Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 5

[seventieslord]

Procedure

• You will be presented with ~15 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to @seventieslord & @rmartin65
• Use the same private message thread every week rather than starting a new PM
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top-5 players will be added to The List (unless a very large break exists at the spot between 4&5 or 5&6, OR to correct for the previous week's irregular number of added players)
• Lists of players eligible for voting will grow as the project continues

Eligible Voters

• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 80 players (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the History of Hockey ranking
• @seventieslord , @Professor What , @nabby12 , @tarheelhockey , @Black Gold Extractor , @ResilientBeast , @Dr John Carlson , @Dreakmur , @jigglysquishy , @Johnny Engine , @rmartin65 , @TheDevilMadeMe , @overpass , @Habsfan18 , @BenchBrawl , @ImporterExporter

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project.

House Rules

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey (or older-than-old-time hockey) will be met with frontier justice
• We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
• Finish your drink when someone mentions that goaltenders cannot be compared to skaters

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, March 10th at midnight and continue through Sunday, March 12th at 8:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, March 13th.


Vote 2 Candidates

• Art Ross
• Babe Dye
• Bernie Morris
• Didier Pitre
• Frank Foyston
• George Hay
• Hap Holmes
• Harry Cameron
• Harvey Pulford
• Herb Gardiner
• Jack Walker
• Joe Simpson
• Mike Grant
• Percy LeSueur
• Reg Noble
• Tommy Dunderdale

​

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

Seventies' VsX equivalents for current forwards:
player	3y	5y	7y	10y
Dye	103	97	89	66
Foyston	89​	83​	76​	67​
Pitre	97​	87​	78​	70​
Hay	84​	79​	74​	67​
Noble	74​	71​	67​	59​
Walker	69​	61​	57​	52​
Dunderdale	94​	85​	78​	71​
Morris	94​	89​	82​	67​

Dye finally has a counterpart to compare to, sort of. Bernie Morris is another player with an electrifying peak and a fast dropoff, and Dye's numbers are better.

However, Morris was assist heavy and Dye was goal-heavy, so in a modern points environment this would look a lot closer.

I think it's fair to say both were one-dimensional forwards with not a lot else to like about them. That said, Morris seemed to have been more of an all-around offensive catalyst while Dye was literally just a shot. But what a shot! Take a look at today's NHL and it's still possible for a guy who's just a shot to be considered one of the best and most valuable players in the league, regardless of anything else, so at some point we have to give Dye his due.

Hay/Noble/Walker being compared is also interesting. Walker is definitely the weakest offensively, but (probably?) the best defensively. He had some strong linemates and rarely translated them into good numbers.

Noble shows up in the middle of them as an offensive force, but he also played half his career on D. So he only had half as many chances to compile high-scoring seasons. At his peak, he may have been a Hay-level scorer. As for the rest of his game: as a forward, I know little. Was he a glue-guy type? We certainly treat him like one in the ATD. But is that because of his time spent on D, where he was highly respected, and renowned for being tough and physical?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Good group of new additions. Jack Walker and Joe Simpson should get a lot of talk here, and within his generation LeSueuer is in a similar tier to goalies already inducted. Hopefully we have time to get into Dunderdale, Morris, and Noble as well, three guys with long careers who were important to the 10s and 20s.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm looking forward to someone making the case for Cameron. It's been hinted at, but the vote spread shows there isn't a consensus.

I would like to see some idea of Walker defensively. Definitely been some chatter of him being the second best defensive forward of his era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First impressions:

Harry Cameron is likely my #1 this round, and he'll be tough to dislodge. I don't really see what Moose Johnson has on him.

I feel like Art Ross should be ranked pretty close to Lester Patrick, but apparently I'm in the minority there!

What about Bullet Joe Simpson, the 2nd best player in WCHL history? (After Duke Keats). Of interest, the 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list:

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

Unlike Keats, lack of longevity is an issue for Bullet Joe, however.

I like Mike Grant over Harvey Pulford, but, at least if the guys ranking their careers after they retired are to be believed, neither one was anywhere close to Hod Stuart, so maybe they should wait a little longer? On the other hand, maybe Grant was already too "distant past" for the guys doing those lists to have seen him play.

Mike Grant vs Bullet Joe Simpson could be interesting... or it could just be a mess of uncertainties!

Among forwards, I think it could finally be time for Dye.

Interested in a Foyston vs Morris comparison. I have both of them comfortably over Jack Walker and Tommy Dunderdale. It's pretty clear the only reason Morris isn't in the HHOF is because he was criticized as being a draft dodger during the Great War, right?

Really happy to see Percy LeSueur available. I don't know much about him to be honest, but he was the clear cut top goalie of his generation according to the 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list. My rough guide is that "in a rapidly increasing talent pool, the top guy of the earlier weaker generation should be ranked close to a 2nd tier star of the later stronger generation" - if that holds, then LeSueur and Holmes should probably be ranked close.

 

[seventieslord]

We're getting to the point in the project where it has to be said that we have been really generous to the NHA/PCHA era and tough on anything before that.

In one respect, we are up against the constraints of the project (i.e. which players are eligible for voting), but I think there's this prevailing mindset that, as soon as you see players like McKay and Keats go in, you immediately think, "ok, now it's time for Foyston to get voted in, because he was almost as good", but just because the latter was true doesn't mean the former is.

I don't mean to pick on Foyston but if he goes in 1st this round he'll be the 8th 1890-1894 birthday to be voted in. Meanwhile, we have just 4 players voted in from the 2nd half of the 1880s, five from the first half of the 1880s and just one from anytime before that.

Available in this round are two true studs of their era, Harvey Pulford and Mike Grant. And the best goalie of his time, Percy LeSueur. The 4th best goalie of his own generation, Hap Holmes, has a big discussion and voting headstart on him. Is that fair?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seventies' VsX equivalents for current forwards:
player	3y	5y	7y	10y
Dye	103	97	89	66
Foyston	89​	83​	76​	67​
Pitre	97​	87​	78​	70​
Hay	84​	79​	74​	67​
Noble	74​	71​	67​	59​
Walker	69​	61​	57​	52​
Dunderdale	94​	85​	78​	71​
Morris	94​	89​	82​	67​

Dye finally has a counterpart to compare to, sort of. Bernie Morris is another player with an electrifying peak and a fast dropoff, and Dye's numbers are better.

However, Morris was assist heavy and Dye was goal-heavy, so in a modern points environment this would look a lot closer.

