Round 2, Vote 16 (HOH Top Centers)

[Hardyvan123]

Well this is sort of my point. Calling him the 5th best center of his career seems to consider only players who's careers overlapped almost entirely with his own (for his time at center).

Might I ask what is weird about his all-star record record in his last three seasons?

46 age 31 not in the top 9 (20 dmen played in 41-50 games that year)
47 age 32 7th in voting
48 age 33 4th in voting
49 age 34 plays in 15 games then in the AHL and then AHL again in 50

I don't know anything about any injury and it looks like eh fell off a cliff according to the stats (if that is baseless speculation then guilty as charged).

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I guess that's fair but he was already known as a pretty good defensive center, it's extremely rare to see a guy get better (as his voting results suggest) in years 32 ans 33 from where he was in 32 (not in the top 9).

Yet he seems to have done just that.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

In 46 there were only 20 Dmen who played in over 80% of their teams games, not being in the top 9 suggests that Neil was middle of the pack, at best, in that year.

I don't think anyone's impressed by Colville's accomplishments as a defenseman in 1946. I'm not sure why you fixate on it and downplay his two years afterwords.

I mean we see voters do some really weird things over the years, of course there is zero transparency with the voters but my suggestions seems more plausible than him getting that much better in years 32 and 33 then falling off the cliff at 34 right?

No, you're just suggesting something with no basis other than how you think it seems. That's not more plausible than what the people watching him thought, which was that he was the 4th best defenseman that year.

For the record I don't know how his career ended and am assuming that he retired after a slow start in his age 34 season, if someone has information on this it would be good to know and helpfull too.

He did play in the AHL in his 34 and 35 age seasons so it suggest that he fell off that cliff right after he climbed onto it (with the all star voting).

Does it really matter if his play fell off a cliff the next season? I think it would be interesting to know what happened, but you're just going to use it like the 1946 season as ammo for downplaying his two notable years on defense. These things aren't related.

Even if we take the best case scenario and say Neil took time to adjust and was just an average Dman in the league in 46 and has that noticeable dip offensively in the year before the missing war years, how is one to actually treat those missing years?

Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule or not, it's certainly something to think about though right?

It's tough to say, it is interesting that Colville's offense dropped before he went off to Ottawa for the war. He was a star with the armed forces team he played for and led them to an Allan Cup victory, but it's hard to know what that quality of competition was.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

46 age 31 not in the top 9 (20 dmen played in 41-50 games that year)
47 age 32 7th in voting
48 age 33 4th in voting
49 age 34 plays in 15 games then in the AHL and then AHL again in 50

I don't know anything about any injury and it looks like eh fell off a cliff according to the stats (if that is baseless speculation then guilty as charged).

Make a case for defensemen you feel were more deserving of the all-star selection then.

I'll grant you it's rather unusual for a player to decline as sharply as Colville seemed to, if indeed there was no injury (and this is unconfirmed). But to immediately suggest it must have been a retirement gift from the voters is quite a leap of faith. Especially when Colville finished 7th in voting the year before.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

This article says Colville retired in 1949 because of an injury and coached the Rangers farm team. Probably a player-coach from his games played with the team.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...Z4tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BqAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6052,1715178

 

[ted2019]

Posts 3 and 4 have Sedin as clearly the better offensive player, how does Joe make up that much of a difference?

Even Colville was losing what offense he had, compared to this group, in the year before the War, is this going to be another case of Schmidt like revisionism on the lost war years?

It's hard to tell with All star voting but Neil was 3rd in 41 with a single vote and 1 other guy got a single vote (Thoms) with Apps and Cowley dominating the voting at Center.

In 42 He gets another single vote at Center and is tied fro 6th that year (in the votes that we have)

In 46 his first full year back on Defense, he played 4 games in 45, he isn't one of the
9 Dmen who received all star votes.

In 47 he is 7th in Dman voting

In 48 he is 4th in Dman voting, hard to say but maybe it was a farewell vote?

It would be nice to have more information on him but I have a hard time seeing him as one of the top 2 guys this round.

There's something about Henrik Sedin that screams to Me that He shouldn't be in the top 60. Don't really know what it is, but it's a gut feeling.

 

[kmad]

There's something about Henrik Sedin that screams to Me that He shouldn't be in the top 60. Don't really know what it is, but it's a gut feeling.

You watched him play, so he doesn't have the mystical legend status that every other player has. You've seen all of his failures on replay in high definition - things that tend to get omitted or forgotten from the careers of the old time players as we gradually lionize them over time.

