentioned, I think that I was unduly harsh on Pulford for some of his playing limitations. I still think Grant at his best was probably better than Pulford at his best, but Pulford's career as an impact player was just so much longer. It's almost like Bowie vs McGee in reverse, haha (the same two teams even!).
Professor What
Registered User
Pulford's longevity won me over on my initial ballot, but I didn't have them far apart. I literally had only one guy between them. To me, they belong very close to each other, and at the moment, I have them back to back. I can easily see myself flip-flopping on their order, and I have a hard time imagining either of them falling out of my top five for this round.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,055
- 13,976
Man, I thought I was going to be the biggest booster of the Amateur Era guys! I don't know if either make my top 5 here, but I'm always open to hearing why I should have them there. Right now I do have the same inclination as you, though, to rank them close together. I can't help but feel like that is taking the easy way out, though. I feel the same about my lumping Patrick and Johnson together and Keats and Foyston together, but that is probably a topic for another post.
At the very least, I do think McGee needs to go ahead of Pulford- short career or not, reading the game summaries leaves no doubt in my mind that McGee was the dominant, driving force behind those Silver Seven teams. Pulford was definitely a solid contributor, but I don't know if he really distinguished himself from (sorry for the ineligibles, @seventieslord !) Westwick or Alf. Smith. It's kind of like the 1920s Senators, right? Nighbor and McGee are the alpha dogs, while the rest of the team is filled with stars, but definitely a couple of tiers below. Grant, meanwhile, was probably the top star of his teams when they were winning (McDougall, despite his scoring, wasn't mentioned a whole bunch, and I'm still trying to find out if he was actually any more valuable than Shirley Davidson), which carries some weight with me.
Professor What
Registered User
I gave both Grant and Pulford a boost right at the end, and I'm not so sure I shouldn't have boosted them a bit more than I did. Both of those guys are guys that had enough of an impact that they've gotten some love in the ATD, which I don't think is an easy thing to do for guys from that era. The fact that I've been able to read up a bit more on them than some guys might be affecting me, but I really do think that they're strong candidates here.
Grant did a lot to pave the way for rushing defensemen. I mean it's small steps, but someone had to take those first few, and a guy like Grant did just that. I do agree with you that Grant peaked higher, but the longevity that Pulford had goes a long way to balancing that out for me.
Wherever they go, and whether they rate highly on our ballots this round or next, I'd dare say we're on the same team with the two of them. I'm not slamming the door on McGee, but I still need some more selling. He's closer to making my ballot now than he was last time around, but I'm just having a hard time getting past just four years. If it weren't for that, I'd be stumping for him too, and he would have fared much better on my initial ballot.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
None of them will go in this round, but I'm interested in the three wingers - Dye, Pitre, and Hay. I had them all within 8 spots of each other, in the mid 20s - early 30s of my list.
The ATD bio for Hay is wonderful and does a good job of mitigating his VsX equivalent scores. Those VsX scores are pretty much the reverse of how the three men were as overall players, right? Hay as a true all-around beast, Pitre as a versatile offensive threat (I know he also moonlighted as a defenseman in his last years, but from what I've gathered his results at the position were... mixed, at best), and Dye as a one-dimenstional lamplighter. Babe Dye became eligible during the 2nd vote, and has proceeded to earn a grand total of 3 voting 'points' since. Surely somebody can go to bat for him?
Didier Pitre is a very interesting player, and person. He clearly had the most star power of the three IMO, was always one of the highest paid players in the game, and even worked as a chauffeur at Montreal's city hall for a time during his playing days. The great Pitre paradox, for me, is that he had a longstanding reputation for being undisciplined off the ice, and seriously lacking when it came to training, yet was one of the fastest skaters in hockey during his prime. That, at least, is a big advantage he has over Dye, who was noted for being a poor skater. Pitre had more dimensions to his offensive game.
Two interesting tidbits I found a while back on Pitre's skating:
The ATD bio for Hay is wonderful and does a good job of mitigating his VsX equivalent scores. Those VsX scores are pretty much the reverse of how the three men were as overall players, right? Hay as a true all-around beast, Pitre as a versatile offensive threat (I know he also moonlighted as a defenseman in his last years, but from what I've gathered his results at the position were... mixed, at best), and Dye as a one-dimenstional lamplighter. Babe Dye became eligible during the 2nd vote, and has proceeded to earn a grand total of 3 voting 'points' since. Surely somebody can go to bat for him?
