Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 4

[rmartin65]

Thanks for that, @jigglysquishy , that is really helpful!

Looking at this, the VsX equivalent scores @seventieslord provided, and reading the various information on the board-

Offensively it seems like Dye>Keats>Foyston>MacKay>Hay
Defensively it seems like Hay>MacKay>Keats>Foyston>Dye

Does that sound about right to the group?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Thanks for that, @jigglysquishy , that is really helpful!

Looking at this, the VsX equivalent scores @seventieslord provided, and reading the various information on the board-

Offensively it seems like Dye>Keats>Foyston>MacKay>Hay
Defensively it seems like Hay>MacKay>Keats>Foyston>Dye

Does that sound about right to the group?

Foyston defensively is a question mark for me. He played his prime with Jack Walker, who is probably second to Nighbor for defensive play. It's easy to look strong defensively when your linemate is the best defensive forward in the league. Conversely, he gets noted for his defensive play. If he wasn't elite, it wouldn't get mentioned, especially with Walker sharing the spotlight.

He has an incredibly strong playoff reputation. His offense is elite, but his clutch reputation is tied with the defensive work too.

I struggle to rank him, but he is arguably the second best playoff performer eligible after McGee.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Defensively it seems like Hay>MacKay>Keats>Foyston>Dye

I think that you're underrating Foyston with this comparison

I also think Hay might be overrated here.

MacKay, Walker and Nighbor are kind of the big 3 of defensive players in the 10s

 

[jigglysquishy]

This is the debate for best forward in the western Canada after Taylor-Fredrickson.

In terms of star power, it's hard for me to vote for anyone besides MacKay. But trying to dig through the details, I just don't see it. Keats just plain seemed to be the better player. Regular season MacKay is better than regular season Foyston. But damn, that playoff resume is just incredible.

If the Conn Smythe existed, surely he wins for 1917, right? He likely would have in 1919 too if Seattle wins. Strong years in 1920 and 1925 too.

Am I missing something with MacKay?

 

[Habsfan18]

Taking a closer look at Dye/Keats/MacKay

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.

Interesting. Thanks for this. MacKay certainly comes out of this looking worse.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Why I am voting Moose Johnson #1 this round

Johnson had a run from 1912 until 1918 where he was arguably a top 2 or 3 defenseman in the whole sport. He has 8 years being on a PCHA end of year all-star team. In a consolidated league he likely wins 2 or 3 Norris Trophies. Outside this time he adds strong play as a left-winger in the ECAHA from 1906-1909. This is also added by the 1920 and 1921 where he still played good hockey, even if clearly a step back. This 1906-1919 prime is unmatched in duration by any eligible player. That he peaked as the best defenseman in the PCHA only adds to this.

We don't have many players left who were the best in their respective leagues for multiple years. McGee maybe as a 1a/1b with Bowie? Holmes as best goalie for a few years? Other than that we have guys who briefly peaked up top like a Dye or Keats or Pitre, but no one else who put together the 8 year prime stretch that Johnson had.

The Ultimate Hockey awards him the 1913, 1914, 1916 and 1917 PCHA Norris trophies. Say what we will about the book, he did have 8 years as either the first or second best defenseman in the PCHA. That is straight up not matched by any other eligible player.

A few choice quotes (stolen from ATDs)

Ultimate Hockey
Johnson was a powerful skater and one of the faster men of his day. Oddly, he played his entire career without any fingers on his right hand! In 1900, he lost the fingers after receiving a 2,300 volt electrical jolt.

Jack Marshall, who played point behind Johnson in Montreal, held the big blond in high regard: "By the time a forward got around Johnson on defense, the rest was easy for me," Marshall explained. "They were usually somewhere over by the boards."

Johnson was a regular First-Team All-Star on PCHA referee Mickey Ion's famous hand-picked squads and has been considered the finest all-around rearguard in hockey between 1900 and 1925. Regularly playing with broken jaws, fractured arms, even separated shoulders, Johnson was a gamer in the truest sense.