He's the best playmaker not already on the list, and though I didn't participate, I'm baffled at how little consideration he seems to get, with relatively very little explanation as to why. Seems that people just don't like him.

edit: I would still take LaFontaine for the final spot.

 

[sr edler]

Can't see why Roenick would go in, in front of LaFontaine or Sedin. His intangibles, his "physical presence", is overrated and, as I see it, basically style points. He was a good scorer, yes, but Sedin outside of his two peak years have been incredibly consistent around PPG for about six additional seasons. Roenick's a better goalscorer than Sedin, but that's it. Yeah, Sedin laid an egg in the finals but his team at least took it to 7 games whereas the Blackhawks got swept in 92 Roenick doing nothing for three games. Roenick feels like a lot of bark and a little bite, whereas Sedin is a little bark and a medium bite, from an all time perspective. I'll go with the substance there. He's a weak goalscorer yes but he's got seasons with 18, 19, 22 & 29 goals, which is decent for a guy who's a pass first, second and third player in this era. And when Daniel was out didn't he score like 10 goals in 18 games? Perhaps Sedin in the top 60 would feel "odd", but Roenick would be even odder.

 

[MXD]

Tthe thing is that his time as a Dman might be getting a tad over rated here, see my last post on his all star voting before and after the war.

also his VsX is really quite low. I know it's 6 years but he didn't break in until he was 22 and already had quite a drop off in year 6, so a 7th year probably doesn't help him as mush as one might think.

Not at the bottom but not at the top either.

Points are harder to come by when there's a whole line having career years. I mean, there couldn't be two first lines and the line above him ended up 1st, 2nd and 4th in scoring.

For somebody who often says the word "context", the fact that you completely disregard that is astonishing. Not to mention that, during that 6th year, Colville actually ended up playing defense as well due to injuries.

 

[MadArcand]

None of Sedin/Lafontaine/Roenick really seem deserving of the final spot, for varied reasons. Sedin is one-trick pony par excellence, Lafontaine unfortunately spent way too much time on IR, and Roenick was just too meh.

 

[MXD]

Y


It's tough to say, it is interesting that Colville's offense dropped before he went off to Ottawa for the war. He was a star with the armed forces team he played for and led them to an Allan Cup victory, but it's hard to know what that quality of competition was.

Well.... he outscored Milt Schmidt during the Ottawa/War years.

Points against weaker comp doesn't mean much, but his brother Mac didn'T exactly have the same success. Outscoring Milt Schmidt probably meant he could still play the game.

 

[MXD]

This article says Colville retired in 1949 because of an injury and coached the Rangers farm team. Probably a player-coach from his games played with the team.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...Z4tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BqAFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6052,1715178

Ulcers problems.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Well.... he outscored Milt Schmidt during the Ottawa/War years.

Points against weaker comp doesn't mean much, but his brother Mac didn'T exactly have the same success. Outscoring Milt Schmidt probably meant he could still play the game.

From what I can see Schmidt played in Ottawa and the Allan Cup a year before Colville did. Did I miss their overlap?

 

[MXD]

From what I can see Schmidt played in Ottawa and the Allan Cup a year before Colville did. Did I miss their overlap?

Yeah, you're right. I mean, Colville did better than Schmidt, but in a different year. Logic dictates that Colville might have faced slightly better competition, but not to a point where the gap is extremely relevant.

The performance of Mac Colville is interesting though. Flip side -- Mac was possibly a full-time D then. If he wasn't, well, it gives credence to the thesis that Colville didn't exactly get the better linemates.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You watched him play, so he doesn't have the mystical legend status that every other player has. You've seen all of his failures on replay in high definition - things that tend to get omitted or forgotten from the careers of the old time players as we gradually lionize them over time.

He's the best playmaker not already on the list, and though I didn't participate, I'm baffled at how little consideration he seems to get, with relatively very little explanation as to why. Seems that people just don't like him.

edit: I would still take LaFontaine for the final spot.

Why Lafontaine?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Regarding Colville's final season:

Early 1949 was a period of upheaval for the Rangers. The season began with an automobile accident that sidelined four regular skaters (Buddy O'Connor, Frank Eddolls, Edgar Laprade and Billy Moe). Frank Boucher, who had already amassed one of the worst coaching records in history since taking the post several years earlier, was forced to scramble just to fill a lineup, making several trades that would affect the lineup down the road (ie, Jim Henry for Alex Kaleta and Emile Francis).

At that time, Colville was captain but also the oldest skater in the league (Turk Broda was 2.5 months older for the league title) and suffered a recurrence of an old groin injury early in the season. About a month later, with Colville still out injured, Boucher was replaced by Lynn Patrick as head coach (Boucher was of the philosophy that managers and coaches should be separate positions, and retained the manager title). At the same time, Colville accepted the AHL coaching position that Patrick had vacated. In taking that position, Colville effectively retired from the NHL and put himself on the management track -- same as Boucher had done a generation earlier.

