ATD 2012 - Draft Thread VIII

[Sturminator]

To anyone who is interested, I highly recommend this site (which I found linked to hockey-reference.com) as an introduction to modern analytical methods in hockey statistics: http://hockeyanalytics.com/

Their documents (all nicely arranged in PDF form) regarding player contribution calculation methods, the impact of puck possession on GF/GA differentials, zone starts for players, transition scores (how often a player affected in which zone the puck was in and if it was positive or negative), etc. are all quite enlightening. Happy reading.



note: you munchkins who think that offensive defensemen are teh suck can just skip this site. Pretty much all modern statistical methods indicate that offensive defensemen are typically underrated, if not by the common hockey fan, then certainly by the common ATD troglodyte. Call it The Phil Housley Effect. This is because, to sum up a lot of complicated information and arguments, offensive defensemen "play defense" largely by making sure that the puck is rarely in their own zone. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[vecens24]

What if he hadn't died young? I think we know enough now to say clearly that Vezina wasn't a gift HHOF induction like we used to think long ago in the ATD, but the circumstances of his death and the fact that he was a beloved Hab may have affected his legacy. Long after the fact accounts from guys like Jack Adams are nice, but sentiment is always a factor that must be accounted for.

And then there is the much bigger question of whether or not Benedict's draft position is entirely deserved. He first rose to the point at which he has pretty much stayed based on an entirely statistical analysis by pitseleh, if you remember correctly. As there is likely no goalie in history who has benefitted more in terms of GAA from team situation relative to his peers than Benedict, it is legitimate to question whether or not he really is as good as we've long held him to be. pit's analysis was entirely GAA based, if you recall.

I've always been a bit shy of Benedict specifically because I thought the statistical argument was likely a distortion, but we had no other information, so there wasn't much to refute it. Never once seriously considered drafting him. With it now becoming clearer and clearer that Benedict was not the clear cut best goalie of his era, I don't think that revelation only elevates his competition. If you remember correctly, pitseleh's conclusion after all those statistics was that Benedict was clearly the dominant goalie of his era...and look at how well his teams did (this was back before we even knew who the best player on those Sens teams really was). This was used to justify his lofty draft position. Now that we have more information on those Sens teams (Benedict was at best the second best player, and at times maybe third, fourth or fifth best), and on Benedict's standing relative to the other goalies of the era, I think it's probably time we take a sharp knife to the ATD canon surrounding this player.

The more I think about it, the more I think Devil is probably right: Vezina and Benedict are equals, but neither one of them is on the Brimsek - Tretiak level.

I had a nice long write up of a response for this, using the '26 Maroons as an example, but TDMM about a year and a half ago during the early era round up for theHOHHOF summed it up well:

In his thirteen year career, Clint Benedict led the NHL in the following categories: games played 9 times; shutouts 7 times; GAA 6 times; and wins 6 times. This level of statistical dominance is on par with that of Hasek, Durnan and Dryden. Benedict's record would be even better if you included his NHA seasons (the only reason I haven't done that myself is I don't have access to the data).

Admittedly I don't like using wins, shutouts or GAA (all strongly influenced by a goalie's team) when more accurate data is available. However, there's evidence that Benedict was not just a product of his team.

How do we know that Benedict wasn't a product of his team? Let's consider the 1925 season. Benedict was shipped away from Ottawa (who had won three Cups in the past five years). Ottawa fell from 1st in the league and 2nd in goals against, to 4th in the league in both points and goals against (in a six-team league with two expansion teams). Benedict was sent to the Montreal Maroons, one of the two expansion teams. Benedict's Maroons actually finished 3rd in the league in goals against; not only did they beat the Bruins and the established St. Patricks (Leafs), but they actually surrendered fewer goal's than Benedict's old team, the Senators! The Sens still had a great blueline featuring Clancy, Boucher and Hitchman, not to mention defensive forward Nighbor. Unless you think that playing behind a defense corp of Dunc Munro, Gerry Munro, Geroge Carroll and Frank Cain was the key to Benedict's success, it seems clear that Benedict was the key to the Sens' success.

In short: once Benedict was taken off a dynasty team (that retained the rest of their core players), the team's goals-against and win percentage suffered dramatically. Benedict led an expansion team with a weak blueline to a better defensive record (ie fewer goals against) than his former team.

Benedict was the best playoff performer of his era. In addition to win three Stanley Cups in the NHL, his GAA dropped by 0.46 in the playoffs, falling to under two goals per game. During the span of his career, Benedict was responsible for 30% of all shutouts in the playoffs!

Although there is a tendency to say that Benedict played long ago when goaltending was much different, it's worth emphasizing that Benedict was one of the most innovative and creative goalies of his era. Benedict is generally regarded as the first goalie to routinely fall to the ice to make a save - in fact, the NHL was forced to change the rules that required goalies to always remain standing, to accommodate Benedict's new style. Benedict was also the first goalie in NHL history to wear a mask, beating Plante by 30-something years.

Unfortunately there were few awards in Benedict's era. All-star teams were not introduced until 1931, the year after his retirement. The Hart trophy wasn't introduced until 1924 (towards the end of Benedict's peak) but he still finished 3rd in 1925 (behind Burch and Morenz).

In summary, Clint Benedict was the best goalie in the NHL's first decade. His statistical dominance is on par with Hasek, he was an elite playoff performer, and, as indicated by the 1924 trade, he was the key to his team's success.

I'm all for delving deeper into this though. It is entirely possible Brimsek was better. But I do think for the purposes of the ATD it's splitting hairs. They're both in the top 10 to me, somewhere in the 8-10 range probably after the revelations of Brimsek you gave us Sturm.

 

[BenchBrawl]

hey seventieslord , did you do the research on those defensemen yet? I'm just curious to see the results.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I think he said it should be done today. He expanded it to include some more guys, which is why it's taken so long. I think we should wait for the results to be published, debate them for a day or two, and then get voting for the regular season underway.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I had a nice long write up of a response for this, using the '26 Maroons as an example, but TDMM about a year and a half ago during the early era round up for theHOHHOF summed it up well:



I'm all for delving deeper into this though. It is entirely possible Brimsek was better. But I do think for the purposes of the ATD it's splitting hairs. They're both in the top 10 to me, somewhere in the 8-10 range probably after the revelations of Brimsek you gave us Sturm.

That entire post (written by Hockey Outsider during the 2009 top players project) is based entirely on team stats GAA, wins, and shutouts, and is exactly the kind of argument that IMO has been debunked by delving deeper.

