Pre-WWII Draft 2023 Finals - Regina Pats vs. Montreal Victorias

[BenchBrawl]

Coach: Art Ross
Assistant: Frank Patrick

Sweeney Schriner - Newsy Lalonde - Eddie Oatman (C)
Jack Walker (A) - Nels Stewart - Ace Bailey
Tommy Anderson - Tommy Dunderdale - Atty Howard
Goldie Prodger(s) - Jack Adams - Billy Boucher

Babe Siebert - Hod Stuart (A)
Jack Campbell - Ott Heller
Lloyd Cook - Bert Corbeau

Georges Vezina
Billy Nicholson

Spares: Tom Hooper - Herb Cain

PP1: Schriner-Stewart-Lalonde-Campbell-Cook
PP2: Adams-Dunderdale-Howard-Siebert-Stuart
PK1: Walker-Bailey-Siebert-Heller
PK2: - Oatman-Prodger(s)-Stuart-Corbeau


vs.


Montreal Victorias

Coach: Dick Irvin
Syd Howe-Mickey MacKay-Charlie Conacher
Herbie Lewis-Duke Keats-Gordie Drillon
Harry Smith-Marty Walsh- Archie Hodgson
Graham Drinkwater-Bruce Stuart (A)-Charlie Liffiton
Herb Russel(l)-Herb Jordan

Harvey Pulford (C)-Eddie Shore
Frank Patrick-Rod Flett
Walter Smaill-Art Duncan
Joe Power

Charlie Gardiner (A)
Frank Stocking

PP1: Mickey MacKay-Marty Walsh-Charlie Conacher
Frank Patrick-Eddie Shore

PP2: Harry Smith-Duke Keats-Gordie Drillon
Walter Smail-Art Duncan

PK1: Herbie Lewis-Mickey MacKay
Harvey Pulford-Rod Flett

PK2: Syd Howe-Archie Hodgson
Graham Drinkwater-Eddie Shore

​

@seventieslord
@rmartin65

Click to read more...

 

[BenchBrawl]

Good luck gentlemen! Looking forward to a good series.

 

[rmartin65]

Here's to a good series, @seventieslord !

I'll get us started with a couple thoughts, in case neither of us find the time to get a more in-depth debate going later-

The top lines look pretty even to me. I think Regina has the top player in Lalonde, but I'd argue that Montreal has the next three in Conacher, Howe, and MacKay. Does Montreal's depth here make up for Lalonde being the best of the 6 players? I'd argue yes, but it's close.

The second lines for each team are similarly pretty close. Nels Stewart is always tricky to build around, but I think you've done an excellent job. Walker might just be the best player in this draft to put on his wing. However, in order to compensate for Stewart, you've sacrificed some offense from your wings; Walker and Bailey are both almost certainly worse offensively than Lewis and Drillon, right? Meanwhile, Each of Montreal's players are able to contribute offensively, and only Drillon is someone I wouldn't trust defensively (actually, re-looking at his ATD bio I see him compared to Stewart, which is a funny turn of events).

The third lines I feel less comfortable comparing; Walsh peaked higher than Dunderdale, but Dunderdale was more effective for longer. Anderson I'll admit to knowing very little of- I know he won the Hart in 1942, but didn't he play defense that year? I don't see any particularly noticeable awards or points finishes from him as a forward, outside of a 6th place points finish in 1938-39. Atty Howard is also largely outside of my comfort zone- where do we place him among his teammates on those Winnipeg teams, and then what does that mean for his place in hockey counting all the players in other leagues?

I feel much more comfortable talking about Harry Smith and Archie Hodgson. Smith is difficult to place because he bounced around so much- what is it, 14 teams over 9 leagues during the course of his career? I think he was very clearly one of the best goal scorers of his time, but he didn't bring a whole bunch outside of that. He could lash out with some stick work, but that could be considered a negative as well. Hodgson is someone I've talked about a bit since the project kicked off. I think he was actually the best forward on the Montreal AAA teams. His offensive contributions are undervalued due to him being primarily a puck carrier and distributor as opposed to a goal scorer, and the amount of praise he received for defensive play is probably the most I saw for any player of his era. In short, I think Hodgson and Smith make a nice pair.

Fourth lines- Adams vs Stuart would be fun to watch, two power forwards going at it. Despite what the project voted, I think Stuart was probably the better player. I was very impressed by how he was valued by the Wanderers in the tough games over Ernie Russell, despite Russell being one of the top scorers of the league. He is another player I think has been historically undervalued; for starters, he spent some time in the WPHL and IPHL, which I think are currently undervalued (I am working my way through them now, in the same manner I went through the AHAC/CAHL/FAHL/ECAHA), and then secondly, I think there is evidence that he was a strong set-up man, which until recently, we haven't had great visibility on. I'll point to him leading the 1909 ECHA season in assists as evidence of this one. As for the wingers- I think we'd each prefer the pair we drafted, haha. I think my pair stood out more among their peers, but your pair played in what was almost certainly a stronger era.