I think it's fair to say both were one-dimensional forwards with not a lot else to like about them. That said, Morris seemed to have been more of an all-around offensive catalyst while Dye was literally just a shot. But what a shot! Take a look at today's NHL and it's still possible for a guy who's just a shot to be considered one of the best and most valuable players in the league, regardless of anything else, so at some point we have to give Dye his due.

Hay/Noble/Walker being compared is also interesting. Walker is definitely the weakest offensively, but (probably?) the best defensively. He had some strong linemates and rarely translated them into good numbers.

Noble shows up in the middle of them as an offensive force, but he also played half his career on D. So he only had half as many chances to compile high-scoring seasons. At his peak, he may have been a Hay-level scorer. As for the rest of his game: as a forward, I know little. Was he a glue-guy type? We certainly treat him like one in the ATD. But is that because of his time spent on D, where he was highly respected, and renowned for being tough and physical?

You and I have said before that in an era when assists were undercounted, playmakers would be underrated by these methods, and goal scorers overrated.

Underrated amoung this group? Noble, ESPECIALLY because he spent some years at defense. I think it's a bit early for Reg, so I won't talk about him much, but when it's closer to the time, I do have quite a bit to post. Morris might be a bit more skewed towards playmaking as well.

Overrated when assists are undercounted? Dye and Dunderdale, as shoot-first players who really didn't do much else. That said, Dye's goal scoring looks so good among this group, he'll likely be in my top 5 anyway. Not so much for Dunderdale.

edit:. am I missing anyone else?

Available in this round are two true studs of their era, Harvey Pulford and Mike Grant. And the best goalie of his time, Percy LeSueur. The 4th best goalie of his own generation, Hap Holmes, has a big discussion and voting headstart on him. Is that fair?

Seems I responded to this with my thoughts 1 minute before you posted it

 

[jigglysquishy]

Players by HHoF induction date

1945
Harvey Pulford (deceased)

1949
Art Ross

1950
Mike Grant

1958
Frank Foyston
Herb Gardiner
George Hay

1960
Jack Walker

1961
Percy LeSueur

1962
Reg Noble

1963
Didier Pitre
Harry Cameron
Joe Simpson

1970
Babe Dye

1972
Hap Holmes

1974
Tommy Dunderdale

Not inducted
Bernie Morris


How much should we read into Morris never being inducted?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would like to see some idea of Walker defensively. Definitely been some chatter of him being the second best defensive forward of his era.

Even if Walker was the 2nd best defensive forward of his generation (something that is almost certainly true, given the effusive praise for Walker's defensive game), I don't think he was THAT much better than MacKay to justify going only 1 round later, given MacKay's vastly superior offense.

Walker's offense is quite pathetic for a forward available at this time.

How much should we read into Morris never being inducted?

In my opinion? Nothing. Morris was a draft dodger, which has nothing to do with hockey.

He was clearly a better player than Dunderdale, playing in the same league.

 

[seventieslord]

Is there anything else to Dunderdale? there was this stupid quote going around before comparing him to Pat Verbeek, and he has high PIMs, so was he tough and scrappy? His defense, I've never heard anything about.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is there anything else to Dunderdale? there was this stupid quote going around before comparing him to Pat Verbeek, and he has high PIMs, so was he tough and scrappy? His defense, I've never heard anything about.

My impression is that his defense was poor enough to actually be mentioned as a weakness, but he was scrappy.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I get that the draft dodging thing could impact Morris's HOF chances.

But he doesn't make a single appearance in the all-time contemporaries' opinion thread either. I have a hard time they all dinged him on that. Where there's smoke, right?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Mike Grant and Alf Smith are the oldest players to be inducted into the HHoF (if my reading is correct), coming from 1873 birth years. We then get HHoF inductions from basically every birth year post 1873. As I've mentioned earlier, it is the 1882-1885 birth years that start to see full career lengths. So how does Mike Grant compare to his contemporaries?

Player	Birth Year	First Year	Number of Seasons	Number of Games (including playoffs)
Paddy Moran	1877	1902 CAHL	16	206
Jack Marshall	1877	1901 MHA	16	148
Jack Laviolette	1879	1904 FAHL	15	210
Harvey Pulford	1875	1894 AHAC	14	118
Alf Smith	1873	1895 AHAC	12	67
Hod Stuart	1879	1899 CAHL	9	97
Mike Grant	1873	1894 AHAC	9	63
Dan Bain	1874	1894 MHL	8	38
Bouse Hutton	1877	1899 CAHL	7	47
Dickie Boon	1878	1900 CAHL	6	49
Graham Drinkwater	1875	1893 AHAC	6	41
Bob McDougall	1876	1894 AHAC	6	39
Harry Trihey	1877	1897 AHAC	5	38

These were all the 1870s players on my list (I believe).

A few things jump out at me. The era expectations changed so incredibly quickly. Pulford likely retired with the all-time games played record for hockey, only to have it soundly beat by Marshall and then Laviolette.

For context, Pitre was born in 1883 and played 365 senior games. Nighbor was born in 1893 and played 451.

Pulford's longevity, within the context of his birth year, is incredible. Grant's is strong, but not nearly the same calibre.


Grant started out much stronger, being the best defenseman by 1895. Pulford was basically a zero offensively his whole career, but managed to become a much stronger defensive player by 1900, eventually becoming the best defensive player in the world.

I agree with @seventieslord that the 1890s is underrepresented so far, and both these players are worthy of induction this round.

Is it crazy that I might have a top 3 of Cameron/Pulford/Grant in some order?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel like Art Ross should be ranked pretty close to Lester Patrick, but apparently I'm in the minority there!

I think Ross' lack of standing in the last vote may just have been a matter of nobody taking time to make a case for him so he went by the wayside for lack of attention (I include myself in all of that).

I like Mike Grant over Harvey Pulford, but, at least if the guys ranking their careers after they retired are to be believed, neither one was anywhere close to Hod Stuart, so maybe they should wait a little longer? On the other hand, maybe Grant was already too "distant past" for the guys doing those lists to have seen him play.

I have always been a little low on Pulford, I guess. But I just don't see him as a "special" player in the same vein as a Stuart or Grant. He's best known for two things: playing for long past the expiration date of most players of his generation, and being an early adopter of big-hit tactics. Without a doubt he has the lowest skill level of any player we are likely to consider in this project. His case is entirely based on his size and willingness to throw his body around during a time period when that was not quite an ingrained part of the sport yet.

I suggest a thought experiment: imagine yourself as an amateur hockey player in 1895, ambling down the wing in the manner of that time period, and this big burly guy comes across and just belts you to the ice. Most likely that is the first time you've ever seen someone really throw a full-body hit with intent to take you out of the game. Are you thinking to yourself "Wow, that's the best defenseman I've ever seen!" or are you thinking "I don't know what this guy's problem is, but **** this, I have to go to work tomorrow morning"?