Ottawa was back up to 1st in GAA two seasons after Benedict left, anyway.

Edit: I think you can make an argument for Benedict as the best of his era, but it's not a clear cut case like we thought back then.

 

[seventieslord]

I think he said it should be done today. He expanded it to include some more guys, which is why it's taken so long. I think we should wait for the results to be published, debate them for a day or two, and then get voting for the regular season underway.

I basically couldn't touch it all day yesterday, or all day today up till now at least. Super busy days at work here.

 

[vecens24]

That entire post (written by Hockey Outsider during the 2009 top players project) is based entirely on team stats GAA, wins, and shutouts, and is exactly the kind of argument that IMO has been debunked by delving deeper.

Ottawa was back up to 1st in GAA two seasons after Benedict left, anyway.

Edit: I think you can make an argument for Benedict as the best of his era, but it's not a clear cut case like we thought back then.

First off I do not mean to marginalized the work you've done on Vezina TDMM. I just wanted to say that first and foremost.

I think the fact that Benedict was far and away the most different (innovative/illegal is what I mean by this) definitely lost him supporters among the group of writers of the era. I understand Nighbor was the most awesome defensive forward/rover of his day, and I understand that they had maybe the best defensive defenseman of the generation in Gerard, plus a better overall defenseman in Cleghorn. But do we not think its possible Benedict was also useful? The fact of the players calibre shouldn't reduce Benedict's accomplishments. They definitely shouldn't help, but just how Brodeur was in many ways helped by his defense, why can't Benedict be held in the same regard (I clearly have Brodeur over Benedict but I think a double standard is takin place here). Do we not think its possible Benedict was goaltending superbly and outside of Nighbor was the most important piece of a dynasty?

 

[seventieslord]