The Trail of the Stanley Cup
A long and spectacular career... was the speedy left wing for the Wanderers... In those days there he was described as a six-footer with terrific speed, a bullet shot and indomitable courage... He developed a marvelous poke check and was a very difficult man to get around... developed an extraordinary skill at playing the puck rather than the man, although he was by no means backward with his bodychecking... In his first years in the PCHA he was a hard man to keep in training, and was inclined to draw useless penalties for rough play. However, when he steadied down there was no better defenseman in the estimation of those who saw him perform...He played eleven years in the PCHA, and was chosen as an all-star defenseman ten times. He was never sold or traded, being too valuable an attraction... He earned the nickname "Moose" for the fortitude he displayed in brushing off injuries that would put other players out of action for weeks. During his career he had his nose broken twice, received three bad cuts over his eyes, a piece cut from a thigh, many ankle cuts, and a badly gashed foot. Black eyes, jammed fingers and bruises didn't count. In spite of these injuries, he missed only twelve games in ten years of play... at times he was unpopular for his rough play... He developed the poke check so well to such an art that in his last few years with Victoria, Lester patrick used him frequently at rover to spearhead the defense. In his final years with Victoria he had regained all his popularity and the fans applauded him everywhere. Near the close of the 1921 season a special Johnson night was held in Victoria. He was presented with a trophy from the PCHA inscribed "To Moose Johnson as a token of appreciation of his brilliant career as the greatest defense player in the PCHA during the past ten years."

He is one of the few players who was a genuinely elite player in the amateur era and managed to maintain that success well into the professional era. His ability to transition from elite winger to one of the best defenseman of his era is tremendous.

In Vol. 1 of The Trail of the Stanley Cup the author, Charles L. Coleman, selected his all-star team for 1893-1926. Cleghorn and Johnson were named as the two best defensemen of the era.

I think when looking at the 1910-1926 time period, he stands as the best western defenseman. We all recognized Cleghorn as the best from this time period and voted in Gerard and Boucher too. We have three eastern defenseman installed from this time period. I think it's time the best western defenseman joins them too.

 

[rmartin65]

I think that you're underrating Foyston with this comparison

I also think Hay might be overrated here.

MacKay, Walker and Nighbor are kind of the big 3 of defensive players in the 10s

So, defensively, you'd have it more like MacKay>Hay>Foyston>Keats>Dye?

Why I am voting Moose Johnson #1 this round

He's my #2, but I definitely think he has a case (as you lay out) for #1.

Johnson had a run from 1912 until 1918 where he was arguably a top 2 or 3 defenseman in the whole sport. He has 8 years being on a PCHA end of year all-star team. In a consolidated league he likely wins 2 or 3 Norris Trophies. Outside this time he adds strong play as a left-winger in the ECAHA from 1906-1909. This is also added by the 1920 and 1921 where he still played good hockey, even if clearly a step back. This 1906-1919 prime is unmatched in duration by any eligible player. That he peaked as the best defenseman in the PCHA only adds to this.

To the bold- I don't know, in terms of years, yeah, but relative to peers I am not sure this is the case. Several of Johnson's contemporaries had extended primes- Patrick had nice prime, as did Pitre. Are we sure that Pulford's prime relative to peers wasn't equal and/or better? I'd have to go back through my notes, but he was probably in the conversation for best D in the world by the mid-1890s (in the conversation with Grant and Young- who both retired well before him) and then was still at or near the top until 1906 or 1907. I do think Johnson peaked higher, for what it is worth, I'm just not sure that his longevity is any greater than Pulford's.

We don't have many players left who were the best in their respective leagues for multiple years. McGee maybe as a 1a/1b with Bowie? Holmes as best goalie for a few years? Other than that we have guys who briefly peaked up top like a Dye or Keats or Pitre, but no one else who put together the 8 year prime stretch that Johnson had.

You have Johnson as the best player in the league for multiple years? Or as the best defenseman in the league?

McGee is hard because of the incomplete seasons. He was definitely the best player in the FAHL for the season he played there; after that, it is a lot of projection.