Didier Pitre is a very interesting player, and person. He clearly had the most star power of the three IMO, was always one of the highest paid players in the game, and even worked as a chauffeur at Montreal's city hall for a time during his playing days. The great Pitre paradox, for me, is that he had a longstanding reputation for being undisciplined off the ice, and seriously lacking when it came to training, yet was one of the fastest skaters in hockey during his prime. That, at least, is a big advantage he has over Dye, who was noted for being a poor skater. Pitre had more dimensions to his offensive game.
Two interesting tidbits I found a while back on Pitre's skating:
The Winnipeg Tribune - 17 January 1912 said:
The Winnipeg Tribune - 24 December 1922 said:
I definitely don't think they are weak candidates (like Dye was a couple rounds ago), but I can't say they are a top 5 lock for me at the moment. I hesitate to use ATD recognition as a barometer for any player in this project, however, as I think the ATD lends itself to a bit of group think- if a player gets accepted in a certain range, he'll keep going there unless leg work is put in to change popular opinion. They also benefit from having played on championship teams, so a lot (relative to their contemporaries) was written about them after their careers were over... even if they were perhaps not the true best of their time.
I just don't know. I think they are good candidates, but I go back and forth on how to rank them. Again, though, my one absolute certainty is that they rank behind McGee.
I know this is the popular idea, but defensemen (particularly cover points) were rushing the puck well before Grant made his Senior debut. To me, Jack Campbell is the guy who should be known as the father of rushing defensemen, and it may go back even earlier than that; I just haven't looked too hard yet. For reference, Campbell was so renowned for his rushes that when Shirley Davidson broke into the league, his rushes elicited a comparison to Campbell in one of the papers; Davidson was a forward, and here he was getting compared to a defender (and it was meant in a positive manner).
Oh yeah, I think we are definitely on the same side- I'm picking nits here, mostly because I feel the most comfortable talking about the Amateur Era players.
On McGee- I'll try to put some more information together to sell you (and others) on him. But the down and dirty answer is going to be the same as what I wrote and what @Black Gold Extractor posted last week- he impacted games at a level that no other eligible player did, and more than many players we've already voted in did. He had a short career; that's literally the only knock on his career. And it wasn't short because he couldn't hack it, but because he had other priorities in life in an era where he wasn't getting paid to play. I have a hard time faulting a player for that.
I think one might squeak in, but I wouldn't dare hazard a guess at who. As you alluded to later in your post, Dye has been eligible for a while; someone (or, more likely, several someones) was high on him to get him eligible, and I'd love to see the case for it.
My only quibble with Pitre's star power (which I agree that he had) is that it took him a while to get inducted into the HoF. Why? His living contemporaries start getting elected in 1947 (just from the eligible list, Patrick, Ross, Taylor), Johnson makes it in 1952, yet Pitre doesn't get in until 1963, ~35 years after his career ended. I know we can't try to get inside the minds of the committee, but it makes me a little uneasy that people who ostensibly saw his career didn't elect him until most of the other worthy guys of his time were already in. Was there a personality thing? A bias thing? No clue.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I mean the simple case is that he was better offensively and defensively, right?
Not that one can't make a case for Foyston but the two most basic factors seem to point to MacKay.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
But if we're talking about the performance of the Mets and the Millionaires
Are we really going to say that the 3rd best Millionaire was better than the best Met?
Foyston was the guy on those Mets teams.
Mackay was unable to be that guy
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Taking a closer look at Dye/Keats/MacKay
Keats
A decent defensive player, with a very strong three year offensive peak. He doesn't come close to the defensive reputation of Hayes.
Dye
Really impressive offensive stretch with an even more impressive goal scoring pedigree. Doesn't get a ton of help from teammates, though I will note Adams reads very well in the contemporary reports. Of note, he is the weakest defensive player eligible. How much do we weight his 1922 Stanley Cup win, where he was easily the best player on Toronto?
MacKay
Between being number 2 to Taylor and then Boucher, his point totals don't look as strong as at first glance. Including Foyston, he's the only one of these 4 star forwards to never regularly be the best player on his team.
Am I wrong in seeing MacKay the worst of these 3 players?
Dye's offense is really eye-popping. But the defensive weakness sticks out.
Keats/Dye>MacKay jumps out to me. Foyston is hard to rank, but I likely stick him in front of MacKay too.