Don't get me wrong, I grant that Pulford played at a high level for a long time and stayed relevant even after others adopted the hit-first style, so we're not talking about a scrub goon here. I just am not entirely sold that his reputation matches the reality of his play -- not least because he's openly talked about as a low-skill player who hardly ever attempted to do anything with a puck, even after it was vogue for Point players. How can someone be a Hall of Fame player as late as 1907, and have next-to-zero skill with a puck on their stick? The only way I can square that circle is to believe that he wasn't that high caliber of a hockey player, not at the level of players we're talking about so far in this project.

Really happy to see Percy LeSueur available. I don't know much about him to be honest, but he was the clear cut top goalie of his generation according to the 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list. My rough guide is that "in a rapidly increasing talent pool, the top guy of the earlier weaker generation should be ranked close to a 2nd tier star of the later stronger generation" - if that holds, then LeSueur and Holmes should probably be ranked close.

Agreed with this as a broad, non-specific principle.

We're getting to the point in the project where it has to be said that we have been really generous to the NHA/PCHA era and tough on anything before that.

In one respect, we are up against the constraints of the project (i.e. which players are eligible for voting), but I think there's this prevailing mindset that, as soon as you see players like McKay and Keats go in, you immediately think, "ok, now it's time for Foyston to get voted in, because he was almost as good", but just because the latter was true doesn't mean the former is.

I don't mean to pick on Foyston but if he goes in 1st this round he'll be the 8th 1890-1894 birthday to be voted in. Meanwhile, we have just 4 players voted in from the 2nd half of the 1880s, five from the first half of the 1880s and just one from anytime before that.

At risk of getting into the Talent Pool Argument, is a 5:4 ratio so hard to believe when comparing worthy candidates pre- and post-1890? It seems the overall number of formally-trained hockey players would have been increasing exponentially during this time period, so one would expect the birth dates to reflect that.

Here's what we have so far:

1895+ - Fredrickson, Boucher, Keats, Dye, Hay, Noble
1890-94 - Nighbor, Cleghorn, Malone, Gerard, Benedict, Denneny, MacKay, Morris, Foyston, Cameron, Gardiner, Simpson,
1885-89 - Lalonde, Vezina, Lehman, Johnson, Ross, Holmes, Walker, Dunderdale
1880-84 - Taylor, Bowie, Phillips, McGee, Patrick, Pitre, LeSueur
1875-79 - Stuart, Pulford
1870-74 - Grant

Bearing in mind that by 1895 we start getting into ineligible players because of consolidation, the inductees go 0, 1, 5, 4, 7, 3 and the inductees+nominees go 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 6.

Of course it doesn't need to be (and really shouldn't be) mathematically precise, but that feels about right for how the talent pool was tracking during this time period. 10 years really did make that much of a difference in terms of hockey popularity, money, opportunity, training, longevity, etc.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Does Grant have an argument for best player in the world in the late 1890s? His star power is immense.

Dan Bain and Bob McDougall are contenders.

Trihey explodes in 1899, Graham's last year as an impact player is 1898

Legends of Hockey bio

Mike Grant was the premier defensive specialist of 1890s ice hockey, playing the ancient position of cover-point primarily for the Montreal Victorias of the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada and the Canadian Amateur Hockey League.

A very strong case can be made that Mike Grant was hockey's first true star; he was the first player to actually draw crowds that would sell out ice rinks all over Eastern Canada. He was also the first hockey player that newspaper reporters consistently reported on which helped popularize the game via the press.

Grant, already an accomplished speed-skating champion, played his first hockey with the Young Crystals, the junior team to the Montreal Crystals, and was named Captain within a year. He led the Young Crystals to the championship and then its intermediate squad to two more titles. The Montreal Victorias took note of this rising young star and signed him to a contract in 1893. In his third season with the Victorias, Grant captained his team to the first of four consecutive Stanley Cup championships.

He was a tremendous leader of men, played a fine brand of defensive hockey, was most likely the quickest skater in the game, and he was the finest puck-rusher of early hockey by practically all accounts. In fact, it may have been Grant who influenced later puck-rushers like Art Ross and Lester Patrick to master this art. It is safe to assume that if a Norris Trophy was awarded back in Grant's era he would have earned perhaps four or five as he was the premier dominant defensive player of his time. Similarly, it could be easily argued that Grant would have won at least one Hart Trophy and maybe even a Conn Smythe Trophy had there been such awards.

How much weight do we put on being arguably the first true star of the sport?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think Ross' lack of standing in the last vote may just have been a matter of nobody taking time to make a case for him so he went by the wayside for lack of attention (I include myself in all of that).



I have always been a little low on Pulford, I guess. But I just don't see him as a "special" player in the same vein as a Stuart or Grant. He's best known for two things: playing for long past the expiration date of most players of his generation, and being an early adopter of big-hit tactics. Without a doubt he has the lowest skill level of any player we are likely to consider in this project. His case is entirely based on his size and willingness to throw his body around during a time period when that was not quite an ingrained part of the sport yet.

I suggest a thought experiment: imagine yourself as an amateur hockey player in 1895, ambling down the wing in the manner of that time period, and this big burly guy comes across and just belts you to the ice. Most likely that is the first time you've ever seen someone really throw a full-body hit with intent to take you out of the game. Are you thinking to yourself "Wow, that's the best defenseman I've ever seen!" or are you thinking "I don't know what this guy's problem is, but **** this, I have to go to work tomorrow morning"?

Don't get me wrong, I grant that Pulford played at a high level for a long time and stayed relevant even after others adopted the hit-first style, so we're not talking about a scrub goon here. I just am not entirely sold that his reputation matches the reality of his play -- not least because he's openly talked about as a low-skill player who hardly ever attempted to do anything with a puck, even after it was vogue for Point players. How can someone be a Hall of Fame player as late as 1907, and have next-to-zero skill with a puck on their stick? The only way I can square that circle is to believe that he wasn't that high caliber of a hockey player, not at the level of players we're talking about so far in this project.




Agreed with this as a broad, non-specific principle.



At risk of getting into the Talent Pool Argument, is a 5:4 ratio so hard to believe when comparing worthy candidates pre- and post-1890? It seems the overall number of formally-trained hockey players would have been increasing exponentially during this time period, so one would expect the birth dates to reflect that.