In New Haven, Colville played only 28 games in 1.5 seasons. Without being able to verify this suspicion, it looks like he was only playing on a substitute basis. He was 5 years older than anyone else on the roster, suffering from ulceritis, and he knew as well as anyone that he had no business playing in a minor league. The stint in New Haven ended when Patrick left New York two years later, leaving the coaching position open for Colville.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Regarding Colville's final season:

Early 1949 was a period of upheaval for the Rangers. The season began with an automobile accident that sidelined four regular skaters (Buddy O'Connor, Frank Eddolls, Edgar Laprade and Billy Moe). Frank Boucher, who had already amassed one of the worst coaching records in history since taking the post several years earlier, was forced to scramble just to fill a lineup, making several trades that would affect the lineup down the road (ie, Jim Henry for Alex Kaleta and Emile Francis).

At that time, Colville was captain but also the oldest skater in the league (Turk Broda was 2.5 months older for the league title) and suffered a recurrence of an old groin injury early in the season. About a month later, with Colville still out injured, Boucher was replaced by Lynn Patrick as head coach (Boucher was of the philosophy that managers and coaches should be separate positions, and retained the manager title). At the same time, Colville accepted the AHL coaching position that Patrick had vacated. In taking that position, Colville effectively retired from the NHL and put himself on the management track -- same as Boucher had done a generation earlier.

In New Haven, Colville played only 28 games in 1.5 seasons. Without being able to verify this suspicion, it looks like he was only playing on a substitute basis. He was 5 years older than anyone else on the roster, suffering from ulceritis, and he knew as well as anyone that he had no business playing in a minor league. The stint in New Haven ended when Patrick left New York two years later, leaving the coaching position open for Colville.

I realize it's a nitpick and not central to your point, but I don't like this characterization of Frank Boucher's coaching career. He was the "1st Team All Star" coach in 1942 and "2nd Team All Star" coach in 1940. Also coached the Rangers to the 1940 Stanley Cup. His winning record from 1942-43 onwards was awful, but the Rangers were so depleted by WW2 that at one point, they asked the league if they could suspend operations until the war was over.

Link to ATD-style profile of Frank Boucher

Lost the following players before the 1943 season to the war: Mac Colville, Neil Colville, Alex Shibicky, Art Coulter, Bill Juzda, Sugar Jim Henry, and Alan Kuntz
Lost before 1944 season: Lynn Patrick and Alf Pike
Lost before 1945 season: Bryan Hextall

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yet he seems to have done just that.


I don't think anyone's impressed by Colville's accomplishments as a defenseman in 1946. I'm not sure why you fixate on it and downplay his two years afterwords.


No, you're just suggesting something with no basis other than how you think it seems. That's not more plausible than what the people watching him thought, which was that he was the 4th best defenseman that year.


Does it really matter if his play fell off a cliff the next season? I think it would be interesting to know what happened, but you're just going to use it like the 1946 season as ammo for downplaying his two notable years on defense. These things aren't related.


It's tough to say, it is interesting that Colville's offense dropped before he went off to Ottawa for the war. He was a star with the armed forces team he played for and led them to an Allan Cup victory, but it's hard to know what that quality of competition was.

Look we know that all star voters have voted for players in the wrong position before and that they have made questionable decisions before (a couple of really questionable Harts in the era for instance in Tom Anderson, Babe Pratt, al Rollins and Ted Keneddy) why is it so hard for you to see the validity of the questioning here?

We know what the voters did and it seems very odd, yet my questioning that seems to be the issue here and not the players at hand.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Make a case for defensemen you feel were more deserving of the all-star selection then.

I'll grant you it's rather unusual for a player to decline as sharply as Colville seemed to, if indeed there was no injury (and this is unconfirmed). But to immediately suggest it must have been a retirement gift from the voters is quite a leap of faith. Especially when Colville finished 7th in voting the year before.

I wasn't around then so I don't feel qualified to say which Dmen would have been better in those 2 years, nor can people here say if Colville was better or deserving of his voting finishes.

We know what the voters did, it just seems very unusual and should draw our attention though right?

It's sad that most of the responses here have been directed towards some perceived bias instead of the actual discussion about the player that we have limited information on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look we know that all star voters have voted for players in the wrong position before and that they have made questionable decisions before (a couple of really questionable Harts in the era for instance in Tom Anderson, Babe Pratt, al Rollins and Ted Keneddy) why is it so hard for you to see the validity of the questioning here?