The Ultimate Hockey awards him the 1913, 1914, 1916 and 1917 PCHA Norris trophies. Say what we will about the book, he did have 8 years as either the first or second best defenseman in the PCHA. That is straight up not matched by any other eligible player.

Yeah. I don't care too much for the Ultimate Hockey awards at this point, but I do think the 8 years of AS recognition is incredibly valuable. That's the core of his case, IMO.

He is one of the few players who was a genuinely elite player in the amateur era and managed to maintain that success well into the professional era. His ability to transition from elite winger to one of the best defenseman of his era is tremendous.

Lester Patrick kind of did the same thing, though; started as an amateur, starred at forward (rover) before moving back to defense. I'd even argue that Patrick was better at rover than Johnson was at LW (I think Patrick's 1906 season, where he was predominantly a rover, is better than any LW season Johnson put up, for example). Johnson definitely has a superior record on D, so this isn't me saying that Patrick should be ranked higher- it is more that I am a little less impressed with Johnson's time at forward than you are. Namely, I wouldn't call him an elite LW; definitely a very good one, but elite seems like a stretch.

In Vol. 1 of The Trail of the Stanley Cup the author, Charles L. Coleman, selected his all-star team for 1893-1926. Cleghorn and Johnson were named as the two best defensemen of the era.

This is big for me

I think when looking at the 1910-1926 time period, he stands as the best western defenseman. We all recognized Cleghorn as the best from this time period and voted in Gerard and Boucher too. We have three eastern defenseman installed from this time period. I think it's time the best western defenseman joins them too.

I wholeheartedly agree that he should be in. For what its worth, I voted him ahead of Boucher last round.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Lester Patrick kind of did the same thing, though; started as an amateur, starred at forward (rover) before moving back to defense. I'd even argue that Patrick was better at rover than Johnson was at LW (I think Patrick's 1906 season, where he was predominantly a rover, is better than any LW season Johnson put up, for example). Johnson definitely has a superior record on D, so this isn't me saying that Patrick should be ranked higher- it is more that I am a little less impressed with Johnson's time at forward than you are. Namely, I wouldn't call him an elite LW; definitely a very good one, but elite seems like a stretch.

This is a big part of the reason why I've been ranking Patrick over Moose - your season summaries really shined a light on Lester's time as a rover, which was stronger than I thought. I'd actually been under the impression that Johnson as a forward was more impactful than Patrick as a rover, but that opinion flipped.

Also, I get if people don't care about this, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that Patrick's prime likely ended sooner than it otherwise should've, due to his PCHA administrative duties taking up more of his attention.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Offensively it seems like Dye>Keats>Foyston>MacKay>Hay

Does that sound about right to the group?

Statistically, Dye is the best offensive player in the group... but the qualifier 'statistically' is pulling a lot of weight there. Especially when considering how he was a pure goal scorer, with little inclination for playmaking, in an era where assists were few and far between.

We're talking about a player who doesn't bring anything to the table outside of his shot. Granted, his shot was legendary, both in power and accuracy. But I've really tried to dig up anything on, like, any other part of his game, and it's just not there. And honestly, unless I was just getting really unlucky with which game reports I read, it feels like most of the appreciation of his stick-handling was only from articles written after his career, looking back on him with warm memories. You get token mentions of Dye checking back, sure, but you get those with every player if you search long enough. And that's not to mention his notoriously weak skating!

Here's one small example... this is from Dye's last great season, half a year before he broke his leg in training camp in October 1927. The article directly compares Babe Dye with Didier Pitre. On Pitre, the article says this:

"Lalonde and Pitre had the same kind of arms which to my mind explains their great offensive ability," continued Muldoon. "I remember a game in 1917 when Pitre played against my Seattle team. He scored six goals from the blue line by drives so swift that they couldn't be stopped. The goaltender didn't see most of them.

"In the next game we instructed our defense men to pile on Pitre before he reached the blue line so that he wouldn't get a clear chance to shoot and also to give the goalie an uninterrupted view. We stopped the Frenchman that time, but he was a wonder. Pitre had speed, brains, skating and stickhandling ability, everything in the hockey repertoire."