On defense, I think you drafted the better group. I have the best of the bunch (and the best player in the series) in Shore, but I think you end up with better depth. The defenders in the top four probably go Shore/Siebert/Campbell/F. Patrick/Heller/Flett, right? It's close, but you have the edge, in my opinion.

For goalies, we have the two best in this draft, but Vezina is the superior player (I know Vezina, Gardiner, and Benedict usually go pretty closely in the main ATD, but I think we've uncovered enough as a group to really distinguish between the 3, right? Vezina, then Gardiner, then Benedict a bit behind). I'm not going to sweat over the backups, haha.

This ended up being longer than I thought! Anyway, I think this is a close series, with no dramatic advantages or disadvantages anywhere. Hopefully seventies has some time to respond, but if not- thanks for running this thing, @BenchBrawl , thanks for tallying votes, @Theokritos , and thanks to all the other GMs that participated and voted along the way. This was one of the more fun drafts I've been a part of.

 

[seventieslord]

In an otherwise very even-looking matchup, the keys might be Liffiton, Hodgson and Drinkwater. The reason is they are mostly unknown to all but the GM who drafted them, @rmartin65. Liffiton and Hodgson may have passed right through this draft unclaimed, while Drinkwater would have likely been taken, maybe as a spare center, due to his name recognition from a decade as a main ATD player.

But just by association with the man who's done perhaps more research than all of us combined, they belong in this draft. Probably, anyway. Short of doing a bunch of research to disprove that, the only thing I can do is take his word for it, and of course there's no reason to believe he's incorrect in his assessments. On the other hand, Boucher, Anderson and Prodger(s) are known quantities, due to being regular main ATD picks. Are they better? Without an all-encompassing project to award all-star teams over the years, who can say? Not I. I'll leave it up to the voters.

My wildcard is Atty Howard. The main reason that Howard was ever on my radar to begin with, is because in MLD2012, Iain Fyffe selected him (along with a number of other exotic picks), singling him out as an egregious miss by the ATD crew. Around that time, this post went up on his blog, Hall of Famers from the Earliest Years - touting Howard as perhaps the 8th-best player of the 1890s.

So the supposed appeal of a guy like Howard is, if he's about as good as a guy like McKerrow, but is an actual RW, then it's easy to find a place for him on your team (as opposed to digging through reports, speculating about how much RW he might have once played). And when I compared his G:A ratio to the star players such as Bain, it appeared clear that he was more of a playmaking winger and therefore a good fit for what I was trying to do. But I realize there are potential drawbacks to that. Did Iain overvalue the Winnipeg league? Even if he did by 10% that could make a big difference. Also, his ratings are based on the expectations of the position. RWs are not expected to provide the offense of a C/R so he's kind of graded on a curve. So as much as he is a wildcard for you, he kind of is for me as well.

Then there's Anderson. I don't think he's nearly as much of an unknown. Yeah, he won the Hart as a defenseman which speaks to the level of play he was able to peak at, if not his actual usefulness as a winger. But as a winger, The Trail described him as "hard checking" and he was paired with Nels Stewart, and we have a pretty good idea what the responsibilities are for a player paired with late-career Nels Stewart. His VsX equivalent showed up very well for the spot in which I drafted him, though admittedly it does include two years in the AHA with Philadelphia (scores of 64 & 35). Still, scores of 91, 76 (as a D-man), 72, 56 and 50, for a checking-oriented player, is reasonable.

 

[rmartin65]

In an otherwise very even-looking matchup, the keys might be Liffiton, Hodgson and Drinkwater. The reason is they are mostly unknown to all but the GM who drafted them, @rmartin65. Liffiton and Hodgson may have passed right through this draft unclaimed, while Drinkwater would have likely been taken, maybe as a spare center, due to his name recognition from a decade as a main ATD player.

I am indeed very interested to see how the community receives the new research into Archie Hodgson and Charlie Liffiton (less so Graham Drinkwater- he was discussed a bit in the project, and I think it is clear that I consider him to be the least important of the 12 forwards. I will note that, according to the information I have, he was primarily a left wing, not a center. McLea and MacDougall were the center ice players on those Victorias teams. And while I know that there is this idea that Drinkwater could play both offense and defense, I would never play him at defense- of the 41 games I have, I only have Drinkwater at defense (point, to be specific) for 6 games, all of them in the 1899 season).

I think they've been overlooked historically, Hodgson likely because of his era, and Liffiton probably because of his shorter career and the fact that he jumped to the WPHL pretty early and never really came back to the Canadian leagues. I'll list the bios again here:

Archie Hodgson

Charlie Liffiton

But just by association with the man who's done perhaps more research than all of us combined, they belong in this draft. Probably, anyway. Short of doing a bunch of research to disprove that, the only thing I can do is take his word for it, and of course there's no reason to believe he's incorrect in his assessments.

