Round 2, Vote 4 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[canucks4ever]

Leetch had 6 top 5 finishes in Norris voting, posted up thread.

Earl Siebert has the best resume out of all these guys, the only reason he's still available for voting is because you and other posters did a good job downgrading his accomplishments. I don't really care who is competition was, he played at an elite level for a decade and is one of the best defensive defenseman in this round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bill Gadsby was NOT close to Doug Harvey or Red Kelly

Bill Gadsby was NOT close to Doug Harvey or Red Kelly

1. All three men played at the same time, and Gadsby's Hart consideration is not close.

Harvey: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th, 7th, 9th
Kelly: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th (plus an 8th and 9th as a forward)
Gadsby: 6th

Note that we don't have top 10 voting for every season, so we may be may be missing some more 6-10 place votes, but we have the top 5 for every season.

2. Gadsby NEVER finished ahead of peak Harvey or Kelly in Norris voting without injuries being a factor

Gadsby was a 1st Team All Star 3 times (55-56, 57-58, 58-59), so I'll focus on those three seasons.

In 1955-56, Gadsby finished ahead of Red Kelly in Norris voting. (numbers in parenthesis indicate first half/econd half voting).

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)

However, it's now widely known that Kelly spent 20+ games in 55-56 as a forward to compensate for injuries up front. Kelly even received a single vote as an All Star Left Wing that season. We've seen at least one article at the time speculate that Kelly lost the 1st Team D bid because of his time spent at forward (Does anyone have a link to it?)

Check out Hart voting from 55-56:

HART: (324/324, 142-146)
1. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 94 (53-41)
2. Tod Sloan, Tor C 86 (14-72)
3. Lorne Worsley, NYR G 72 (55-17)
4. Red Kelly, Det D 25 (14-11)
5. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 11 (6-5)
6. Johnny Wilson, Chi LW 10
7. Gordie Howe, Det RW 8
T8. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 6
T8. Maurice Richard, Mtl RW 6
10. Ted Lindsay, Det LW 5
11. Terry Sawchuk, Bos G 1

Kelly finished 4th in Hart voting and Gadsby didn't receive a single vote. I think it's fair to assume that the main reason Gadsby finished ahead of Kelly in Norris and All Star voting in 55-56 was because of Kelly's time at forward. Kelly was a better and more valuable overall hockey player that season.

1956-57 was Kelly's last season as a postseason all-star.

In 1957-58, Kelly missed 9 games due to injury. Check out Norris voting from 1957-58:

NORRIS: (324/324, 156-153)
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 153 (75-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 119 (55-64)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 17 (13-4)
4. Ron Stewart, Tor 13 (10-3)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 7 (3-4)
T6. Red Kelly, Det 3
T6. Tom Johnson, Mtl 3

In 1957-58, Gadsby finished ahead of Kelly in Norris voting, but by then Kelly was no longer a truly elite defenseman.

In 1958-59, Gadsby finished ahead of Harvey in Norris voting.

NORRIS: (324/324, 154-145)
1. Tom Johnson, Mtl 92 (38-54)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 67 (31-36)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 58 (34-24)
4. Doug Harvey, Mtl 48 (30-18)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 34 (21-13)

However, 1958-59 was a bit of an off year for Harvey, as he missed 9 games with injuries and wasn't himself when he did play. Harvey's teammate Tom Johnson picked up the slack and won the Norris over Gadsby. 1958-59 was the only season in which Gadsby finished ahead of Harvey in Norris voting, and it was due to Harvey's injuries that resulted in an off-season for him.

Conclusion: Bill Gadsby was the third best defenseman of his generation that peaked in the 1950s, but he was not close to Harvey or Kelly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Earl Siebert has the best resume out of all these guys, the only reason he's still available for voting is because you and other posters did a good job downgrading his accomplishments. I don't really care who is competition was, he played at an elite level for a decade and is one of the best defensive defenseman in this round.

Earl Seibert is still available because only 3 of 21 voters had him in their top 5 last round and because the majority (not everyone) apparently thought he compared unfavorably with Sprague Cleghorn.