And on Dye, it says this:

To quote Pete, "Dye is a wonderful offensive man because of the power he gets behind his shots. He gets the speed on the puck because of his enormous forearms, which are bigger than his biceps. It's a natural gift which gives him what every great hockey player seeks but can't acquire. When Dye's shot is 'on' the net, it either goes in or gives the goalkeeper a blow he feels, padding or no."

"Dye has always been a wonderful shot. His ability that way was always so marked that although he was not up to much as a skater when he first started to play, he was kept in the game. Jimmy Murphy, the old coach, told me about the first game Dye played for him. The 'Babe' stood by the sideboards and the rest of the team fed him the puck. Occasionally his bullet drives would go in. Now, of course, he has developed into a fair skater, which adds to his ability."

Even in an article lauding Dye's status amongst all-time greats, the only positive they mention is his shot - which Pitre was known for too! Either Dye's shooting was so unbelievably great that it totally overshadowed the rest of his game, or there wasn't much of a 'rest of his game' to begin with.

I've got Pitre behind the three Coast league centres for sure, and I just can't see a good argument for Dye over Pitre, so that sums up where I have him on my ballot as of now. IMO, the 'Babe' can wait until we've added more versatile offensive talents, not all of whom are even up for voting yet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I apologize if any of the following has been addressed. I haven't had time to read the thread yet, but I will.

Why does Frank Fredrickson have on fellow western centers Duke Keats and Mickey MacKay?

I'll answer the question - a higher peak. Fredrickson peaked really really high. MacKay and Keats were superstars more consistently for longer, and arguably had better careers.

A couple of quick and dirty comparisons before I post a mega-post on Duke Keats.

Awards recognition out west

Mickey Mackay: PCHA 1st Team All Star (1916, 1917, 1919, 1922, 1923), PCHA 2nd Team All-Star (1918, 1921), WCHL 1st Team All-Star (1925)
Frank Fredrickson: PCHA 1st Team All Star (1921, 1923, 1924), PCHA All-Star sub (1922), WCHL 1st Team All Star (1926), NHL 3rd in Hart voting (1927)
Duke Keats: WCHL/WHL First All-Star Team (1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926)

In 1925 and 1926, these 3 men all competed in the WCHL/WHL after the PCHA folded.

HHOF induction

Mickey MacKay - inducted in 1952
Duke Keats & Frank Fredrickson - inducted in 1958 (the very next class after MacKay)

I agree that Fredrickson had more star power than someone like Cy Denneny. But so did MacKay and Keats.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for that, @jigglysquishy , that is really helpful!

Looking at this, the VsX equivalent scores @seventieslord provided, and reading the various information on the board-

Offensively it seems like Dye>Keats>Foyston>MacKay>Hay
Defensively it seems like Hay>MacKay>Keats>Foyston>Dye

Does that sound about right to the group?

No consideration that MacKay was sometimes credited with teaching Frank Nighbor the hook check? Not only do I think MacKay is the best defensive player of these 5, but I also don't think it's particularly close. I see MacKay as clearcut #1 as Dye is as clearcut last.

Taking a closer look at Dye/Keats/MacKay

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.

MacKay is basically Nighbor-lite. (Edit: At least in the regular season!) Excellent defensively. And more of a playmaker than a goal scorer, so his "points" totals will underrate his offense, playing at a time when assists were undercounted.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's Past Time for Duke Keats, the best player in WCHL history, to be added to our list

The following is a repost of my mega Keats posts from the centers projects:

The strength of the Big 4/WCHL/WHA and Duke Keats' competition for scoring finishes

Keats' first professional season was 1915-16 at the age of 21.

1916 NHA
1. Didier Pitre 39
2. Joe Malone 35
3. Newsy Lalonde 34
4. Duke Keats 29
5. Cy Denneny 28
6. Gord Roberts 25
7. Frank Nighbor 24

1917 NHA
Keats was 5th in points per game, but only played 2/3 of the season before leaving for military service during World War 1. He finished 12th in scoring at the end of the year.

