It would seem that Cleghorn has the career edge, but these numbers fail to take into consideration a very important point. Cleghorn played many more games during the NHA years, when scoring was more prolific.
Fair point. Let's take a closer look:
Cleghorn NHA: 119-135-23-158 (1.13, .19, 1.33)
Broadbent NHA: 57-50-10-60 (.88, .18, 1.05)
Cleghorn NHL: 181-95-34-129 (.52, .19, .71)
Broadbent NHL: 303-121-51-172 (.40, .17, .57)
NHA GPG over the 7 years Cleghorn played: 8.90
NHA GPG over the 3 years Broadbent played: 8.37
That's a 6% difference but Cleghorn outpointed Broadbent by 27%.
NHL GPG over the 8 years Cleghorn spent as an NHL regular: 6.89
NHL GPG over the 9 years Broadbent spent as an NHL regular: 6.55
That's a 5% difference but Cleghorn outpointed Broadbent by 25%.
Broadbent, perhaps because of his defensive prowess, was able to play longer after the age of 30 in the NHL, which no doubt took it's toll on career PPG etc.
From '23-'24 to the end of his career, Cleghorn only played 74 games. Conversely, Broadbent played 217. That's a huge discrepancy when a season was 44 games at most.
I think both players were at the end of the line in their last three seasons. the difference is probably that Broadbent stuck around as a defensive player while Cleghorn was a player-coach of Pittsburgh and was almost always just a sub. Both things can impact their career points per game averages, so let's remove those games and re-run the numbers:
Cleghorn NHL Prime: 159-93-33-126 (.58, .21, .79)
Broadbent NHL Prime: 174-108-40-148 (.62, .23, .85)
The only edge numerically that I can find, and it's a quite small one.
Broadbent's one elite season came in the NHL though, when he won the scoring race as well as the goal crown. That holds extra weight.
what does - the fact that it was the NHL, or the fact that it came with the scoring crown?
If you mean because it was the NHL, I'd like to know why. The NHL before 1926 was just as much a splinter league as the NHA. Nearly half the best players were in the west in both cases.
Besides, Cleghorn's elite season came in the NHL, too. 1919. He was 2nd in points behind Newsy Lalonde that year too. But yeah, coming first is better than coming second.
Does that override the four extra times Cleghorn was a top-15 and top-20 scorer?
Again, Broadbent didn't have the benefit of extra NHA time during his younger years.
I agree the NHA was higher scoring. Considering Cleghorn outscored and outpointed Broadbent by 25-30% in both leagues I don't see how more games for Broadbent in the NHA would change anything.
Broadbent was so tough that even heavies like Sprague didn't mess with him, and he was as adept using his body along the boards as he was with his fists. Not for nothing was he named as UH's "Best Corner Man" of the 20s. AFAIK, Odie's biggest claim to toughness was that he was handy with a stick and his big brother would come to his rescue when that didn't work. It's hardly the same thing.
Like I said, Broadbent is tougher. In the same way that Neely is tougher than Shanahan, IMO. You're understating Cleghorn's toughness considering he was once called a disgrace to hockey, was listed as one of the roughest players ever, and according to what I read, he stuck up for Sprague, too.
Being part of an NHL dynasty then winning the Cup with another team shorty thereafter isn't negligible, that's for sure.
I agree it is worth something. Especially further back when one player constitutes a larger percentage of a team.
What's more, Odie's one great playoff year was riding shotgun with the likes of Newsy Lalonde, and his numbers were overshadowed accordingly. Meanwhile, Broadbent was the dominant player in his playoffs.
I agree it was an excellent playoff. He had 7 points in 8 games and no one else on his team had more than four. Geez, who was he trying to be, Tommy Phillips?
That said, Cleghorn had the second best playoff of the two.
Yes, he is quite a bit better, because he was the most feared forward in the league in his time and Odie was nothing of the sort, Punch is mentioned everywhere as a superb player in his own end and Odie's a non-factor in that regard, Broadbent had a greater peak and played most of his career in a lower scoring NHL, and he was also a crucial cog in a dynasty team, rather than a one Cup winner.
Cleghorn should be selected higher, but if you consider Broadbent's team success, all-around game, and put his numbers into context, Odie comes up well short.
Physically and defensively, and contributing to a winner, I can't argue. As for peak, if you want to say leading the league in goals and points is significantly better than leading in goals and coming second in points, you are free to say that. A better measure of peak is to look at the best handful of years. As I said, Cleghorn was a top-5 scorer three times and Broadbent just one. The nice thing about that is, you can blame the raw numbers on the NHA which is partially true (but debunked) but their rankings year-by-year throughout the league would stay what they are even under any kind of adjustment formula. Cleghorn was just among the league leaders more often. Broadbent was often an ordinary player offensively; Cleghorn rarely was. Top-20 nine times is Sweeney Schriner, Mike Gartner, Rod Gilbert territory. Top-20 five times is Baldy Northcott, Elmer Lach, and Joe Mullen territory.
I can see the areas where Broadbent has the edge but the offensive gap is significant and I don't know that he makes all of that up in other areas.
- the rest I was able to get for pretty cheap. It sure added up, though.