Here's what we have so far:

1895+ - Fredrickson, Boucher, Keats, Dye, Hay, Noble
1890-94 - Nighbor, Cleghorn, Malone, Gerard, Benedict, Denneny, MacKay, Morris, Foyston, Cameron, Gardiner, Simpson,
1885-89 - Lalonde, Vezina, Lehman, Johnson, Ross, Holmes, Walker, Dunderdale
1880-84 - Taylor, Bowie, Phillips, McGee, Patrick, Pitre, LeSueur
1875-79 - Stuart, Pulford
1870-74 - Grant

Bearing in mind that by 1895 we start getting into ineligible players because of consolidation, the inductees go 0, 1, 5, 4, 7, 3 and the inductees+nominees go 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 6.

Of course it doesn't need to be (and really shouldn't be) mathematically precise, but that feels about right for how the talent pool was tracking during this time period. 10 years really did make that much of a difference in terms of hockey popularity, money, opportunity, training, longevity, etc.

Great post. To add to what you said, the star of Ottawa was Frank McGee first, then Marty Walsh replaced McGee. With Pulford seeming more like what I would call "an elite complimentary player" if that makes sense.

Were you the one to first compare Harvey Pulford to Derian Hatcher as a player? I liked that comparison and have used it myself in the years since.

Anyway, I guess I feel like Pulford should go under Marty Walsh at least.

Does Grant have an argument for best player in the world in the late 1890s? His star power is immense.

Dan Bain and Bob McDougall are contenders.

Trihey explodes in 1899, Graham's last year as an impact player is 1898

Legends of Hockey bio



How much weight do we put on being arguably the first true star of the sport?

Not only does Grant have the argument, I think he has the best argument, and I'm honestly not sure if it's close, especially if you don't include Trihey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think Ross' lack of standing in the last vote may just have been a matter of nobody taking time to make a case for him so he went by the wayside for lack of attention (I include myself in all of that).

Ross is really hard to rank because the NHA didn't have All-Star teams like the PCHA did. But this ATD profile I did in 2021 is basically a compilation of just about everything that has been posted on hfboards about Art Ross as a player:

Art Ross, D

This is a consolidation of work done by jarek, overpass, Leafs Forever, HT18 and me.

Height: 5'11
Weight: 190 lbs.
Shoots: Left

Stanley Cup Winner (1907, 1908)

Awards and Achievements
MHL Pro 1st All Star Team (1907)
ECAHA 1st All-Star Team (1908)

Points Amongst Defensemen
MHL Pro (a few notable names): T-2nd (with Si Griffis) (1907)
ECHA: T-1st (1908)
NHA: 1st (1912), 2nd (1913), 2nd (1916), T-4th(1910)*, 5th (1911)

*A newspaper article found states Ross was actually 3rd in this year, and stood alone at 3rd.

seventieslord VsXD scores: 131, 94, 87, 83, 72, 45, 43, avg. 79.3

In addition to an exemplary career as a defenseman, He contributed to the development of hockey through his off-ice endeavors. He recorded 85 goals in 167 regular-season games and provided stability and savvy in the defensive zone.

In 1905 he made his first appearance for a major hockey organization by scoring 10 goals in eight games for the Westmount franchise in the Canadian Amateur Hockey League. He rapidly earned the distinction of being one of the top rushing defensemen in the game.

The following year he skated for Brandon of the Manitoba Hockey League. His play attracted the attention of the Kenora Thistles, who worked out a loan agreement with Brandon in time for their Stanley Cup challenge against the Montreal Wanderers in January 1907. During the two-game set, he received numerous ovations from the Montreal crowd. Although he didn't score, he made a number of quality offensive rushes that contributed to Kenora's Stanley Cup win. A year later, hiss services were purchased by the Wanderers in a move that strengthened an already formidable outfit. He was a key reason the Red Bands finished at the top of the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association standings and then beat back the Stanley Cup challenges from Winnipeg, Toronto and Edmonton.

Rushing and stickhandling:
Hockey Notes:

In late 1910, he rejoined the Wanderers, putting up four seasons there before joining the Ottawa Senators. "Ross played like an eel," XXXXX once said. "He was one of the greatest stickhandlers I ever saw. He could spin on a dime, and he was so tricky there was no blocking him."

Legends of Hockey - One on One With Art Ross

Ross was pioneering the defence position, and many compare him to Bobby Orr of more recent hockey. He was a rushing defenceman during an era when players in that position either shot the puck down the ice or passed to a forward. Instead, Ross carried the puck up the ice into the offensive zone.

Fearless fighter

Hockey Blog in Canada

He was viewed as a fearless player who never backed down from a fight in his life. Ross' highest PIM total was in 1913-14 with the Wanderers in the NHA. In 18 games, he spent 74 minutes in the penalty box! From 1912-17, Ross would never spend less than 55 minutes in the penalty box in one season despite only averaging 18 games per season in the NHA.

February 17, 1915 saw Ross square off in a fight with Toronto Blueshirts' player r Roy "Minnie" McGiffin which ended up with both players being arrested for assault. The fine of $1 each was paid in total by McGiffin who lost a coin toss to Ross while in jail. Referee Cooper Smeaton was almost arrested as well for his inability to control the fracas, but he escaped without penalty.

As still a player, Ross invented, "kitty-bar-the-door," probably the earliest version of a trapping defense in hockey

It was while Ottawa was travelling to Montreal for the 1915 NHA championship that Ross invented "kitty-bar-the-door" hockey, thinking that the fast, powerful Wanderers could be stopped by stringing three defensemen across the width of the ice, 30 feet in front of the goalie, defying any Montreal forward to skate through. The confident Wanderers, playing on home ice, even had a fleet of taxis waiting outside the rink to take them to the railway station so they could head west to meet Vancouver for the Stanley Cup. Their pride and Art Ross's defensive shell ensured that the taxis came in handy for the Ottawa Senators instead, who won the round on goals and caught the train to the coast.

"The greatest hockey player" "the finest defenseman in the east"

When Art Ross quits hockey the winter game will lose "the greatest player it ever produced." That batter title has been tossed about a bit, confered on first one and then another, but when they've all been rattled through the sifter Ross stands out as the brainiest, most consistent player over a long period of years that the game has ever known

Six feet in height, perfectly proportioned, always in the pink of condition, Ross in his hey-day added these assets terrific speed and a stick-wizardry that was little short of marvelous. In later days he lost his high flight of speed, but the ability to puzzle opponents with sheer trick skill has not deserted the big Scotsman. Although he doesn't flash and circle about the ice with the meteoric dash of yore, opposing defense still find it a difficult task to get the puck off Ross's elusive stick. Add to this a hockey brain of far more than average keeness which stored up the experience of many years, and Ross is still today a formidable addition to any game.