Keats was a top 5 scorer in the NHA in his first two seasons

Keats missed 1918 and 1919 (aged 23-24) to fight in World War I.

1920 Big 4
1. Duke Keats 32
2. Keats' RW 22
3. Keats' LW 18
4. Herb Gardiner 17

1921 Big 4
1. Duke Keats 29
2. Keats' LW 25
3. Keats' former RW 21
4. Harry Oliver 20

I think it's pretty clear the Big 4 was a fairly weak league, but Keats dominated it like you would expect

1922 WCHL
1. Duke Keats 56
2. George Hay (24 yo) 34
3. Joe Simpson (29 yo) 34
4. Keat's LW (Ty Arbour) 33
5. Barney Stanley 31
6. Dick Irvin (30 yo) 27
7. Keats' RW (Art Gagne) 21
7. Rabbit McVeigh 21

No typo, Keats was really that far ahead of everyone. Not as good as the NHA or PCHA, but George Hay, Joe Simpson, and Dick Irvin were all in their prime.

1923 WCHL
1. Keat's RW (Art Gagne) 43 in 29 games (1.48 PPG)
2. Duke Keats 37 in 25 games (1.48 PPG)
3. George Hay (25 yo) 36 in 30 games (1.20 PPG)
4. Newsy Lalonde (35 yo) 35
5. Harry Oliver 32
6. Joe Simpson 29
7. Keats' LW (Ty Arbour) 28
8. Bill Cook (28 yo) 25

1922-23 was Bill Cook's first professional season (at the age of 28).

1924 WCHL
1. Bill Cook 40
2. Harry Oliver 34
3. Duke Keats 31
3. George Hay 31
5. Barney Stanley 26
6. Laurie Scott 25
7. Bernie Morris (34 yo) 23

The PCHA folded after the season and its talent was absorbed into the WCHL. The 1925 and 1926 WCHL was probably stronger than the NHL at that point.

1925 WCHL
1. Mickey MacKay 33
1. Harry Oliver 33
3. Duke Keats (29 yo) 32
4. Bill Cook (29 yo) 32
5. Frank Fredrickson (29 yo) 30
6. Frank Boucher (24 yo) 28
7. Keats' LW 23
8. Joe Simpson 23
9. George Hay 22 (in 20 of 28 games)

1926 WHL
1. Bill Cook 44
2. Dick Irvin 36
3. Corb Denneny (32 yo) 34
4. Keats' RW 33
5. George Hay 31
6. Duke Keats 29
7. Harry Oliver 25
8. Frank Fredrickson 24
9. Frank Boucher 22
10. Keat's former RW 22

The WHL folded after the season. 1926-27 is the first year of the consolidated NHL

1927 Consolidated NHL
1. Bill Cook*-NYR 37
2. Dick Irvin*-CBH 36
3. Howie Morenz*-MTL 32
4. Frank Fredrickson*-TOT 31
5. Babe Dye*-CBH 30
6. Frank Boucher*-NYR 28
Ace Bailey*-TOR 28
8. Billy Burch*-NYA 27
9. Harry Oliver *-BOS 24
Duke Keats*-TOT 24

1928 Consolidated NHL
1. Howie Morenz*-MTL 51
2. Aurele Joliat*-MTL 39
3. Frank Boucher*-NYR 35
George Hay*-DTC 35
5. Nels Stewart*-MTM 34
6. Art Gagne 30
7. Bun Cook*-NYR 28
8. Bill Carson 26
9. Frank Finnigan-OTS 25
10. Bill Cook*-NYR 24
Duke Keats*-TOT 24

Keats was 31 in 1925-26 and clearly on the downswing of his career as you can see from his decline the previous season in the WHL.

I bolded the top 10 NHL scorers in the first two seasons after consolidation who played with Keats in the WCHL/WHL. It is more than half of them.