The Big Defensemen Study

Name | Career GP | Career TOI | Career ATOI | Team Strength | PP% | PK% | Prime Yrs | Prime GP | Prime TOI | Prime ATOI | Team Strength | Score | OffPrimeGP | OffPrimeScore | PrmESPPG | PrmPPPPG | PrmPPG | Prm Def | APD | Recognition
Sergei Zubov | 1068 | 25.55 | 26.12 | 1.17 | 82 | 33 | 98-08 | 751 | 26.05 | 26.63 | 1.17 | 28.04 | 317 | 26.23 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.78 | 0.82 | 2.65 | 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 13th, 13th, 13th
Kevin Hatcher | 1157 | 24.91 | 25.36 | 1.03 | 54 | 51 | 89-98 | 730 | 26.73 | 27.22 | 1.04 | 27.57 | 427 | 22.29 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.68 | 1.07 | 3.23 | 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 12th, 15th, ASG
Ian Turnbull | 628 | 28.09 | 27.11 | 1.00 | 60 | 44 | 74-83 | 628 | 28.09 | 27.11 | 1 | 27.11 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0.44 | 0.24 | 0.68 | 1.14 | 3.45 | 7th
Wade Redden | 994 | 22.77 | 23.38 | 1.18 | 50 | 39 | 99-08 | 676 | 24.08 | 24.73 | 1.27 | 26.76 | 318 | 20.45 | 0.34 | 0.28 | 0.62 | 0.89 | 2.89 | 5th, 9th, 11th, 12th, ASG, ASG
Carol Vadnais | 1076 | 24.86 | 23.84 | 0.99 | 55 | 53 | 69-78 | 727 | 27.44 | 26.32 | 1.05 | 26.74 | 349 | 17.82 | 0.4 | 0.33 | 0.73 | 1.32 | 4.22 | 6th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 10th, ASG
Dan Boyle | 826 | 23.80 | 24.63 | 1.00 | 73 | 17 | 03-12 | 656 | 25.22 | 26.09 | 1.04 | 26.43 | 170 | 17.94 | 0.41 | 0.39 | 0.8 | 0.96 | 2.91 | 4th, 4th, 6th, 10th, 11th
Gary Suter | 1145 | 23.87 | 23.52 | 1.20 | 80 | 31 | 88-97 | 697 | 24.81 | 24.45 | 1.25 | 26.31 | 448 | 22.94 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 3.06 | 3rd, 7th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th
Alexei Zhitnik | 1085 | 23.89 | 24.42 | 1.00 | 55 | 37 | 96-04 | 691 | 25.19 | 25.75 | 1.05 | 26.17 | 394 | 21.43 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.47 | 0.96 | 2.98 | ASG, ASG
Bryan McCabe (UD) | 1135 | 24.13 | 24.80 | 0.99 | 55 | 41 | 98-08 | 753 | 25.06 | 25.76 | 1.03 | 26.01 | 382 | 22.22 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.55 | 0.90 | 2.84 | 4th, 9th, 15th
Sergei Gonchar | 1128 | 23.51 | 24.18 | 1.01 | 76 | 21 | 00-10 | 700 | 24.89 | 25.60 | 1.03 | 25.85 | 428 | 21.70 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 2.93 | 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 14th
Tomas Kaberle (UD) | 972 | 23.35 | 24.10 | 1.04 | 69 | 35 | 00-09 | 681 | 24.59 | 25.38 | 1.05 | 25.79 | 291 | 21.22 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.68 | 0.90 | 2.98 | 11th, 13th, 13th, ASG, ASG
Brian Rafalski | 833 | 22.95 | 23.72 | 1.17 | 67 | 22 | 01-10 | 695 | 23.61 | 24.40 | 1.17 | 25.70 | 138 | 21.36 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 0.77 | 0.77 | 2.54 | 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th, 12th, 14th, ASG
Barry Beck | 615 | 25.07 | 24.97 | 0.99 | 51 | 57 | 78-86 | 563 | 25.89 | 25.79 | 0.98 | 25.62 | 52 | 16.64 | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.53 | 1.03 | 3.39 | 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 8th
Roman Hamrlik | 1373 | 23.51 | 24.15 | 0.96 | 57 | 36 | 95-03 | 742 | 25.01 | 25.70 | 0.98 | 25.52 | 631 | 21.86 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.6 | 1.06 | 3.32 | 7th, ASG, ASG
Rob Ramage | 1044 | 24.52 | 24.71 | 0.89 | 58 | 45 | 80-88 | 687 | 26.62 | 26.82 | 0.86 | 25.52 | 357 | 20.27 | 0.28 | 0.29 | 0.57 | 1.11 | 3.40 | 8th, 9th, ASG, ASG
Doug Bodger | 1071 | 23.28 | 23.70 | 0.97 | 58 | 44 | 86-94 | 653 | 24.71 | 25.15 | 1.03 | 25.40 | 418 | 20.51 | 0.23 | 0.3 | 0.53 | 0.79 | 2.63 |
Robert Svehla | 655 | 24.96 | 25.42 | 0.99 | 60 | 44 | 95-03 | 655 | 24.96 | 25.42 | 0.99 | 25.33 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0.34 | 0.26 | 0.6 | 0.95 | 3.14 | 12th, 14th
Reed Larson | 904 | 25.85 | 25.69 | 0.86 | 66 | 45 | 78-86 | 707 | 27.06 | 26.90 | 0.83 | 25.29 | 197 | 21.15 | 0.44 | 0.31 | 0.75 | 1.19 | 3.73 | 10th, 10th, 12th, 14th
Dave Babych | 1195 | 23.94 | 24.24 | 0.97 | 58 | 44 | 81-90 | 731 | 25.48 | 25.80 | 0.94 | 25.28 | 464 | 21.91 | 0.3 | 0.37 | 0.67 | 1.15 | 3.70 | 9th, 11th, 14th, ASG
Steve Duchesne | 1113 | 23.09 | 23.52 | 1.06 | 62 | 31 | 88-98 | 770 | 24.45 | 24.91 | 1.04 | 25.23 | 343 | 21.09 | 0.46 | 0.31 | 0.77 | 0.92 | 3.00 | 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, ASG
Phil Housley | 1495 | 22.68 | 23.07 | 1.04 | 84 | 11 | 87-96 | 686 | 24.64 | 25.06 | 1.01 | 25.14 | 809 | 21.83 | 0.5 | 0.42 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 3.16 | 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 8th, 10th, 14th
Steve Chiasson | 751 | 23.27 | 23.69 | 1.08 | 56 | 41 | 89-99 | 677 | 24.04 | 24.48 | 1.08 | 25.11 | 74 | 16.95 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.57 | 0.94 | 3.19 | ASG
Phil Russell | 1016 | 23.94 | 23.33 | 1.00 | 21 | 45 | 74-82 | 672 | 25.26 | 24.61 | 1.06 | 25.09 | 344 | 19.98 | 0.33 | 0.12 | 0.45 | 1.02 | 3.06 | 13th, 14th, ASG, ASG, ASG
Jerry Korab | 975 | 22.17 | 21.49 | 1.18 | 42 | 43 | 74-83 | 706 | 24.62 | 23.87 | 1.15 | 24.99 | 269 | 16.46 | 0.31 | 0.22 | 0.53 | 1.01 | 3.38 | 6th, 15th, ASG
Randy Carlyle | 1055 | 23.58 | 23.48 | 0.90 | 53 | 39 | 79-88 | 690 | 26.06 | 25.95 | 0.88 | 24.88 | 365 | 18.42 | 0.36 | 0.3 | 0.66 | 1.07 | 3.29 | 1st, 7th, 12th, 12th, 14th
Teppo Numminen | 1372 | 22.60 | 23.09 | 1.01 | 48 | 46 | 92-01 | 716 | 24.2 | 24.73 | 0.99 | 24.65 | 656 | 21.53 | 0.32 | 0.24 | 0.56 | 0.87 | 2.88 | 6th, 10th, 11th, 12th
Adrian Aucoin | 1069 | 22.54 | 23.20 | 0.99 | 53 | 41 | 99-09 | 694 | 24.14 | 24.85 | 0.97 | 24.60 | 375 | 20.33 | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.51 | 0.88 | 2.89 | 5th, 8th
Calle Johansson | 1109 | 22.69 | 23.11 | 1.06 | 47 | 45 | 92-01 | 728 | 23.61 | 24.05 | 1.06 | 24.52 | 381 | 21.74 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.54 | 0.81 | 2.76 |
Mathieu Schneider | 1289 | 23.18 | 23.71 | 1.05 | 69 | 31 | 96-07 | 759 | 23.55 | 24.09 | 1.04 | 24.41 | 530 | 23.65 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.71 | 0.90 | 3.16 | 6th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 13th, ASG
Ron Stackhouse | 889 | 25.55 | 24.53 | 0.92 | 46 | 49 | 71-80 | 739 | 26.01 | 24.97 | 0.93 | 24.38 | 150 | 21.36 | 0.37 | 0.19 | 0.56 | 1.12 | 3.67 | 9th, 9th, 10th, 14th
Ed Jovanovski | 1078 | 22.15 | 22.80 | 1.00 | 46 | 25 | 99-09 | 691 | 23.58 | 24.27 | 0.99 | 24.19 | 387 | 20.29 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.6 | 1.00 | 3.11 | 6th, 6th, 12th, 15th, ASG
Jeff Brown (UD) | 747 | 23.75 | 24.19 | 0.97 | 84 | 31 | 87-96 | 678 | 24.06 | 24.51 | 0.96 | 24.18 | 69 | 21.55 | 0.33 | 0.42 | 0.75 | 0.87 | 3.17 |
Dave Ellett (UD) | 1129 | 22.56 | 22.96 | 0.95 | 54 | 35 | 86-94 | 672 | 24.61 | 25.05 | 0.89 | 24.10 | 457 | 20.14 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.59 | 0.99 | 3.16 | ASG, ASG
Jyrki Lumme | 985 | 22.24 | 22.65 | 1.03 | 48 | 37 | 92-01 | 680 | 23.27 | 23.69 | 1.04 | 24.00 | 305 | 20.36 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 0.89 | 3.01 | 12th
James Patrick | 1280 | 21.10 | 21.48 | 1.04 | 39 | 35 | 85-94 | 721 | 23.17 | 23.59 | 1.03 | 23.82 | 559 | 19.09 | 0.31 | 0.29 | 0.6 | 0.75 | 2.44 | 7th, 8th
Sandis Ozolinsh | 875 | 22.46 | 22.96 | 0.97 | 68 | 19 | 94-03 | 706 | 23.04 | 23.55 | 1 | 23.55 | 169 | 19.37 | 0.43 | 0.36 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 3.33 | 2nd, 9th, 10th, 14th, ASG, ASG, ASG
Garry Galley (UD) | 1149 | 20.99 | 21.36 | 1.00 | 47 | 29 | 90-98 | 652 | 22.96 | 23.37 | 1.01 | 23.45 | 497 | 18.65 | 0.34 | 0.26 | 0.6 | 0.89 | 2.96 | ASG, ASG
Brian Campbell (UD) | 701 | 21.45 | 22.26 | 1.08 | 42 | 11 | 03-12 | 652 | 21.9 | 22.72 | 1.09 | 23.38 | 49 | 15.76 | 0.37 | 0.19 | 0.56 | 0.83 | 2.62 | 4th, 9th, ASG, ASG
Al Iafrate | 799 | 22.49 | 22.90 | 0.93 | 40 | 34 | 86-94 | 672 | 23.26 | 23.68 | 0.96 | 23.37 | 127 | 17.21 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 0.58 | 1.08 | 3.50 | 4th, 6th, ASG, ASG
Dick Redmond | 771 | 23.06 | 22.09 | 1.02 | 64 | 30 | 72-80 | 649 | 24.07 | 23.06 | 1.04 | 23.36 | 122 | 16.45 | 0.35 | 0.35 | 0.7 | 0.90 | 3.28 | 9th, 10th, 14th
Behn Wilson | 601 | 22.67 | 22.59 | 1.09 | 44 | 34 | 79-86 | 601 | 22.67 | 22.59 | 1.09 | 23.24 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0.34 | 0.21 | 0.55 | 0.85 | 2.98 | ASG
Andrei Markov | 630 | 22.45 | 23.23 | 1.00 | 66 | 31 | 01-12 | 630 | 22.45 | 23.23 | 1 | 23.23 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.67 | 0.80 | 2.92 | 6th, 6th
Kimmo Timonen | 965 | 22.68 | 22.35 | 1.02 | 75 | 37 | 01-10 | 711 | 23.22 | 22.88 | 1 | 22.88 | 254 | 21.37 | 0.25 | 0.34 | 0.59 | 0.73 | 2.91 | 5th, 14th, ASG, ASG, ASG
Pavel Kubina | 964 | 22.00 | 22.71 | 0.87 | 50 | 36 | 01-10 | 675 | 22.52 | 23.25 | 0.9 | 22.45 | 289 | 19.93 | 0.29 | 0.21 | 0.5 | 0.96 | 3.34 | ASG
Darryl Sydor (UD) | 1291 | 19.84 | 20.30 | 1.03 | 40 | 25 | 95-03 | 681 | 20.98 | 21.47 | 1.11 | 22.22 | 610 | 18.62 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.6 | 0.73 | 2.59 | 7th, 13th, ASG
Lubomir Visnovsky | 766 | 21.55 | 22.30 | 0.93 | 66 | 9 | 02-12 | 685 | 22.1 | 22.87 | 0.91 | 22.17 | 81 | 18.04 | 0.36 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.88 | 3.00 | 4th, 10th, ASG
Stefan Persson | 622 | 20.04 | 19.75 | 1.34 | 76 | 30 | 78-86 | 622 | 20.04 | 19.75 | 1.34 | 21.75 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0.22 | 0.38 | 0.6 | 0.59 | 2.87 | 9th, 13th