The ice game has never had a smarter player than Ross. How, when playing with Ottawa, he euchered the Wanders out of the championship of 1914-15 is still fresh in the minds of contemporary fans....

The dope was that Ottawa would try to make their defensive stand through a strong offense, and that was the style the Wanderers primed themselves for. Instead, when the game started Ross spread out three players in front of the Ottawa net. …

It was a neat a bit of ice generalship as was ever seen, and was a peculiarly gratifying victory to Ross.

Headline: Art Ross, Known as Best hockey Player, to quit

Art Ross, on defense, is the finest player in his position in the east.

ART ROSS Who's work at cover point for the Wanderers is subject to much comment in hockey circles. He has been in the professional ranks for many years and is still considered to be the most formidable defence man in the game.

It is a question if a better defense man than Art Ross was ever seen in the business. He was a terror to all other teams and it was a cry all over the circuit to watch Ross and beat the Wanderers. He was the particular player that the Ottawa watched but with all the precaution that the team took. Ross got away and it was his pair of goals that won the game that gave his team the silverware.

It was said by Jim Coleman that if you wanted to win the Cup, you went out and got Art Ross:

If you wanted to gather a team to win the Stanley Cup it was a good idea to hire Art Ross. That's the reason he played on so many different teams because when anybody was building for a Cup bid they'd get Ross to anchor their defense

Adding Art Ross was the reason Kenora was able to beat the Ottawa Silver Seven after losing. After Kenora, Ross moved on. The Wanderers hired Ross because he was the main reason they'd been beaten, so it made sense to put the lad in the red Wanderers jersey. The next season they won the Cup.

Contemporary comparison of Ross to Hod Stuart and Lester Patrick:

A discussion was started yesterday to the relative merits of Ross and the late Hod Stuart as hockey players. Nearly all who attended the Gardens in recent years have seen the great cover point, who met such an untimely death, play and regard his as the greatest ever. But there are many who declared Ross is superior, and not a few will watch his work tonight to make their own deductions.

(quoting an Ottawa Free Press writer) Reports of Arthur Ross being the sensation of the year have not been exaggerated. He is another Hod (sic) Stuart and then some. Speed, magnificent stick handling, ability to dodge everything and anybody, backed up by a fine shooting arm, places (sic) the celebrated athlete on a pinnacle few may hope ever to attain. Ross has everything. The cool head is ever prevalent. He can work by himself or with the rest of the team, has no disposition to be selfish and is gifted with a powerful physique to round off his other accomplishments.

Lester Patrick is stated to be as in good condition as he was when he played for the Wanderers two years ago, but this is doubtful. It is considered by the challengers that he has finer points in his stickhandling than Ross, but Ross is a stronger man at withstanding attacks and he has almost as spectacular and certainly a more aggressive manner of going up the ice. In Montreal Ross is regarded as the greatest defense player in hockey.

This particular passage suggests Ross was a selfish player compared to Stuart. There may have been some truth to that, but the accounts of him using his teammates exceed any mentions of selfishness.

Far Short of Hod Stewart
Ross fills the place on the team left by the late "Hod" Stewart, but he hasn't the finish that that great player had. His play is too much on the selfish order; he wants to score, and that is where Stewart had it on him. Stewart was satisfied to carry the puck into the opposing side's territory and pass to someone else to do the shooting. Thus he not only made a name for himself but one for the man who did the scoring. As a defence player Ross is not to be criticized, but when he sallies forth to do the scoring, he makes a mistake.

While Ross was better known for his offense, his defense also appears to have usually been strong:

Art Ross did the bulk of the work for Halleybury. He alone was successful in warding off the attacks of the Ottawa players...Ross was in game at all time, and had it not been for his sterling work Ottawa would run up a much bigger score.

Hooper (coverpoint), who had been handicapped by a late start this season, showed more speed last night and made one or two last night. He is still weak in blocking, however. For a time Ross and Hooper changed positions last night, but Ross is too strong a man in keeping a forward line out to justify a shift.â€

Art Ross made his first appearance in an Ottawa uniform and was a great factor in their victory He played a brilliant game on the defence- breaking up Toronto rushes on many occasions when scores seemed certain. He bowled the champions over with his body and there was an excuse for his rough work as he became the target for the Toronto tripping and slashing...Ross was very unselfish and figured in several clever two man rushes with Gerard.

Ross was one of the best men on the ice, his checking and rushing being sensational.

Ross and Cleghorn were never better and their clever defence play had much to do with the result.

As it was, Vics lacked a scorers, and against the good defense that Ross and Howard presented their attacks as a rule were broken up with ease.

With Ernie Johnson and Art Ross forming a great defense in front of the Wanderers' goal, the Ottawa attacks were rudely smashed...

Art Ross and Ernie Johnson, the two highly paid Montreal stars were very much alive. They tore through the Ottawa team repeatedly with irresistible aggressiveness.

There was one bright feature to the game, and that was the play of Art Ross, the Wanderer point. Ross has improved every time out this year, and last evening he gave one of the finest exhibitions of defence playing yet seen at the Arena. In breaking up attacks he was cool and fearless. He waited until the man was in, and seldom missed stealing the disc of intercepting the pass. From the start he kept rushing back into Victoria quarters, and his great speed and splendid stick handling made him too difficult a proposition for the challengers to solve. The crowd was not slow to appreciate the fine work he was doing, and every rush he made was greeted with increasing applause from all sides. Towards the end there was a tremendous call to the big cover-point to "come on yourself" every time he touched the disc.â€

Art Ross, who has starred with spectacular rushes in all his games this year, only once or twice got past centre ice in the first half. Patrick, who starred in the Quebec game with similar plays, was in much the same position as Ross, although more successful for a time. The forwards kept checking back relentlessly and it was almost impossible for one player to advance alone for any distance. In the second half, when there were weak spots on both teams, the individual's chances became better and Ross and Smaill on the one side and Patrick and Gilmour on the other pulled off some long runs.

Ross and (Frank) Patrick, playing much the same style of game, shone in dashes down the ice, but Ross had the shade better of it, as a defence player. Both Ross and Patrick figured for a goal on the score sheet, the result of end-to-end runs.

The defense was its strongest point, and had it not been for the work of Riley Hern and Art Ross, Ottawa would have scored twenty more goals...Ross tried innumerable rushes, his speed and stickhandling proving him to be a star of the first water. Ross, however, found Taylor and Pulford to be an impregenable combination

Ross was easily the individual star of the match and stood head and shoulders above all others, his brilliant work evoking round after round of applause. His speed was phenomenal, his stick handling superb, and his checking very effective.