Keats
| Season | Point Rank | Points | Ratio to #2 | Notes |
| 1915-16 (NHA) | 4 | 29 | 0.85 | Cy Denney is virtually tied with Keats. Corb Denneny right there too |
| 1916-17 (NHA) | - | 18 | - | Way back, but missed a third of the year. Likely finishes middle of the pack is playing. He then misses the following two seasons for the war |
| 1919-20 (Big 4) | 1 | 32 | 1.45 | |
| 1920-21 (Big 4) | 1 | 29 | 1.16 | |
| 1921-22 (WCHL) | 1 | 55 | 1.67 | Obliterates the scoring race. 2nd and 3rd are teammates. Edmonton are best team and by far the best offensive team |
| 1922-23 | 2 | 37 | 1.0 | Finishes behind teammate Gagne, but is tied in PPG and ahead in goals. Edmonton again is by far the best team. |
| 1923-24 | 4 | 31 | 0.92 | The loss of Gagne has a huge impact on Keats, but he still keeps up with everyone except Cook. Edmonton by far the worst team in the league. His teammates fall off far more from losing Gagne than he does |
| 1924-25 | 3 | 32 | 0.97 | Strong season, with Joe Simpson rebounding. Edmonton is a middling team. |
| 1925-26 | 6 | 29 | 0.81 | Gagne is back with the Eskimos and outscores Keats by a few. |
| 1926-27 (NHL) | 12 | 23 | 0.64 | |
| 1927-28 | 10 | 24 | 0.62 | Looks a lot stronger in Chicago, being the best player there |
A decent defensive player, with a very strong three year offensive peak. He doesn't come close to the defensive reputation of Hayes.
Dye
| Season | Point Rank | Points | Ratio to #2 | Notes |
| 1920-21 | 3 | 40 | 0.98 | Leads league in goals |
| 1921-22 | 3 | 38 | 0.95 | Leads league in goals, but defenseman teammate Cameron is right with him in points. 4 Toronto players in 3-7 spots in points. |
| 1922-23 | 1 | 39 | 1.18 | Leads in goals. Jack Adams likely aids big time on his offense |
| 1923-24 | 6 | 21 | 0.91 | Second in goals, virtually tied for first in PPG |
| 1924-25 | 1 | 46 | 1.10 | First in goals and points. No Toronto player is close except for Adams |
| 1925-26 | 10 | 24 | 0.67 | Misses a few games and is outscored by teammate Adams |
| 1926-27 | 5 | 30 | 0.83 | Stands alone in Chicago, 2nd in PPG. |
Really impressive offensive stretch with an even more impressive goal scoring pedigree. Doesn't get a ton of help from teammates, though I will note Adams reads very well in the contemporary reports. Of note, he is the weakest defensive player eligible. How much do we weight his 1922 Stanley Cup win, where he was easily the best player on Toronto?
MacKay
| Season | Point Rank | Points | Ratio to #2 | Notes |
| 1914-15 (PCHA) | 2 | 44 | 1.0 | Played with our #1 and #2 players Taylor and Nighbor. Is he a top 5 Millionaire this year including Lehman, Griffis, Patrick, Cook? |
| 1915-16 | 10 | 19 | 0.59 | Way behind teammate Taylor, barely ahead of teammate defenseman Cook |
| 1916-17 | 6 | 33 | 0.62 | Outplayed by teammates Taylor and Roberts |
| 1917-18 | 6 | 18 | 0.53 | Played with peak Taylor |
| 1918-19 | 5 | 18 | 0.62 | Played with peak Taylor |
| 1919-20 (Big Four) | ? | 10 | 0.45 | |
| 1920-21 | 10 | 18 | 0.56 | Outplayed by many Vancouver teammates |
| 1921-22 | 2 | 26 | 1.0 | Outplayed by teammate Jack Adams |
| 1922-23 | 2 | 40 | 1.0 | Way ahead of anyone besides Fredrickson. By Maroon |
| 1923-24 | 3 | 25 | 0.93 | Outplayed by teammate Duncan |
| 1924-25 (WHL) | 1 | 33 | 1.0 | Best player on his team. Leads league in goals |
| 1926-27 | 16 | 22 | 0.61 | Like 5th best player on Chicago |
| 1927-28 | 14 | 21 | 0.54 |
Between being number 2 to Taylor and then Boucher, his point totals don't look as strong as at first glance. Including Foyston, he's the only one of these 4 star forwards to never regularly be the best player on his team.
Am I wrong in seeing MacKay the worst of these 3 players?
Dye's offense is really eye-popping. But the defensive weakness sticks out.
Keats/Dye>MacKay jumps out to me. Foyston is hard to rank, but I likely stick him in front of MacKay too.
Professor What
Registered User
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
To your comment about 1914-15, he's definitely top4. Most of his acclaim seems to come on the back of that one tremendous season. Which he never manages to follow up
jigglysquishy
Registered User
The 15 team is stacked so it's hard for me to gauge. That's what, 7 players who will be eligible for this project at some point?
You're our PCHA expert so I'm curious where you sit on it.
But looking at the season by season, MacKay doesn't stand out the way I thought he would.