This is going to need a lot of explaining. see next post.

 

[seventieslord]

GP = career GP total (up to date for active players)
TOI = career TOI average (up to date for active players)
ATOI = adjusted TOI (because top defensemen had higher TOI in the 70s in particular, and this number has been slowly coming down since then. it's essential if you're attempting to compare TOI across decades)
Team Strength = the average weighted team strength of the player in their career, based on the ES, PP and PK performance of their team.
PP% = Simple measure of PP usage over career
PK% = simple measure of PK usage over career
Prime Years = the period of seasons used for a player's prime. For each player I chose the period most flattering to them. Usually this was based on TOI, but in some cases I had to look at team strength. These are typically periods of 8-11 seasons, all consecutive.
Prime GP, TOI, ATOI = same as above but specifically in the prime period
Score = This is a subjective method but it seems to work to some extent. the point is to credit players for being relied on more, but also to recognize that it is more impressive to be relied on more by a good team (for two reasons. one, it's a deeper team with tougher to earn minutes, and two, if you're on the ice a lot for a good team, you are a reason it's good) The formula is the prime ATOI times the cubed root of team strength. This means that a guy like Redden (team strength 1.27 in his prime) has his ATOI multiplied by just 1.08, and a guy like Ramage (team strength 0.86 in his prime) has his ATOI multiplied by 0.95. This means there is still credit going to players on good teams, but not disproportionately so. This list is sorted by this column; however, I realize that the next four columns should affect our opinions of these players ie big ways as well.
Off Prime GP = total GP minus prime GP. In case anyone cares, it could be a tiebreaker for players who look otherwise similar in their primes.
Off Prime Score = this one is interesting. It is the same as the first "score", except based on their off-prime games only. Check out how solid Zubov looks even in all seasons that aren't 98-08. Gary Suter is another who shows up with awesome consistency, and Mathieu Schneider (who played 18 straight 22+ minute seasons but never over 25) shows up infinitely better in his off-prime years than he does in his prime.
PrmESPPG/PrmPPPPG = adjusted ES and PP points per game. I also provided the total. Some guys definitely stand out. Phil Housley, for example, based on his TOI usage, is underwhelming in the "score" column, but boy, did he make the most of that icetime. Which makes you wonder, why didn't they keep giving him more?
PrmDef = Prime Defense. adjusted ESGA per game in their prime. This is heavily skewed towards players on defensive powerhouses, and guys who didn't play much at ES. Not sure what to make of this column, if it is of any use.
APD = Adjusted Prime Defense. It is the PrmDef column, converted into an estimated "per 60 minutes of ES time" metric. It is worth more than the previous method, at least.
Recognition = summary of all AS/Norris recognition. Higher ranking counts (i.e. 5th in norris, 6th in AS = 5th for that year). must have at least three total votes or two top-3 votes. no ASG double dipping, only the ones in seasons without top-15 AS/norris recognition are mentioned.

 

[seventieslord]

Notes:

- I think that the "score" column says a lot. It's guys who played a lot for good teams. This is what any player should strive to do. But this isn't everything. The placement of some names doesn't pass the smell test. Ian Turnbull, for example. Surprisingly, he was an adjusted 27 minute player for Leafs teams that hadn't hit the tank yet and were average.

- Your opinions formed by looking at the score column should be tempered by what you see in the next few columns. A guy who vastly outscored a player ahead of him, may have been better (or maybe not?)

- The APD column attempts to quantify defense, but there are still some other factors to consider, so don't consider it the be-all-end-all there. Clearly some guys had sheltered minutes at ES, when you see their goals against compared to obviously stronger players.

- the recognition is a nice addition at the end. It's not as important as it is for pre-expansion players, but it adds further illumination.

 

[seventieslord]

notes on players:

- All Hail Sergei Zubov.