When they did get in on the poles either Hern or Ross was there to save the day, and both the latter put up a good game.

Great defensive work may be expected of Ross at point, for he knows the game inside and out...

More comments on offensive game:

The Thistles grabbed (Ross) as an up and coming defence star. He could stickhandle and score like a forward, and after an outstanding series against the Montreal Wanderers he soon was back in his home town playing the game.

He later moved to the Ottawa Senators and during his stay there helped evolve the kitty-bar-the-door defence.

Taylor, according to the Ottawa men who saw Thursday night's game, is faster than Art Ross, but not the same finished stick handler.

Sensational plays on the part of the champions were numerous indeed and frequently the crowd arose and cheered enthusiastically the long rushes of Art Ross...Ross was easily the individual star of the match and stood head and shoulder over all others, his brilliant work evoking round after round of applause. His speed was phenomenal, his stick handling superb, and his checking very effective.

Ross was the most effective player of the Easterners, although he played on a strange pair of skates. He scored three goals as the result of end to end rushes right through the opposing team.

Art Ross was back in his old form and time and time again carried the puck from end to end passing it out to his forwards when nearing the opposite goal.

Hern, Ross, and Blachford were the stars...Ross's play was greatly admired by the crowd. Quebec could not solve his serpentine runs.

...all received a warm welcome last night. Especially was this true of the Cleghorn brothers, who once played with one of the local teams, and Art Ross, who for years has been recognized as one of the greatest of hockey players. Although under a tremendous handicap last night, Ross gave an exhibition that scintillated with brilliancy all the way, and his spectacular trips up and down the ice drew forth round after round of cheers.

Several days ago, while playing at home, Ross sustained a serious bruise on his back and right side. He went into this game so heavily bandaged that the protection stood out like huge pads under his heavy sweater. That his playing was affected by this injury could be plainly seen several times, when he was forced to rest after a brilliant display of his cleverness, but the injury was not enough to dim his lustre. His journeys up and down the rink were easily the features of the game that brimmed over with features.

When Ross set out to carry the puck through the opposing team he left the Ottawa players behind him as if they were standing still, cleverly eluding one and then another without any apparent exertion. A massed defense at the goal usually stopped his tries for a goal, but he managed to shoot two past the noted Le Sueur, both of them being at the finish of spectacular juggling.

Next to Ross the star playing for the Wanderers was done by Odie Cleghorn and Hyland...

The game was a series of splendid plays by both teams, the Wanderers easily excelling in spectacular feats. Sprague Cleghorn excelled in dazzling serpentine runs down the ice, for the Ottawa defense watched Art Ross closely and had him boxed when he approached the mouth of the net. In the open rink, however, Ross easily dodged and zigzagged his way through the Ottawa skaters.

Ross, out-generalling the opposing skaters who crowded about him, toyed and poked the rubber through the Ottawa players' skates, and always came out of the scrimmage with the puck and a broad smile.

Comments on his physicality and toughness:

One exciting encounter took place between Art Ross, of the Wanderers, and Mummery of the Quebecers. Both are 200 pounders, and they came together with a resounding crash. Both tried eachother's skill at tripping, and they were sent from the game for five minutes. Later on they repeated the rough work and were banished again.

Art Ross played against his old team mates and was one of Ottawa's best men. Prodgers prove the individual stud in the early stages but Ross met him with a crash and took all the steam out of the London Man.

The climax arrived when Art Ross and Mummery got into a fight and rolled around the ice, locked in eachother's arms. They were quickly seperated and both sent to the timers to cool off.

Ross was laid out by being struck with a puck over the heart, but the veteran continued pluckily.

Ross and Smaill, the two sturdy defence men, fairly took away the breath of those who were allowed into the preliminary canter. The way these giants sped over the mammoth surface was phenomenal... (sturdy could also be referencing defensive play)

The Wanderer defence was its strong point, Hern being the most effective. Ross was as good at point, although not up to last seasons's form, and Smail at cover was another source of strength.

Art Ross, who has earned a very enviable reputation in the past as a clean, honest player, was a vicious offender in the heavy work, and frequently sent to the side.

A fist-fight marked the closing minutes of the game and some of the spectators rushed on the ice to get a better view of the combat. Ross of the Wanderers and Oatman of Quebec were the principals in the clash.

With Oatman in the lead, the unruly pair skated towards the penalty timer's box and, as the Quebec player started to mount the rail Ross, angered at the crack he received on the head, pulled off his glove and struck Oatman a hard blow over the eye with his bared first. This was the signal for about fifty excitable spectators to jump on the ice but they were soon shooed off by the Westmount police and Arena officials. After Ross had punched him, Oatman was eager to continue the fray, but peacemakers kept the belligerents separated.

The fight occured with but two minutes of play remaining...when the game finished policemen were placed to guard the dressing rooms.

It was not a good game from the hockey point of view...that the Wanderers are fallen idols was plain from the attitude of the crowd. Most of the spectators seemed to support Quebec.

...Ross charged into Cameron, knocking him unconscious...McGiffin finally began to mix things up with Ross and tripped the ex-Wanderer player. Ross waited his opportunity and then sent McGiffin head over heels into the boards with a body. It dazed the Toronto man and took much of his effectiveness away.

Play was rough towards the close. Art Ross and Percy Leseur having several tiffs. Ross persisted in bothering Leseuer and Lake

A few negative passages

He did seem to be selfish at times:

Ross, it is claimed, has not been playing his game of last winter, when he was acclaimed as the greatest point in hockey, and his showing in the Saturday night match was not considered satisfactory. It is further said that he might have won Saturday's game for Wanderers had he displayed better judgment and passed the disc to Vair when Lesueur ran out to block him in the thrilling play of the last four minutes of the big match. Ross tried to score the goal off his own stick when he had only Lesueur to elude. Weakness in passing, it is claimed, has spoiled his efficiency this winter and Wanderers have decided on a change.

He had some bad games too:

Ross, Hyland, and Roberts look just about due for the ash heap, while Russell and Millar were sent there some time ago. Ross looked like a sick duck in his dying efforts to break into the limelight, and only once did he break away from the watchful "Minnie" who was working hard to get a chance to put him away.

Performance in the 1915 Stanley Cup Final

Ross seemed to get a little too dirty (penalty trouble) when things didn't go his way:

The first goal scored by the visitors came after Lehman had stopped a wicked shot from Art Ross. Darragh caught the rebound and slipped the runner into the net without giving Lehman a chance.

In front of (Benedict) Merril and Ross gave good support, but stellar stick-handling on the part of Vancouver forwards repeatedly beat them. Ross particularly seemed to suffer from the hard-going of the match and if anything marred his work by a little too free use of the stick.