If anyone doubts my research, I encourage them to look into the newspaper archives. I've done my best to ensure that I've stayed true to the source material and provided my thoughts on all the players of this era in good faith.

As always, I am more than happy to discuss any of the players (not just the ones in this series) through 1909. I'm always looking to learn more, think about these players in new ways, and to refine my rankings.

On the other hand, Boucher, Anderson and Prodger(s) are known quantities, due to being regular main ATD picks. Are they better? Without an all-encompassing project to award all-star teams over the years, who can say? Not I. I'll leave it up to the voters.

I believe that the bios for Liffiton and Hodgson (particularly the Hodgson one) are just as comprehensive as many of the bios for other bottom 6 players here. I'll also note that Jack Campbell's (among others) rise in popularity here in the ATD and HoH community is the result of this same research, so any concerns about these two being unknown quantities should probably be extended to him as well.

I do hope that we get an all-star award project going in the next year or two. I've started research into the WPHL and IPHL, so I'm pretty confident I'll have comprehensive data on those leagues by the time we get started. My early thoughts are that we may have been underselling the talent in those leagues a bit (at least from 1902-3 ish to 1908), but I'll comment more about that later.

My wildcard is Atty Howard. The main reason that Howard was ever on my radar to begin with, is because in MLD2012, Iain Fyffe selected him (along with a number of other exotic picks), singling him out as an egregious miss by the ATD crew. Around that time, this post went up on his blog, Hall of Famers from the Earliest Years - touting Howard as perhaps the 8th-best player of the 1890s.

So the supposed appeal of a guy like Howard is, if he's about as good as a guy like McKerrow, but is an actual RW, then it's easy to find a place for him on your team (as opposed to digging through reports, speculating about how much RW he might have once played). And when I compared his G:A ratio to the star players such as Bain, it appeared clear that he was more of a playmaking winger and therefore a good fit for what I was trying to do. But I realize there are potential drawbacks to that. Did Iain overvalue the Winnipeg league? Even if he did by 10% that could make a big difference. Also, his ratings are based on the expectations of the position. RWs are not expected to provide the offense of a C/R so he's kind of graded on a curve. So as much as he is a wildcard for you, he kind of is for me as well.

I'll start with a disclaimer- I haven't looked into the Manitoba leagues. All I really have from those players are the SC challenge games, the two tours Winnipeg players took to play hockey against Eastern teams (1893 and 1895, I believe), and then the handful of quotes when I did a quick search in the archives to get some quotes on Rod Flett. So while I do feel pretty comfortable with the AHAC players of the 1890s, I am nowhere near there with the Winnipeg guys.

That out of the way, I have 15 games worth of data for Howard (15.5 goals, 3 assists). For 13 games he is just listed as "forward". For 1 game, I don't have positions. For the remaining game, he was listed as RW. That plus playing the teammate game, I don't see any issues with calling him a RW.

But man... 8th best player of the 1890s is hard for me to get behind, and that's even if we don't count players who played a substantial amount of time but are more considered 1900's players (like Alf Smith and Harvey Pulford, for example).

Then there's Anderson. I don't think he's nearly as much of an unknown. Yeah, he won the Hart as a defenseman which speaks to the level of play he was able to peak at, if not his actual usefulness as a winger. But as a winger, The Trail described him as "hard checking" and he was paired with Nels Stewart, and we have a pretty good idea what the responsibilities are for a player paired with late-career Nels Stewart. His VsX equivalent showed up very well for the spot in which I drafted him, though admittedly it does include two years in the AHA with Philadelphia (scores of 64 & 35). Still, scores of 91, 76 (as a D-man), 72, 56 and 50, for a checking-oriented player, is reasonable.

I definitely think the fit of Anderson with guys like Dunderdale and Howard is a good one. My main point of contention is pointing to his Hart as representative of his play at wing. I don't think (and please correct me if I am wrong) he was ever really a star at wing.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I suggest we open voting on Wednesday. Let me know if you need more time to make arguments during the week-end.

@rmartin65
@seventieslord

 

[rmartin65]

I just came across a little 1901 piece talking about Archie Hodgson. It isn't much, but I always like to see how/if players are remembered after they've retired. I've tried to make the clipping public, let's see how it goes-

Archie Hodgson- 1901

Clipping found in The Montreal Star published in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on 11/8/1901. Archie Hodgson- 1901

www.newspapers.com

 

[rmartin65]

Some more on Hodgson-

I spent a bit of time this morning looking at the obituaries of the three great forwards of those MAAA teams- Archie Hodgson, Billy Barlow, and Haviland Routh. Based on how their careers reads in the game summaries, that's probably how I'd rank them. Interestingly, that seems to be reflected in their obituaries.