- Kevin Hatcher was the guy who was impressing me as I did the preliminary checking of the numbers. This guy played huge minutes for pretty good teams, got a lot of recognition, and was a much more all-around player than we ever gave him credit for. I admit I've underrated him in the past.

- Bryan McCabe should have been selected a while ago. There's not a column on this chart that doesn't favour him. In his prime, he was a 25 minute player for mostly good teams, he was a 2nd team all-star, and for a guy known as suspect defensively yet went up against the opposition's best, he sure shows up well in APD - almost the best score on the chart. His off-prime games were played at a higher level than anyone else on this list, too, aside from Zubov, Hatcher, Suter and Schneider. But oh right, I forgot - he gave the puck away to Keith Primeau in a playoff game and once put the puck in his own net in regular season OT!

- I've underrated Dan Boyle. He has been a 25 minute player for mostly good teams for nearly a decade now, is one of the strongest scorers here, and doesn't get scored on a hell of a lot.

- I was really puzzled by all the love Markov got when he was selected and I'm even more puzzled now. He's been just a 23 minute player for average teams, and his offense in this chart is decent but not standout. Yes, he had a good 4-year peak, but many other players had a peak of the same quality, that lasted twice as long.

- I was even more puzzled that one of the smartest GMs here called Lubomir Visnovsky a "great pick". Visnovsky has been a specialist for much of his career, and in his prime has averaged just 22 minutes for poor teams. His offense is good but not standout. Compare him to a guy like Tomas Kaberle - same production level, and was more important to better teams. Visnovsky is not a great pick and belongs in the MLD.

- Stefan Persson. I've talked about him enough.

- I really thought Pavel Kubina and Roman Hamrlik would show up very close to McCabe, in fact so close that there would be little to choose. I was surprised at how low Kubina's ice time has been (and how terrible his teams have been) Hamrlik was closer, but decidedly behind, having been used just a tad less by teams 5% worse. Adrian Aucoin basically has Hamrlik's career (and skill set) but has averaged about a minute less per game.

- Best prime offense, after adjustments? Gonchar, Housley, Suter, Boyle, Ozolinsh, Zubov.

- A couple of "tainted" numbers: Brian Rafalski. He did play a lot of minutes but in his best years was not even close to the best player on his pairing. His defensive numbers are hugely boosted by the Devils and Stevens. Second, Alexei Zhitnik. Good for him to be a 25 minute player on above average teams, but in this unique case you have to agree that you'd give the #1 defenseman a smaller portion of the credit for the team being good, than you usually would. Actually, Vadnais' numbers might be a bit on the tainted side due to the Orr Effect as well.

- Really stunned at how awfully average Randy Carlyle looks here. I assumed that as a Norris winner he'd be playing at a higher level throughout the 80s, than he actually did. And his team sucked. Hard.

- Vadnais is the runaway leader in both goals against metrics. I know he played on the awful seals, but you take out those four years and he still sits at 1.24 against per game, and 3.94 APD, both still easily highest on the list. No doubt his coaches thought putting him on the ice was a good idea (or at least the best idea) and I'm not one to argue with them, but it really looks like the guy was porous.

- Really surprised by the strong showing by Doug Bodger here. The guy got absolutely no recognition. What to make of him?

- Kimmo Timonen was a massive disappointment here. He's never been a big ice time player, his teams have been average, and he doesn't have outstanding offense that transcends this. Defensively, though, he looks great.

- Steve Duchesne came out looking a lot better than I expected.

- Interesting polar cases: Persson, Sydor, Campbell, Wilson. Less used players, but on strong teams. Babych, Carlyle, Ramage, Larson. Heavily used players, but by poor teams.

 

[Sturminator]

- All Hail Sergei Zubov.

No ****.

- Kevin Hatcher was the guy who was impressing me as I did the preliminary checking of the numbers. This guy played huge minutes for pretty good teams, got a lot of recognition, and was a much more all-around player than we ever gave him credit for. I admit I've underrated him in the past.

Hatcher is a poster child for exactly the kind of player that has become underrated in the ATD. Much as it is with plane crashes vs. car crashes (and the danger of dying in one), Kevin Hatcher is a guy whose mistakes could be so spectacular at times that we end up with a recall bias in estimating how often they actually happened. It's about time people realize that Kevin Hatcher is actually a strong 2nd pairing puckmover in the ATD. He has been arguably the most underrated defenseman in this thing for a while.

- Bryan McCabe should have been selected a while ago.

Yes, McCabe has been badly underrated. Like many of these guys, his defensive issues have been blown grossly out of proportion.

- I've underrated Dan Boyle. He has been a 25 minute player for mostly good teams for nearly a decade now, is one of the strongest scorers here, and doesn't get scored on a hell of a lot.

Whodathunkit? The ultimate similarity between Boyle and Suter surprises me not in the slightest. On the topic of Boyle, is there any adjustment for playoff performances in here? I know that Boyle's career playoff PPG is about 11% higher than his regular season PPG, which I believe is statistically significant. If there is any adjustment for this factor in your numbers, I have missed it.

The only real knock on Boyle in a "real NHL" sense is that he hasn't been much of a penalty-killer during his career. He had almost zero PK time in Tampa Bay, and is a 2nd teamer in San Jose. But this is mostly irrelevant in the ATD, as second pairing puckmovers are rarely called upon to kill penalties here.

- A couple of "tainted" numbers: Brian Rafalski. He did play a lot of minutes but in his best years was not even close to the best player on his pairing. His defensive numbers are hugely boosted by the Devils and Stevens. Second, Alexei Zhitnik. Good for him to be a 25 minute player on above average teams, but in this unique case you have to agree that you'd give the #1 defenseman a smaller portion of the credit for the team being good, than you usually would. Actually, Vadnais' numbers might be a bit on the tainted side due to the Orr Effect as well.

Yeah...the guys we know got a large amount of help from their partners need to be adjusted a bit. I believe Rafalski played with Lidstrom in Detroit, as well. This likely hits Gary Suter (MacInnis and Chelios), Wade Redden (three of his five best years with Chara), and may take some of the bloom off of Zubov's rose. I do think that Sergei benefitted from the very strong partners he generally had in Dallas, though at the same time, I think he is quite obviously the best player in this study in spite of that.

- Really stunned at how awfully average Randy Carlyle looks here. I assumed that as a Norris winner he'd be playing at a higher level throughout the 80s, than he actually did. And his team sucked. Hard.

Predictable.