Conclusion: Duke Keats was a borderline top 5 offensive player in the world for about a decade. When you consider his intangibles - elite physical game, solid leadership and defensive play, he was probably top 5 forward in the world for the greater part of a decade.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why I am voting Moose Johnson #1 this round

Johnson had a run from 1912 until 1918 where he was arguably a top 2 or 3 defenseman in the whole sport. He has 8 years being on a PCHA end of year all-star team. In a consolidated league he likely wins 2 or 3 Norris Trophies. Outside this time he adds strong play as a left-winger in the ECAHA from 1906-1909. This is also added by the 1920 and 1921 where he still played good hockey, even if clearly a step back. This 1906-1919 prime is unmatched in duration by any eligible player. That he peaked as the best defenseman in the PCHA only adds to this.

We don't have many players left who were the best in their respective leagues for multiple years. McGee maybe as a 1a/1b with Bowie? Holmes as best goalie for a few years? Other than that we have guys who briefly peaked up top like a Dye or Keats or Pitre, but no one else who put together the 8 year prime stretch that Johnson had.

The Ultimate Hockey awards him the 1913, 1914, 1916 and 1917 PCHA Norris trophies. Say what we will about the book, he did have 8 years as either the first or second best defenseman in the PCHA. That is straight up not matched by any other eligible player.

A few choice quotes (stolen from ATDs)





He is one of the few players who was a genuinely elite player in the amateur era and managed to maintain that success well into the professional era. His ability to transition from elite winger to one of the best defenseman of his era is tremendous.

In Vol. 1 of The Trail of the Stanley Cup the author, Charles L. Coleman, selected his all-star team for 1893-1926. Cleghorn and Johnson were named as the two best defensemen of the era.

I think when looking at the 1910-1926 time period, he stands as the best western defenseman. We all recognized Cleghorn as the best from this time period and voted in Gerard and Boucher too. We have three eastern defenseman installed from this time period. I think it's time the best western defenseman joins them too.

Yes, Johnson was the best PCHA defensemen and his longevity at that position is really great (I read somewhere the PCHA did a ceremony awarding him as such), but defense was probably the one position that was much better in the east. Whereas the west really did well with centers and rovers.

I just can't get over how he got almost no support after he retired on any of those best defensemen of all-time lists: All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries. Lester Patrick and Georges Boucher got support. Why didn't Moose?

On the 1925 MacLean's best players of all-time list, you have:

1st Team: Sprague Cleghorn, Hod Stuart
2nd Team: Eddie Gerard, George Boucher
3rd Team: Joe Simpson, Lester Patrick/Art Ross (equal votes)

Call the list biased against Western players sure, but that didn't stop Joe Simpson or Lester Patrick from picking up some votes.

On the other hand, Johnson did get inducted into the HHOF quite early, so there is that...

 

[seventieslord]

Part of the reason we know the western leagues deserve respect is we can say, "look at who was in those leagues, and look at how they did in the NHL compared to players of known greatness once they joined."

By that same logic, we should be careful not to downplay the Big-4 league too much. I think the accomplishments of those players matter a lot, considering what they did in a known league immediately after.

I'm not saying we should use it to build the basis of a case that Archie Briden and Rube Brandow were great players. But we absolutely should be using it to further substantiate the lengths and qualities of the primes of players like Keats, Hay, Oliver, Stanley, Fraser, Gagne, Dutton, and Simpson.

 

[jigglysquishy]

No consideration that MacKay was basically the inventor of the hook check that Nighbor perfected? Not only do I think MacKay is the best defensive player of these 5, but I also don't think it's particularly close. I see MacKay as clearcut #1 as Dye is as clearcut last.



MacKay is basically Nighbor-lite. (Edit: At least in the regular season!) Excellent defensively. And more of a playmaker than a goal scorer, so his "points" totals will underrate his offense, playing at a time when assists were undercounted.

This is exactly what I'm looking for.