I can't speak for anyone else, but Seibert will probably be in my top 5 this round, though not necessarily near the top.

 

[pappyline]

Bill Gadsby was NOT close to Doug Harvey or Red Kelly

1. All three men played at the same time, and Gadsby's Hart consideration is not close.

Harvey: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th, 7th, 9th
Kelly: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th (plus an 8th and 9th as a forward)
Gadsby: 6th

Note that we don't have top 10 voting for every season, so we may be may be missing some more 6-10 place votes, but we have the top 5 for every season.

2. Gadsby NEVER finished ahead of peak Harvey or Kelly in Norris voting without injuries being a factor

Gadsby was a 1st Team All Star 3 times (55-56, 57-58, 58-59), so I'll focus on those three seasons.

In 1955-56, Gadsby finished ahead of Red Kelly in Norris voting. (numbers in parenthesis indicate first half/econd half voting).

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)

However, it's now widely known that Kelly spent 20+ games in 55-56 as a forward to compensate for injuries up front. Kelly even received a single vote as an All Star Left Wing that season. We've seen at least one article at the time speculate that Kelly lost the 1st Team D bid because of his time spent at forward (Does anyone have a link to it?)

Check out Hart voting from 55-56:

HART: (324/324, 142-146)
1. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 94 (53-41)
2. Tod Sloan, Tor C 86 (14-72)
3. Lorne Worsley, NYR G 72 (55-17)
4. Red Kelly, Det D 25 (14-11)
5. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 11 (6-5)
6. Johnny Wilson, Chi LW 10
7. Gordie Howe, Det RW 8
T8. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 6
T8. Maurice Richard, Mtl RW 6
10. Ted Lindsay, Det LW 5
11. Terry Sawchuk, Bos G 1

Kelly finished 4th in Hart voting and Gadsby didn't receive a single vote. I think it's fair to assume that the main reason Gadsby finished ahead of Kelly in Norris and All Star voting in 55-56 was because of Kelly's time at forward. Kelly was a better and more valuable overall hockey player that season.

1956-57 was Kelly's last season as a postseason all-star.

In 1957-58, Kelly missed 9 games due to injury. Check out Norris voting from 1957-58:

NORRIS: (324/324, 156-153)
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 153 (75-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 119 (55-64)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 17 (13-4)
4. Ron Stewart, Tor 13 (10-3)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 7 (3-4)
T6. Red Kelly, Det 3
T6. Tom Johnson, Mtl 3

In 1957-58, Gadsby finished ahead of Kelly in Norris voting, but by then Kelly was no longer a truly elite defenseman.

In 1958-59, Gadsby finished ahead of Harvey in Norris voting.

NORRIS: (324/324, 154-145)
1. Tom Johnson, Mtl 92 (38-54)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 67 (31-36)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 58 (34-24)
4. Doug Harvey, Mtl 48 (30-18)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 34 (21-13)

However, 1958-59 was a bit of an off year for Harvey, as he missed 9 games with injuries and wasn't himself when he did play. Harvey's teammate Tom Johnson picked up the slack and won the Norris over Gadsby. 1958-59 was the only season in which Gadsby finished ahead of Harvey in Norris voting, and it was due to Harvey's injuries that resulted in an off-season for him.

Conclusion: Bill Gadsby was the third best defenseman of his generation that peaked in the 1950s, but he was not close to Harvey or Kelly.

Not sure of the purpose of this post but it is overkill. We are not comparing Gadsby to Harvey & Kelly. We are comparing him to the guys that are up in this round. Are any of the others in this round close to Harvey or Kelly. Nope. Harvey came in at #2 and Kelly at #7. The best Gadsby can rank is #16 and he is a helluva lot closer to Harvey & kelly than anybody else in this round.

For sure Gadsby would have had a couple of Norris awards if not for harvey.

As far as the Hart goes, you are not going to get much support if playing for the usual 6th place team (Chicago) and then get traded to the usual 5th place team (New York).