- Vadnais is the runaway leader in both goals against metrics. I know he played on the awful seals, but you take out those four years and he still sits at 1.24 against per game, and 3.94 APD, both still easily highest on the list. No doubt his coaches thought putting him on the ice was a good idea (or at least the best idea) and I'm not one to argue with them, but it really looks like the guy was porous.

Even more predictable. Saw this one with my own eyes too many nights.

- Really surprised by the strong showing by Doug Bodger here. The guy got absolutely no recognition. What to make of him?

I dunno...but I do remember Dean Lombardi (for whom I have a great deal of respect as a hockey mind) talking about how good Bodger was when the Sharks acquired him when the team was still young. If a sharp guy like Lombardi liked Bodger that much, I tend to think there is something to it.

Also...what to make of Ian Turnbull? He looks shockingly good in your analysis, and yet his rewards recognition is almost a complete blank. It is curious, but I think in this case the AST voting likely points at some subtle truth that we're not seeing clearly here. Although I was mostly "at the age of reason" during Turnbull's entire career, I can't say I know what's up with him.

Excellent work, seventies. Kudos. This is the kind of work that should shift our thinking about a controversial block of players in a positive direction.

 

[Sturminator]

Having thought about it a little bit more, my take on "the Turnbull problem":

- Ian Turnbull's defensive reputation is quite bad.

- The Estimated TOI methodology that you are using likely breaks down at the margins. That is, if a guy is really terrible defensively, the metric will likely overestimate his actual TOI because ES goals against is one of the important inputs.

- It is Turnbull's TOI that specifically stands out as strange here.

- Turnbull's AST voting results show that the voters really didn't like him very much for some reason.

Conclusion: Turnbull's real-life TOI is likely overestimated here, perhaps grossly so. The reason for that is probably because he was so bad defensively at even-strength that he broke the estimating mechanicsm which generated his TOI numbers.

 

[BM67]

Turnbull had his best years playing with Salming. Take the 76-77 season away from his career +29 +/- and he's a -18, take away his 75-76 as well and he's a -42.

He had his only recognition in 76-77 where he and Salming were far and away ahead of everyone else on Toronto in +/-. Turnbull +47, Salming +45, Boutette +13, McDonald +12, Williams +11, rest of D +5 to -26 (combined -52).

 

[Elvis P]

... Even more predictable. Saw this one with my own eyes too many nights. ...

Excellent work, seventies. Kudos. This is the kind of work that should shift our thinking about a controversial block of players in a positive direction.

Agreed with both these parts. I saw Vadnais' entire career with my own eyes and with the Rangers he was a sieve. Sometimes the numbers don't lie.

Great job, 70s!

 

[BenchBrawl]

Excellant work 70s , real happy to see that Boyle should finally get the respect he deserves , and that is boosting my 2nd pairing , which I needed with the way people talked about it

 

[DaveG]

Zubov comes off looking a lot stronger defensively in this analysis then I expected he would. Some of the guys in front of him weren't much of a shock aside from Rafalski, but a few of the names behind him were.

Chiasson, Jovo, and Carlyle I expected to be a stronger defensively in this metric then they proved to be. Though of that group Chiasson surprisingly looks the best overall by a decent (though not huge) margin.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Very interesting stuff seventies. Really great work. I'm surprised how strong Reed Larson's ES offense is. Tied for 2nd best among all the defensemen in the study, behind only Duchesne and tied with Turnbull(but doing it for more games with worse teammates). I guess the PP really struggled in Detroit as a result of a terrible supporting cast. Larson, more than anyone else, seems like a real what if sort of player. He had the worst quality teammates according to this study of all the guys. He also has one of the worst APDs, but I'm not really sure what to make of that. We know he had his struggles defensively, but I can't help but think that was largely influenced by how bad the rest of his team was. I can only wonder what he would have looked like if he played for even an average team.

 

[overpass]

notes on players:

- All Hail Sergei Zubov.

- Kevin Hatcher was the guy who was impressing me as I did the preliminary checking of the numbers. This guy played huge minutes for pretty good teams, got a lot of recognition, and was a much more all-around player than we ever gave him credit for. I admit I've underrated him in the past.

- Bryan McCabe should have been selected a while ago. There's not a column on this chart that doesn't favour him. In his prime, he was a 25 minute player for mostly good teams, he was a 2nd team all-star, and for a guy known as suspect defensively yet went up against the opposition's best, he sure shows up well in APD - almost the best score on the chart. His off-prime games were played at a higher level than anyone else on this list, too, aside from Zubov, Hatcher, Suter and Schneider. But oh right, I forgot - he gave the puck away to Keith Primeau in a playoff game and once put the puck in his own net in regular season OT!

- I've underrated Dan Boyle. He has been a 25 minute player for mostly good teams for nearly a decade now, is one of the strongest scorers here, and doesn't get scored on a hell of a lot.

- I was really puzzled by all the love Markov got when he was selected and I'm even more puzzled now. He's been just a 23 minute player for average teams, and his offense in this chart is decent but not standout. Yes, he had a good 4-year peak, but many other players had a peak of the same quality, that lasted twice as long.

- I was even more puzzled that one of the smartest GMs here called Lubomir Visnovsky a "great pick". Visnovsky has been a specialist for much of his career, and in his prime has averaged just 22 minutes for poor teams. His offense is good but not standout. Compare him to a guy like Tomas Kaberle - same production level, and was more important to better teams. Visnovsky is not a great pick and belongs in the MLD.

- Stefan Persson. I've talked about him enough.

- I really thought Pavel Kubina and Roman Hamrlik would show up very close to McCabe, in fact so close that there would be little to choose. I was surprised at how low Kubina's ice time has been (and how terrible his teams have been) Hamrlik was closer, but decidedly behind, having been used just a tad less by teams 5% worse. Adrian Aucoin basically has Hamrlik's career (and skill set) but has averaged about a minute less per game.

- Best prime offense, after adjustments? Gonchar, Housley, Suter, Boyle, Ozolinsh, Zubov.

- A couple of "tainted" numbers: Brian Rafalski. He did play a lot of minutes but in his best years was not even close to the best player on his pairing. His defensive numbers are hugely boosted by the Devils and Stevens. Second, Alexei Zhitnik. Good for him to be a 25 minute player on above average teams, but in this unique case you have to agree that you'd give the #1 defenseman a smaller portion of the credit for the team being good, than you usually would. Actually, Vadnais' numbers might be a bit on the tainted side due to the Orr Effect as well.

- Really stunned at how awfully average Randy Carlyle looks here. I assumed that as a Norris winner he'd be playing at a higher level throughout the 80s, than he actually did. And his team sucked. Hard.