Haviland Routh died first. I have obituaries from The Gazette (5 January 1959 page 17) and The Montreal Star (5 January 1959 page 19). The only bit of hockey referenced by the Gazette is right in the beginning; "Funeral for Haviland Routh, a member of the first M.A.A. Stanley Cup Team in 1893, will be held tomorrow...". Hockey was not mentioned in the Montreal Star obituary.

Archie Hodgson passed next. I have obituaries from The Gazette (24 November 1960 page 39) and The Montreal Star (25 November 1960 page 10). Hockey (and other sports) were mentioned quite a bit. The Gazette wrote "A private funeral service was held yesterday for Archibald Arthur Hodgson, one of Canada's outstanding athletes and a top performer with the MAAA hockey team which won the Stanley Cup the first time it was awarded in 1893" and "He was recognized as an outstanding hockey forward". The Montreal Star wrote "In the true meaning of the term, he was a gentleman player, in lacrosse, in football and in hockey. In the latter game he was generally regarded as one of the country's outstanding forwards of his time, having been a member of the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association's team which was the first to win the Stanley Cup back in 1893".

Billy Barlow was last surviving member of those teams. I have obituaries from The Kingston Whig-Standard (15 February 1963 page 9), The Montreal Star (15 February 1963 page 14), and The Gazette (16 February 1963 page 49). The Whig-Standard describes Barlow as "A great playmaker who could skate as well backward as forward, he was the leading scorer on the MAA teams which held the Canadian hockey championship from 1892 to 1894" and "Mr. Barlow played rover [note that this was where I estimated based off the game summaries]- equivalent to today's centre- in a game which featured seven-man teams..." The Montreal Star wrote that "Mr. Barlow, well-known throughout Canadian hockey circles..." and "Mr. Barlow first came into prominence as a hockey player while playing with a local junior team. Being the type of player who could skate as well and as fast backward as forward, he jumped from junior to senior ranks, a thing which was considered outstanding in that era. He joined the MAAA team and during tours to Toronto, Quebec and other cities soon distinguished himself as a leading scorer. Continuing with the team, he played a prominent part in winning the Stanley Cup for three consecutive years". The Gazette did not mention his hockey career.

Standard disclaimers- I could have missed an obituary somewhere. Please point me in the direction of one if you find it, and I'll be happy to take that into account.

But based on this information, it is really hard to not like Hodgson here. Routh is only mentioned as part of the team. Barlow is described as a great skater and a scorer/playmaker. But it is Hodgson who is described as being "one of the country's outstanding forwards of his time".

 

[Professor What]

Were the votes for this ever tallied?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Were the votes for this ever tallied?

I never got news from Theo. Hope everything is good with him.

 

[Theokritos]

Sorry for the delay. Sometimes real life gets in the way and tackles one's plans like a motortruck, but I've finally been able to tally the votes.

Regina Pats defeat Montreal Victorias in triple OT of game 7.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Congrats on the win, @seventieslord, and to you too @rmartin65, for building a strong team.

This was a really fun draft.

Thank you @Theokritos for tallying the votes despite everything going on. Much appreciated!

 

[seventieslord]

Thanks everyone for a fun draft. It's tough to keep voters interested, especially in a smaller draft. I feel like I probably won this vote 1-0.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Thanks everyone for a fun draft. It's tough to keep voters interested, especially in a smaller draft. I feel like I probably won this vote 1-0.

I can confirm every GM voted.

You won 4-3.

 

[tinyzombies]

Congrats on the win, @seventieslord, and to you too @rmartin65, for building a strong team.

This was a really fun draft.

Thank you @Theokritos for tallying the votes despite everything going on. Much appreciated!

That was a blast - learned a lot. Congrats to you both for great teams.

 

[seventieslord]

I can confirm every GM voted.

You won 4-3.

Cool, thanks for letting me know. This is probably the first time since ATD 9 that I went into a series expecting my opponent to win, and just wanting to go in and give a good accounting of my team and put up a good show and aquit myself well, whatever you want to call it, and then take the loss to a superior opponent. Even considering that this is a special draft with constraints applied, this is definitely the most unique team I've ever built, so I consider it both highly improbable and highly appreciated that it was voted the winner.

 

[rmartin65]

While I'm disappointed, I can't say I'm terribly surprised- @seventieslord built a strong team , had the number 1 seed coming in, and is an experienced GM. I wish we could have gotten a little more debate in around Liffiton and Hodgson, since their worthiness was disputed, but oh well.

Thanks to everyone who participated along the way

 

[Habsfan18]

Congrats to @seventieslord on the win!

Also, great job to @rmartin65 who I think also built a great club.

This was a lot of fun and I hope we do it again one day.