Ross initiated many rushes, but was too much inclined to rough it. Ross went to the penalty bench a couple of times but at that got away with a lot of stuff that escaped the eyes of the officials.

Gerard was the most effective man on the Ottawa line...Merrill and Ross found the Vancouver forwards too speedy for them. Ross initiated many fine rushes down the ice.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Not only does Grant have the argument, I think he has the best argument, and I'm honestly not sure if it's close, especially if you don't include Trihey.

Shouldn't this weigh strongly then? How many players in this project ever held the title of best player in the world? Not best single season, but the general title.

Grant
Stuart
Bowie (McGee?)
Phillips
Taylor
Nighbor
Morenz?

He's the only eligible player to not be inducted, except his predecessors. And if he is the first star, maybe we can say he's the first true best player in the world.

The Victorias are arguably the first dynasty. If he is their best player, doesn't that count for a lot?

 

[overpass]

What are the sources for Pulford having no puck skills? He was a poor skater, which I would think is enough reason for him to have rarely rushed the puck.

Pulford was a great football player, and rated a mention in a 1926 Macleans article about the greatest Canadian football players of all time. While the article was the companion to the 1925 hockey piece, it was just one man’s opinion instead of a nationwide poll. Anyway, when imagining Pulford I find it helpful to keep in mind that he was a great football player who was recognized for his brains and organizing ability in both sports.

It may speak to the lower quality of the sport at the time that a star football player who was a poor skater could be a fixture at the highest level. But then again, Lionel Conacher did the same thing 30 years later.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Were you the one to first compare Harvey Pulford to Derian Hatcher as a player? I liked that comparison and have used it myself in the years since.

I don't know, but I'll always take credit for a good idea

What are the sources for Pulford having no puck skills? He was a poor skater, which I would think is enough reason for him to have rarely rushed the puck.

I mean, if he was only a poor skater, that really doesn't help him in a "2nd best hockey player at any position born in a 5-year period" contest.

 

[rmartin65]

Shouldn't this weigh strongly then? How many players in this project ever held the title of best player in the world? Not best single season, but the general title.

Grant
Stuart
Bowie (McGee?)
Phillips
Taylor
Nighbor
Morenz?

He's the only eligible player to not be inducted, except his predecessors. And if he is the first star, maybe we can say he's the first true best player in the world.

The Victorias are arguably the first dynasty. If he is their best player, doesn't that count for a lot?

Something I just thought of- where is Grant being spoken of as the best player in the world? It's been a bit since I went through those seasons, but nothing is coming to mind off the top of my head, from the game summaries, at least.

I do think he was the best of the Vics (who were either the first or second dynasty, depending on how you view the late 1880s/early1890s MAAA teams), so that does carry some value for me. I just don't know if I there is support for the "best-player-in-the-world" tag like there is for the other guys you mentioned.

What are the sources for Pulford having no puck skills? He was a poor skater, which I would think is enough reason for him to have rarely rushed the puck.

I'm a little strapped for time so I won't go find the quote just now (I'll come back with it if I remember), but early in his Senior career a paper wrote that he was the kind of player that played with one hand on his stick (the paper was citing a flaw in his otherwise fine play). He definitely improved as he continued his career, but he that would be thee first thing that pops into my head.

As a counterpoint- he was well-respected for lifting the puck, which was a common/important part of the game until roughly the mid-1900s. Indeed, a common subject for criticism of points and coverpoints was when they were unable to lift the puck satisfactorily. Pulford was one of the best at it, so I would struggle to say he had weak puck skills in the context of what was expected for a player in his position at the time. He also ended up becoming a somehwat accomplished rusher, which would indicate some level of stickhandling ability when considering his poor skating.

As for the poor skating- he was definitely a poor skater (and I know nobody is challenging this, I'm just using it as a springboard), called the worst in all of Senior hockey at one point (after he was already an established player). However, I get the sense- and I can't exactly back it up, so take this for whatever you will- that Pulford's skating issues were not speed related, but, rather, in connection with his change of direction/agility capabilities.

_______________
On the topic of Lesueur- I wholeheartedly challenge the idea that Lesueur was the best goalie of his era. For me, that is Moran. Moran was the one making all star teams*, Moran is the one with mentions of being the "king of goaltends" in the game summaries, etc. Lesueur was a very good goalie on a very good team, and absolutely deserves a spot in this project.... I just think it should be after Moran.

*I'm tracking two 1908 ECAHA All Star teams (neither of which (I think) were "official" by any stretch of the imagination):

One originally written by the Ottawa Free Press-
Goal- Paddy Moran, Quebec
Point- Fred Taylor, Ottawa
Cover- Joe Power, Quebec
Rover- Russell Bowie, Victorias
Center- C. Power, Quebec
RW- Alf Smith, Ottawa
LW- Tom Phillips, Ottawa

And another by (I believe) the Montreal Star, which was the result of a couple fans talking during half time of one of the games about half way through the season-
First Team
Goal- Moran (Quebec)
Point- Ross (Wanderers)
Cover- Taylor (Ottawa)
Rover- Bowie (Victorias)
Wing- Phillips (Ottawa)
Wing- Gilmour (Victorias)
Center- Welsh (Ottawa) [should be Walsh, I don't know if that is my typo or the paper's]

Second Team
Goal- Nicholson (Shamrocks)
Point- F. Patrick (Victorias)
Cover- Pulford (Ottawa)
Rover- Glass (Wanderers)
Wing- Johnston (Wanderers) [comment- Johnson, the papers commonly misspell the name]
Wing- Blachford (Wanderers)
Center- E. Russell (Wanderers)

Interestingly, Lesueur was not listed at goal for any of the three teams provided here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Something I just thought of- where is Grant being spoken of as the best player in the world? It's been a bit since I went through those seasons, but nothing is coming to mind off the top of my head, from the game summaries, at least.

I do think he was the best of the Vics (who were either the first or second dynasty, depending on how you view the late 1880s/early1890s MAAA teams), so that does carry some value for me. I just don't know if I there is support for the "best-player-in-the-world" tag like there is for the other guys you mentioned.

I'm a little strapped for time so I won't go find the quote just now (I'll come back with it if I remember), but early in his Senior career a paper wrote that he was the kind of player that played with one hand on his stick (the paper was citing a flaw in his otherwise fine play). He definitely improved as he continued his career, but he that would be thee first thing that pops into my head.