- Vadnais is the runaway leader in both goals against metrics. I know he played on the awful seals, but you take out those four years and he still sits at 1.24 against per game, and 3.94 APD, both still easily highest on the list. No doubt his coaches thought putting him on the ice was a good idea (or at least the best idea) and I'm not one to argue with them, but it really looks like the guy was porous.

- Really surprised by the strong showing by Doug Bodger here. The guy got absolutely no recognition. What to make of him?

- Kimmo Timonen was a massive disappointment here. He's never been a big ice time player, his teams have been average, and he doesn't have outstanding offense that transcends this. Defensively, though, he looks great.

- Steve Duchesne came out looking a lot better than I expected.

- Interesting polar cases: Persson, Sydor, Campbell, Wilson. Less used players, but on strong teams. Babych, Carlyle, Ramage, Larson. Heavily used players, but by poor teams.

Kevin Hatcher's issues are similar to McCabe's - he made mistakes. But there's a lot to like there too and I've thought for some time he's been underrated. I've recommended him in the past to people looking for bottom pairing d-men.

Surely Ian Turnbull must have as much teammate effect as Rafalski or anyone else.

Markov is a case where the big-picture stats may not tell the whole story. Everyone who watches him play, as well as a with-or-without-you analysis, says that he is really, really good on the power play and is pretty solid defensively as well. But he doesn't look as good when you give more weight to longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wasn't sure where to post my finished essay on Russell Bowie, so I posted the whole thing in the bio thread here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=47054165&postcount=274

Here's a summary of the statistical case:

• Over the course of Bowie's athletic prime, he basically doubled the second leading goal scorer.
• Even if you cherrypick the absolute best years of guys like Frank McGee, Ernie Russell, and Tommy Phillips, Bowie easily beats them (by about 30% each) over the cherrypicked time frame. And Bowie's prime lasted quite a bit longer than any of them.
• SIHR's reconstructed assists suggest that Bowie could get the puck to teammates in scoring position better than most other players of the era.
• Iain Fyffe's blog showed that in 1901 and 1903, Bowie reached a Gretzky/Orr level of statistical dominance over his peers.
• Iain Fyffe's blog also showed that Bowie had 3 seasons more statistically dominant than anything Cyclone Taylor or Howie Morenz did. With such short seasons in Bowie's day, one such season could be a fluke - a few early players had one such season - but Bowie (with 3) is the only player with more than one.
• The ATD has long recognized that hockey developed a lot between Bowie's generation and Cyclone Taylor's. If it didn't, we'd be drafting Bowie before Taylor.
• Overall, Bowie led major hockey in goals 5 times and was second 3 more times. If you add in reconstructed assists for all players, Bowie would be major hockey's points leader 7 times.

I'll quote the rest of the bio since I can't really summarize it:

II. THERE WAS NO GAP IN TIME BETWEEN RUSSELL BOWIE'S GENERATION AND CYCLONE TAYLOR / NEWSY LALONDE

Senior Level Careers

• Russell Bowie = 1899-1910
• Cyclone Taylor = 1905-1923
• Newsy Lalonde = 1904-1927

Bowie retired from the ECHA in 1908 after the league became completely professional (he had this quaint notion about how hockey should be a purely amateur pursuit). Bowie led the ECHA in goals and points in 1907-08, the last season the league allowed amateur players, so it's highly likely he could have maintained that level in the top league.

• A 23 year old Cyclone Taylor (at that point still a defenseman) joined the ECHA in 1907-08 during Bowie's last season there. He would remain in the league as it changed its name to the NHA in 1909-10 before heading out west in 1912-13.
• A 23 year old Newsy Lalonde joined the league in 1909-10, the first year it was called the NHA. This would be Russel Bowie's last year of senior hockey in a different league.

III. SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE THE DOMINANT OFFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE GENERATION IMMEDIATELY BEFORE TAYLOR/LALONDE?

Obviously, this is an impossible question to answer with precision. If we take the idea that "all generations are equal" seriously, Bowie actually dominated his generation more than Cyclone Taylor did. But there is good reason to believe that hockey took major strides between generations.

At the end of Vol. 1 of The Trail of the Stanley Cup the author, Charles L. Coleman, selected his all-star team for 1893-1926. He considered Cyclone Taylor and Newsy Lalonde to be rovers, not forwards.

The nominees for forwards were: Russell Bowie, Harry Broadbent, Jack Darragh, Cy Denneny, Frank Foyston, Harry Hyland, Joe Malone, Frank Nighbor, Didier Pitre, Gordon Roberts, and Ernie Russell

He selected Russell Bowie, Joe Malone and Frank Nighbor.

I don't think Coleman knew anything we don't when he put together his all-star team. He simply made a judgment call that Bowie had a more impressive career than the likes of Cy Denneny and Frank Foyston.

Someone like Cy Denneny has a lot of extra ATD-value as a physical presence, but it is possible that Russell Bowie was actually a better goal scorer than Cy Denneny. I don't know if it's likely, but how far behind could he be?

If Cyclone Taylor and Newsy Lalonde are legit late first round or early second round picks, why is Bowie not considered at least one of the top second line scorers in the draft? (Not including obvious first liners like Bathgate and Cook).

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Bowie's dominance in the 1900-1910 version of the league is comparable to Seve Bobrov's dominance of Soviet hockey in the 1950's.

If we weren't considering the era Bowie would be a top 25 pick based on his absolute dominance over his peers....but we are taking the era into account.

 

[Dreakmur]

Bowie's dominance in the 1900-1910 version of the league is comparable to Seve Bobrov's dominance of Soviet hockey in the 1950's.

If we weren't considering the era Bowie would be a top 25 pick based on his absolute dominance over his peers....but we are taking the era into account.

That's pretty unfair and inaccurate. Bobrov played in a league that was made up of players who were not even close to being able to play in the NHL.

Bowie played in the best leagues in the world. It may not have been the deepest talent pool, but there were no better players out there at the time.

 

[overpass]

Bowie probably wasn't remembered as much as Taylor or Lalonde because hockey hadn't spread across Canada yet, and was just starting to reach the States. It was more of a regional game. Quality of play aside, Bowie just wasn't as famous or well-known as the next generation of hockey stars.

Where did Bowie actually play? He played his league games out of Montreal against teams from Quebec and Eastern Ontario. He played in Stanley Cup challenges against Winnipeg teams, but how many took place in Winnipeg? I'm not very knowledgeable about Bowie's career, but his career looks pretty geographically limited.