Offensive stats are easy to gleam just from looking at them. Whether someone is bad, mediocre, or good defensively comes up in the bios too. But the difference between good and excellent defensively is hard to gauge. Flowery language doesn't give a scale, so the ATD bios/UH bio/Cup bio don't give that depth of defensive ability. The same issue arose with Nighbor, that if you just read the ATD bio or Ultimate Hockey, it comes across that he's great and elite defensively, not the best player of his generation good.

If MacKay is truly that great defensively, then yes he should be in our top 4 this round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is what Lester Patrick said at Mickey MacKay's memorial in 1940. Keep in mind that Patrick coached MacKay (and Cyclone Taylor) in Vancouver, so take what he says with the particular grain of salt you would take a coach pumping up one of his long-term players right after that player died. But it does give an idea as to MacKay's style of play:

"(MacKay) was perhaps the greatest center we ever had on the coast; an equal favorite with Fred (Cyclone) Taylor in the mind of the masses. I always held to the theory that Taylor was the best all-rounder, but many differed.

"MacKay was a great crowd pleaser. He was clean, splendidly courageous, a happy player with a stylish way of going. He was sensational in making quick breakaways. He was a sure shot alone with the goalie. He could handle his stick and was almost as good a hook-check as Frank Nighbor. MacKay was one of those who helped make pro hockey a great game. He was outstanding in every way."

Mickey MacKay

Duncan "Mickey" MacKay dazzled west coast audiences with his trademark blazing speed and unparalleled agility. One of the greatest rovers/ce...

blackhawkslegends.blogspot.com

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is exactly what I'm looking for.

Offensive stats are easy to gleam just from looking at them. Whether someone is bad, mediocre, or good defensively comes up in the bios too. But the difference between good and excellent defensively is hard to gauge. Flowery language doesn't give a scale, so the ATD bios/UH bio/Cup bio don't give that depth of defensive ability. The same issue arose with Nighbor, that if you just read the ATD bio or Ultimate Hockey, it comes across that he's great and elite defensively, not the best player of his generation good.

If MacKay is truly that great defensively, then yes he should be in our top 4 this round.

In my opinion, if MacKay had better playoff credentials, he probably should have gone last round. But MacKay's playoff numbers are absolutely a weakness. How much should he be punished for that? I honestly don't know. MacKay was a relatively small clean player who got brutalized by goons of the era in ways that would be much more punished by the rules in anything resembling modern hockey. Just one example:

"As a counter to Montreals Bad Joe Hall, the Metropolitans trotted out the PCHAs top enforcer, Cully Wilson, an off-season shipyard worker who had established his bona fides in the goonery niche by breaking Mickey MacKays (Vancouver Millionaires) jaw in a fight by using his stick to cross-check MacKay in the face."

Wayback Machine: How the Mets missed a dynasty - Sportspress Northwest

Mother Nature and the military foiled Seattle's chances for greatness.

www.sportspressnw.com

Extreme example, but MacKay was pretty much a regular target for opposing goons in the PCHA playoffs.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Where do people sit with Foyston and MacKay? Good regular season and elite playoffs vs elite regular season and good playoffs.

Foyston being arguably the best player on 4 of his 5 Cups is impressive. Or I'm underrating Holmes.

 

[rmartin65]

No consideration that MacKay was sometimes credited with teaching Frank Nighbor the hook check?

Not really. Maybe I'm being close-minded, but that doesn't make MacKay any greater on the ice/as a player for me. It's a bit like Lester Patrick, right? Great for the game, great for his legacy as a hockey legend, but I'm not counting it in his favor as a player.

 

[rmartin65]

Where do people sit with Foyston and MacKay? Good regular season and elite playoffs vs elite regular season and good playoffs.

Foyston being arguably the best player on 4 of his 5 Cups is impressive. Or I'm underrating Holmes.

At the moment, I'm sympathetic to the idea that Holmes was better than he gets credit for here. I know @ResilientBeast has done some research into him, so I'm hoping he finds the time to post share a bit here.

I also think his teams were fairly strong-

In 1914 he had the following as teammates- Holms, Marshall, Cameron (@BenchBrawl come make a case for him!), Davidson, and Walker. Even if Marshall was well past his prime, that's a decent contingent of support.