We know what the voters did and it seems very odd, yet my questioning that seems to be the issue here and not the players at hand.

Who should have been the other 2nd Team All-Star defenseman in 1947-48 if not Colville?

 

[MXD]

Look we know that all star voters have voted for players in the wrong position before and that they have made questionable decisions before (a couple of really questionable Harts in the era for instance in Tom Anderson, Babe Pratt, al Rollins and Ted Keneddy) why is it so hard for you to see the validity of the questioning here?

We know what the voters did and it seems very odd, yet my questioning that seems to be the issue here and not the players at hand.

Using a by the book definition of Hart, Tom Anderson was certainly not a bad choice.

As for Rollins, we can assume that the award was given for the preceding season - or at least that it was factored in. If we use the same reasoning With Colville, it could mean that his prior year was better than it looked. Thus making this a purely neutral operation.

How exactly terrible was Pratt's pick ? I mean, if we go that route, I can say that Sedin was also not a very enlightened choice either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I realize it's a nitpick and not central to your point, but I don't like this characterization of Frank Boucher's coaching career. He was the "1st Team All Star" coach in 1942 and "2nd Team All Star" coach in 1940. Also coached the Rangers to the 1940 Stanley Cup. His winning record from 1942-43 onwards was awful, but the Rangers were so depleted by WW2 that at one point, they asked the league if they could suspend operations until the war was over.

Link to ATD-style profile of Frank Boucher

I realize he wasn't an awful coach, I was just trying to draw a sketch of where things stood in late 1948.

In his final 7 seasons, Boucher's Rangers had a combined record of 90-196-57 with one first-round playoff loss. A quarter of his team had just been knocked out in a car accident. His captain was injured and probably starting to talk about retirement. He was suffering the onset of ulcers. He must have been relieved to have Patrick take over coaching duties so he could focus on management and prospect development. Likewise, Colville could hardly be blamed if he jumped at the opportunity to start his coaching career immediately.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It makes more sense to think voters just gave him some "farewell votes" (even though he wasn't retiring)?

seriously guys had shorter careers then pretty sure voters knew he wasn't playing till 40. I don't know what was in the voters heads and I'm not a conspiracy theorist guy either but the voters made some strange choices in the 40's and early 50's in voting

No supporting argument was made, hence myself and another poster asking you to back up your claim with some evidence.

actually I supported my questions, it seems that not liking them is now the same as not actually providing them?

When you sluff off a player's placement on the all-star team as a going away present without providing any supporting evidence along with it, you are going to be questioned on it.

first it was baseless accusations now questioning is sluffing a player's placement with documentation on the year before?

I can see where this movie is headed

 

[tarheelhockey]

All that stuff aside, I think the question is resolved by my post above, is it not? Colville didn't fall off a cliff, he spent part of a season injured and then took an AHL coaching job where he only played the odd game, likely in emergency scenarios. And it's not like he didn't have good reasons for making that move (oldest skater in the league, team in extreme turmoil, good career move).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

You watched him play, so he doesn't have the mystical legend status that every other player has. You've seen all of his failures on replay in high definition - things that tend to get omitted or forgotten from the careers of the old time players as we gradually lionize them over time.

He's the best playmaker not already on the list, and though I didn't participate, I'm baffled at how little consideration he seems to get, with relatively very little explanation as to why. Seems that people just don't like him.

edit: I would still take LaFontaine for the final spot.

henrik is one of my five favourite players of all time. but i don't think i could find a place for him in a top 60, at least not his career to date.

of the three guys that every one of us saw, is it fair to say that roenick is the one that you'd be most scared of taking over a series and turning it his way? not necessarily in the sense that roenick goes nuts and kills the other team single-handedly, but that he's the guy who will pot two quick goals to erase a lead, or have a mark messier shift where he sends your guy to the ER and 30 seconds later is standing over your goalie celebrating a goal.

because that was my impression-- though, to be fair, the only one of lafontaine's series i ever followed closely was montreal/buffalo in '93. roenick just seemed like a game-breaker in a way that, for all their points, lafontaine and henrik didn't.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You watched him play, so he doesn't have the mystical legend status that every other player has. You've seen all of his failures on replay in high definition - things that tend to get omitted or forgotten from the careers of the old time players as we gradually lionize them over time.

He's the best playmaker not already on the list, and though I didn't participate, I'm baffled at how little consideration he seems to get, with relatively very little explanation as to why. Seems that people just don't like him.

edit: I would still take LaFontaine for the final spot.

I tend to agree with this, his assist and point totals are very good for this round and his voting record for the previous round from this set of voters is confusing.