In any case, Bowie was seen almost exclusively by fans between Ottawa and Quebec. The next generation of stars like Taylor and Lalonde played across Canada. And the next generation after that played south of the border as well. All that plays a part in how well they were remembered by future generations and how large a part they played in hockey history.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

With limited voting info available during a number of seasons in the 50s I tried to take a look at the merited all-stars on defense during that time period. The only additional thing I did was give SC-winner defensemen credit for seasons they finished as a First or Second Team All-Star. Take Doug Harvey for example, with this method he's a 13/13 merited all-star instead of 7/13. Each of those 6 years he was defaulted an all-star game spot because his team won the Cup the year before, but he still made the first or second post-season teams each season.

These games were also played in October, save for one played in November, so the relevant voting/statistics would come from the year before as well. I mention this as it differs from our current all-star format which heavily considers the half season of play during the year the All-Star game falls in.

Name | First Season | Last Season | Total GP | Merited All-Star Games | Total All-Star Games | Cup Wins
Doug Harvey | 1948 | 1969 | 1113 GP | 13 | 13 | 6
Red Kelly | 1948 | 1967 | 1316 GP | 9 | 9 | 8
Bill Quackenbush | 1944 | 1956 | 744 GP | 8 | 8 | 0
Bill Gadsby | 1947 | 1966 | 1248 GP | 8 | 8 | 0
Marcel Pronovost | 1951 | 1969 | 1206 GP | 7| 11 | 5
Doug Mohns | 1954 | 1975 | 1390 GP | 7 | 7 | 0
Gus Mortson | 1947 | 1959 | 797 GP | 6 |8 | 4
Fern Flaman | 1948 | 1961 | 910 GP | 6 | 6 | 1
Butch Bouchard | 1942 | 1955 |785 GP | 5 | 6 | 4
Leo Reise | 1947 | 1954 | 494 GP | 4 | 4 | 2
Jack Stewart | 1939 | 1952 | 565 GP | 4 | 4 | 2
Jimmy Thomson | 1947 | 1958 | 787 GP | 4 | 7 | 4
Tom Johnson | 1951 | 1965 | 978 GP | 4 | 8 | 6
Allan Stanley | 1949 | 1969 | 1244 GP | 4 | 7 | 4
Ken Reardon | 1941 | 1950 | 341 GP | 3 | 3 | 1
Bob Goldham |1946 | 1956 | 650 GP | 3 | 6 | 4
Glen Harmon | 1943 | 1951 | 452 GP | 2 | 2 | 2
Bob Armstrong | 1953 | 1961 | 542 GP | 1 | 1 | 0
Pat Egan | 1941 | 1951 | 554 GP | 1 | 1 | 0
Dollard St. Laurent | 1952 |1962 | 652 GP | 1| 5 | 5

A few notes:
-First game was played in '47 with SC winner playing a team of select all-stars.

-'51 and '52 All-Star Games were not played using SC winner format.

The new format had the First Team All-Stars and the Second Team All-Stars be the cores of the two teams playing in the all-star game, with the reserves for the First Team consisting of players on American-based teams and the Second Team reserves consisting of Habs and Leafs.

-By '53 the format was back to its original SC winner format.

-Obviously this exercise is useless for players like Gadsby and Quackenbush who never won a cup and always made it on merit. (added column)

-Cut off Red Kelly's TOR years as he seemed to be selected as a forward in those all-star games.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below I have another table that shows the complete voting record of defenders given unmerited appearances. I believe some of these could be bumped up to being merited as well.

1947 | Gus Mortson (TOR) | 10th (0-0-1)
1948 | Gus Mortson (TOR)| T8th* (0-0-2)
1948 | Jimmy Thomson (TOR) | 5th* (1-2-1)
1949 | Jimmy Thomson (TOR) | 6th* (0-3-1)
1954 |Bob Goldham (DET) | 5th* (21-)
1956 |Dollard St. Laurent (MON) | T15th (2-)
1957 |Tom Johnson (MON) | 7th* (13-)
1960 |Tom Johnson (MON) | 5th* (39-35)
1962 |Allan Stanley (TOR) | 6th* (26-)
1963 | Allan Stanley (TOR) | 15th (2-)

I wasn't sure where to draw the arbitrary line here so I wanted to keep it outside the first table. We also only have these numbers for '54, '56, and '57 seasons during the 50s, so I didn't know if it would be fair to use more than the always present top four to draw the line. These amended rankings seem fair as all placed somewhere between 5th-8th during the post-season voting.

Goldham: 4/6
Johnson: 6/8
Mortson: 7/8
Stanley: 5/7
Thomson: 6/7

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bowie's dominance in the 1900-1910 version of the league is comparable to Seve Bobrov's dominance of Soviet hockey in the 1950's.

If we weren't considering the era Bowie would be a top 25 pick based on his absolute dominance over his peers....but we are taking the era into account.

More like Starshinov in the 60s.

What you say would be true if Bowie's generation were the first generation of competitive North American hockey. But that's clearly not the case - Bowie is as close to Cyclone Taylor and Sprague Cleghorn in time as he is to Dan Bain and Mike Grant. And Bain and Grant weren't the first generation of competitive hockey players, either. *(Allan Cameron is even earlier).

More specifically;

1) Bobrov didn't learn to skate until his 20s. There was nobody playing hockey in the USSR before his generation - the Soviet authorities made hockey a priority because it was the most prestigious team winter sport at the Olympics. *Hockey existed at a competitive level in North America through all of Bowie's generation's formative years. The first Stanley Cup was awarded in 1892 and there was some level of competitive hockey for some time before then.*

2) Bowie's last scoring title was in 1908 - when Cyclone Taylor was already in his prime as a 23 year old defenseman - Taylor would switch to rover a few years later. *Bobrov was out of hockey for years before Starshinov hit his prime, and Starshinov's generation isn't thought to be nearly as good as the one that came after it.

3) As I said, in terms of the developmental levels of hockey, Bowie's world was more similar to Starshinov's actually - Starshinov was on his way out the door right as the great Kharlamov generation came of age. Likewise, Bowie was on his way out as - and not before - the great Taylor/Lalonde generation came of age.*

Bowie was clearly not a first generation North American hockey player:

Allan Cameron 1885-1895
Dan Bain 1894-1902
Russell Bowie 1899-1910

And he really wasn't much earlier than guys who are known value:

Cyclone Taylor 1906-1923
Newsy Lalonde 1905-1926
Moose Johnson 1904-1922
Joe Malone 1909-1924
Sprague Cleghorn 1910-1926