I really don't now what you were trying to accomplish here.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I decided that quoting old posts on pre-expansion defensemen is what I will do.

Just wanted to quibble with something in the quote from Hockey Outsider: "In ten years as a forward, he had just two top-ten scoring finishes, and one of them was in the fluky 1930 campaign (due to bizarre, one-time rule changes that were adjusted mid-season)."

While the Bruins' performance that season had some element of flukiness, in the sense of not being repeated, attributing it to the rule changes is not valid. The Bruins were the only team in the NHL that maintained their scoring pace after the rules were changed (to essentially their modern form) in December 1929. Every other team dropped precipitously, but the Bruins just kept on scoring. They weren't even leading the league in goals when the rule was changed, but they ended up first, far and away.

Which is to say, saying the Bruins' scoring stats that year are inflated that year because of a temporary rules blip is wholly unfair. You could say it of the other teams, but not them. They were a better team after the rule adjustment than they were before.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not sure of the purpose of this post but it is overkill. We are not comparing Gadsby to Harvey & Kelly. We are comparing him to the guys that are up in this round. Are any of the others in this round close to Harvey or Kelly. Nope. Harvey came in at #2 and Kelly at #7. The best Gadsby can rank is #16 and he is a helluva lot closer to Harvey & kelly than anybody else in this round.

For sure Gadsby would have had a couple of Norris awards if not for harvey.

As far as the Hart goes, you are not going to get much support if playing for the usual 6th place team (Chicago) and then get traded to the usual 5th place team (New York).

I really don't now what you were trying to accomplish here.

I was browsing the old Top 100 list threads for information on pre-expansion defensemen and was surprised at just how thin the case that was made for Bill Gadsby was. The entire case for Gadsby boiled down to "it's about time he gets added to the list because he was so close to Kelly and Harvey and even beat them out for 1st Team All Stars a few times." The point of my post was to show that Gadsby was, in fact, not close to Harvey or Kelly and shouldn't be ranked as though he was.

I think it's likely Gadsby wins a couple of Norrises without Harvey, but as C1958 pointed out, when Harvey was basically taken out of the picture by injuries, Tom Johnson emerged from nowhere to win, so we can't just assume Gadsby would have won the Norris every time he finished 2nd to Harvey (which he did 3 times).

Good point about the Hart voting. However, it's not like players on Chicago couldn't get Hart recognition if they were especially outstanding. See Al Rollins. (I guess the counterargment would be that it's easier for goalies to be recognized in losing causes than defensemen).

 

[pappyline]

I was browsing the old Top 100 list threads for information on pre-expansion defensemen and was surprised at just how thin the case for Bill Gadsby was. The entire case for Gadsby boiled down to "it's about time he gets added to the list because he was so close to Kelly and Harvey and even beat them out for 1st Team All Stars a few times." The point of my post was to show that Gadsby was, in fact, not close to Harvey or Kelly and shouldn't be ranked as though he was.

I think it's likely Gadsby wins a couple of Norrises without Harvey, but as C1958 pointed out, when Harvey was basically taken out of the picture by injuries, Tom Johnson emerged from nowhere to win, so we can't just assume Gadsby would have won the Norris every time he finished 2nd to Harvey (which he did 3 times).

Good point about the Hart voting. However, it's not like players on Chicago couldn't get Hart recognition if they were especially outstanding. See Al Rollins. (I guess the counterargment would be that it's easier for goalies to be recognized in losing causes than defensemen).

Again, No one has tried to make the case that Gadsby should be ranked on the level of Harvey or Kelly so I don't understand why you are making a big deal out of it. Gadsby did make the top 100 list so obviously most voters obviously thought he should be there. IT was likely such a slam dunk to most people that his case didn't need to be discussed as much as some others.

Tom Johnson had a career season to steal the Norris in 58-59. He never had another season like it. It is extremely unlikely that someone would come from nowhere 3 more times.