1917 was weaker, but he still had Holmes, Walker, and Morris. And Rowe.

1919 had Holmes, Walker, Morris, and Rowe

1920 had Holmes, Walker, Morris, and Rowe

1925 saw him with Holmes (again), Walker (again), and Fredrickson.

Was he really the best on 4 out of those 5? I imagine you are throwing 1925 out, that seems like a pretty easy call.

As far as Foyston vs MacKay, I think @TheDevilMadeMe has made a good case for MacKay to get the nod.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not really. Maybe I'm being close-minded, but that doesn't make MacKay any greater on the ice/as a player for me. It's a bit like Lester Patrick, right? Great for the game, great for his legacy as a hockey legend, but I'm not counting it in his favor as a player.

I mean, it is sort of one part of him being a much better defensive player than George Hay or whoever else you want to say is #2 of that era from the guys available this round.

 

[rmartin65]

I mean, it is sort of one part of him being a much better defensive player than George Hay or whoever else you want to say is #2 of that era from the guys available this round.

I don’t see the two as related (perhaps I’m missing something?); teaching is different than doing. I have no problem with the claim that MacKay is better than Hay, both in general and defensively. I just don’t see how teaching someone how to do something makes him better as a player.

 

[rmartin65]

The submission period for ballots is open, please try to get them in by 9:00 PM EST on Sunday.

As usual, please continue to use the same PM chain when submitting your votes for this week.

Thank you!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure how much is there that hasn't been reposted, but if anyone feels they want to read more, the last 2 rounds of the HOH Top Centers project had a lot of discussion about the top (non-Taylor) PCHA centers:

Round 2, Vote 14 (HOH Top Centers)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Post 2 of every voting thread will contain instructions as to who to send your votes to. If you send your votes to the wrong person, we can't guarantee that they will be counted. MOD: This is a strictly on-topic thread. Posts that don't focus on the centers listed in...

forums.hfboards.com

Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Post 2 of every voting thread will contain instructions as to who to send your votes to. If you send your votes to the wrong person, we can't guarantee that they will be counted. MOD: This is a strictly on-topic thread. Posts that don't focus on the centers listed in...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[jigglysquishy]

Pulford's longevity in context

Players who had their primes in the 1890s

Player	Birth Year	Number of Seasons
Harvey Pulford	1875	14
Dolly Swift	1866	9
Mike Grant	1873	9
Dan Bain	1874	8
Graham Drinkwater	1875	6
Bob McDougall	1876	6
Harry Trihey	1877	5
Weldy Young	1871	?

Players who had their primes in the 1900s

Player	Birth Year	Number of Seasons
Paddy Moran	1877	17
Jack Marshall	1877	16
Jack Laviolette	1879	15
Joe Hall	1881	15
Si Griffis	1883	14
Russell Bowie	1880	12
Percy LeSueur	1881	12
Hod Stuart	1879	11
Riley Hern	1878	10
Tommy Phillips	1883	10
Ernie Russell	1883	8
Bouse Hutton	1877	7
Marty Walsh	1884	7
Dickie Boon	1878	6
Frank McGee	1882	4
Billy Nicholson	1878	?

He has the longest career of anyone born pre-1877. We see players in the 1882-1885 birth years start to play full "modern" length careers as they mature into professional leagues. The only skater from Pulford's era to have a longer career is Jack Marshall, who spent the last 8 years of his career in the NHA.

Amongst amateur players, it is literally the longest career. How much of that is actually strong play is up for debate. He peaked later (and likely lower) than Grant, but played 6 years after Grant retired.

I lean towards Pulford>Grant due to the incredible length of his career considering the era. Reading through his ATD bio I'm struck by how often he is remarked as elite defensively. Sure, he has basically zero offensive stats (as was expected of a Point), but being the best defensive player of his era for as long as he did is remarkable.


*Pulford easily could have been included in the prime 1900-1909 category, as his prime runs like ~1897-1905