As a counterpoint- he was well-respected for lifting the puck, which was a common/important part of the game until roughly the mid-1900s. Indeed, a common subject for criticism of points and coverpoints was when they were unable to lift the puck satisfactorily. Pulford was one of the best at it, so I would struggle to say he had weak puck skills in the context of what was expected for a player in his position at the time. He also ended up becoming a somehwat accomplished rusher, which would indicate some level of stickhandling ability when considering his poor skating.

As for the poor skating- he was definitely a poor skater (and I know nobody is challenging this, I'm just using it as a springboard), called the worst in all of Senior hockey at one point (after he was already an established player). However, I get the sense- and I can't exactly back it up, so take this for whatever you will- that Pulford's skating issues were not speed related, but, rather, in connection with his change of direction/agility capabilities.

_______________
On the topic of Lesueur- I wholeheartedly challenge the idea that Lesueur was the best goalie of his era. For me, that is Moran. Moran was the one making all star teams*, Moran is the one with mentions of being the "king of goaltends" in the game summaries, etc. Lesueur was a very good goalie on a very good team, and absolutely deserves a spot in this project.... I just think it should be after Moran.

*I'm tracking two 1908 ECAHA All Star teams (neither of which (I think) were "official" by any stretch of the imagination):

One originally written by the Ottawa Free Press-
Goal- Paddy Moran, Quebec
Point- Fred Taylor, Ottawa
Cover- Joe Power, Quebec
Rover- Russell Bowie, Victorias
Center- C. Power, Quebec
RW- Alf Smith, Ottawa
LW- Tom Phillips, Ottawa

And another by (I believe) the Montreal Star, which was the result of a couple fans talking during half time of one of the games about half way through the season-
First Team
Goal- Moran (Quebec)
Point- Ross (Wanderers)
Cover- Taylor (Ottawa)
Rover- Bowie (Victorias)
Wing- Phillips (Ottawa)
Wing- Gilmour (Victorias)
Center- Welsh (Ottawa) [should be Walsh, I don't know if that is my typo or the paper's]

Second Team
Goal- Nicholson (Shamrocks)
Point- F. Patrick (Victorias)
Cover- Pulford (Ottawa)
Rover- Glass (Wanderers)
Wing- Johnston (Wanderers) [comment- Johnson, the papers commonly misspell the name]
Wing- Blachford (Wanderers)
Center- E. Russell (Wanderers)

Interestingly, Lesueur was not listed at goal for any of the three teams provided here.

Are you looking at just 1908? It's possible LeSueur wasn't the best that year, but he was other years, isn't it?

Three ways to look at retrospectives of the careers of the goalies of this era (LeSueur, Moran, Hern, and Hutton were the HHOFers):

1) LeSueur was the "2nd Team All-Time All-Star" on the 1925 MacLean's team. I didn't count up the votes, but he led his generation by enough to be ranked 2nd Team, while nobody else from his generation was even 3rd team.
2) LeSueur had 4 mentions as "best goalie ever" in the all-time lists with have by contemporaries. 1 person mentioned Riley Hern (IMO, one mention is no better than zero in these things): All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries
3) HHOF admission: Moran, (1958) LeSueur (1961), Hern/Hutton (the 1962 mass induction).

My impression is that LeSueur as the best was the majority opinion, with Moran also getting support. With the other 2 HHOF goalies of the era (Hutton/Hern) much less celebrated. But I'm not 100% of that, not even close. LeSueur was the goalie of a dynasty, is he just overrated in retrospectives because of that?

 

[rmartin65]

Are you looking at just 1908? It's possible LeSueur wasn't the best that year, but he was other years, isn't it?

Three ways to look at retrospectives of the careers of the goalies of this era (LeSueur, Moran, Hern, and Hutton were the HHOFers):

1) LeSueur was the "2nd Team All-Time All-Star" on the 1925 MacLean's team. I didn't count up the votes, but he led his generation by enough to be ranked 2nd Team, while nobody else from his generation was even 3rd team.
2) LeSueur had 4 mentions as "best goalie ever" in the all-time lists with have by contemporaries. 1 person mentioned Riley Hern (IMO, one mention is no better than zero in these things): All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries
3) HHOF admission: Moran, (1958) LeSueur (1961), Hern/Hutton (the 1962 mass induction).

My impression is that LeSueur as the best was the majority opinion, with Moran also getting support. With the other 2 HHOF goalies of the era (Hutton/Hern) much less celebrated. But I'm not 100% of that, not even close. LeSueur was the goalie of a dynasty, is he just overrated in retrospectives because of that?

The all star teams are from 1908, but the general feel I get was that Moran was better through at least 1908 (that's as far as I've gotten in the primary sources, and probably as far as I will go).

I would note that three of LeSueur's mentions in that thread were by Taylor- not exactly an objective marker, considering they were teammates for a while. The 1925 team is a pretty good mark in LeSueur's favor, though.

Looking at what you've provided, I think there is a decent chance we are both right; Moran was the best through 1908 or so while LeSueur was the best for the second half of their careers.

EDIT- I’m obviously not going to hold up LeSueuer until we see Moran, my argument here is solely against the idea that he was definitely the best goalie of his time.

EDIT Part 2- I think I’ve been underrating Ross the whole time. And perhaps Cameron. I think this is going to be a D heavy round for me, unless I read some arguments convincing me to the contrary.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

On the topic of Lesueur- I wholeheartedly challenge the idea that Lesueur was the best goalie of his era. For me, that is Moran. Moran was the one making all star teams*, Moran is the one with mentions of being the "king of goaltends" in the game summaries, etc. Lesueur was a very good goalie on a very good team, and absolutely deserves a spot in this project.... I just think it should be after Moran.

Agreed 100%. Moran seems sorely underrated.

I don't think Pulford has been given a fair shake in this thread. rmartin's season recaps describe a player who seemed to improve with age, particularly his rushing. I guess it's easier to improve when you start out as a bit of a zero, but it's not like he was a complete flounder out there the whole time. I'm mostly impressed by the length of his prime. Considering the era, it's gotta be one of the longest of anybody in this project - though I think a player who dished out the punishment could inherently last longer than a player who took the punishment. Anyway, I like Harvey over Mike Grant.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Points Amongst Defensemen
MHL Pro (a few notable names): T-2nd (with Si Griffis) (1907)
ECHA: T-1st (1908)
NHA: 1st (1912), 2nd (1913), 2nd (1916), T-4th(1910)*, 5th (1911)

*A newspaper article found states Ross was actually 3rd in this year, and stood alone at 3rd.

seventieslord VsXD scores: 131, 94, 87, 83, 72, 45, 43, avg. 79.3

@rmartin65 do you remember off hand how much rover Ross ended up playing? Was it significant?