Al rolllins is an unusual case and was a very controversial win.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again, No one has tried to make the case that Gadsby should be ranked on the level of Harvey or Kelly so I don't understand why you are making a big deal out of it. Gadsby did make the top 100 list so obviously most voters obviously thought he should be there. IT was likely such a slam dunk to most people that his case didn't need to be discussed as much as some others.

Tom Johnson had a career season to steal the Norris in 58-59. He never had another season like it. It is extremely unlikely that someone would come from nowhere 3 more times.

Al rolllins is an unusual case and was a very controversial win.

IMO, Scott Stevens and Al MacInnis were probably both closer to Ray Bourque (ranked 4th on our list) than Bill Gadsby was to Red Kelly (ranked 7th on our list).

 

[pappyline]

IMO, Scott Stevens and Al MacInnis were probably both closer to Ray Bourque (ranked 4th on our list) than Bill Gadsby was to Red Kelly (ranked 7th on our list).

For sure we will have to disagree on this one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is more to a Norris record than just wins. Here is the table Hockey Outsider posted last round...

Player | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | TOP FIVE
Chris Pronger | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7
Scott Stevens | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7
Brian Leetch | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6
Al MacInnis | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6
Tim Horton | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6

Gadsby has 7 Top 5's to tie Pronger and Stevens for the most, and 5 Top 3 finishes, second only to MacInnis' 6 and ahead of everyone else. I didn't mean that Gadsby's record was clearly ahead of these guys, just that it is right there with them. In terms of top-end competition, he had the most difficult with Harvey and Kelly, but the depth of the mid 80's-late90's group was better.

Between a very competitive Norris record and some high praises in the bio posted I think it's at least worth getting some more information on Gadsby. I would like to hear from some of the guys who saw him play. How much better was he than the guys just below him? Was the distance bigger between Harvey/Kelly and Gadsby or between Gadsby and the other defesemen?

The numbers for Horton are wrong. He has a 4th and 5th place finish that HO doesn't account for. So he really has 8 Top 5s, 1 more than Pronger, Stevens, and Gadsby. Based off this post by Dreakmur in 2010, it appears that full Norris records were only uncovered for the first half of Horton's career quite recently. The Norris records I posted in post 40 are complete as of September, 2011

 

[amnesiac]

Nieds and Langway should be on the next list

 

[MXD]

Clapper had 3 first AS selections at D before the top players went off to war. He certainly deserves to have support this round.

My tiers are:

tier1; Seibert, Gadsby, Clapper, Horton
tier 2: MacInnes, Salming, Stevens
tier 3:Leetch Pronger,Vasiliev

Then again : compare Clapper's resume with Ken Reardon's, and they're EXTREMELY close.

Don't get me wrong : Clapper ranks higher in an All-Time list than in a an all-D list, but if the whole WWII didn't exist, Ken Reardon would have a longer career than him (it's 8 vs. 7 at this point!) and would still beat him as far as AST's berths are concerned, and I'm even not tackling of the subject of the support Clapper had with the Bruins, who was, albeit marginally, better than the one Reardon had in Montreal.

Reardon isn't available for voting this round (rightfully so), mainly because of longevity and possibly "weak" era for D-Men. But the same points can be raised for Clapper as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bill Gadsby isn't the only one who should get what-if credit based on competition.

Scott Stevens was 2nd to Ray Bourque for the Norris twice - 1988 and 1994. He was 3rd for the Norris behind Nicklas Lidstrom and Raymond Bourque in 2001.

Al MacInnis was also 2nd to Raymond Bourque twice - 1990 and 1991. He won the Norris in 1999 and was 2nd to Nicklas Lidstrom in 2003.

And that's without getting into Chelios and Coffey.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The numbers for Horton are wrong. He has a 4th and 5th place finish that HO doesn't account for. So he really has 8 Top 5s, 1 more than Pronger, Stevens, and Gadsby. Based off this post by Dreakmur in 2010, it appears that full Norris records were only uncovered for the first half of Horton's career quite recently. The Norris records I posted in post 40 are complete as of September, 2011

Thanks for the update. You may want to make a note or credit Gadsby with an additional 4th place finish in your post, as he finished 4th in All-Star voting the year before the Norris was introduced

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the update. You may want to make a note or credit Gadsby with an additional 4th place finish in your post, as he finished 4th in All-Star voting the year before the Norris was introduced

Thanks. Edited the post.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

GADSBY WAS VERY GOOD OFFENSIVELY AND VERY PHYSICAL, BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS DEFENSE AND OVERALL IMPACT?

Gadsby was Harvey's equal offensively

I'm not going to do a detailed look at the stats; someone else can if they want to.

In brief:

Doug Harvey via EagleBelfour's profile:
Bill Gadsby via arrbez's profile:

Scoring finishes among defensemen:

Harvey points: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8
Gadsby points: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 7, 7

Harvey goals: 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 10
Gadsby goals: 1, 1, 2 ,2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 9

Harvey assists: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 7, 8
Gadsby assists: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 7, 8

If you look at their points-per-game numbers, they are very similar - both behind Kelly, but well ahead of the pack.

If you look at consecutive 40 point seasons (an extremely rare feat for a defenseman of the era), both Harvey and Gadsby have 4 of them.

I think it's fair to say that Gadsby and Harvey were close to equal offensively.

Gadsby was an elite shot blocker and a very physical player

Nothing more to add here, except to see his profile that has been linked a couple of times in this thread.

But how good was he defensively and what was his overall impact?

In the past, I think there was a perception that Gadsby was a very good defensive player because of his known physicality and shot blocking prowess. But some of us were skeptical in the last ATD:

I'm still not convinced that his defensive game was anything special, to be honest.

that is also my concern.

i have found multiple sources that call him an offensive d-man or a PP specialist. i have also read he was at his best defensively late in his career. gadsby was apparently always a big hitter. i have only seen games of him from the mid '60s.

but i cannot read new york times articles for free, so i am missing a large source of information.

The thing that bothers me about Gadsby is that he played on some really bad teams in his prime. It's hard to picture any team with some of the other defencemen taken recently ever being that bad. He changed teams a couple of times, but his departure and arrival didn't change the course of any franchises.

See the 1954-55 season. Gadsby was 27. Chicago had a 3-13-3 record (.250 W%). They traded Gadsby to New York and improved, going 10-27-14 (0.327 W%) the rest of the way. The Rangers were 6-9-3 (0.417 W%) when Gadsby arrived. With Gadsby on the team they were 11-26-15 (0.356 W%). Both teams were worse with Gadsby.

In the three seasons before Gadsby, New York averaged 59 points. In Gadsby's first three seasons there, they averaged 64 points. Chicago averaged 48 points in Gadsby's last three seasons there, and 47 points in the three seasons after he left.

The Rangers sent Gadsby to Detroit after the 1960-61 season. In the three seasons prior to that they averaged 56 points. In the three seasons after Gadsby left they averaged 58 points. Detroit averaged 64 points in the three seasons prior to acquiring Gadsby. After picking him up they averaged 69 points in three seasons.

Teams tended to improve slightly after acquiring Gadsby, and stayed about the same without him. His record just doesn't have a lot of team success on it, or evidence of making an impact, relative to other defencemen taken around here. Like Chris Pronger, for example.

Sure, this is crude analysis, and there are many factors that drive team success. But maybe the Hockey News panel, many whom watched Gadsby in his prime, knew what they were doing when they ranked him as the 99th best player in history as of 1996. I don't think most people would say that list underrated Original Six players, either

(emphasis mine)

Also take into account the Hart winning goalie Al Rollins. Here is a great profile of him.

Rollins was 2nd in Hart voting in 1952-53 and won the Hart in 1953-54 as the goalie of the worst team in the league.

From the profile above:

Despite the terrible team, Rollins was incredible. And the hockey public noticed. In his first year he played 70 games and averaged 38 shots against! He had an incredibly respectable 27-28-15 record with 6 shutouts and a 2.50 GAA. He finished a close second to Gordie Howe in the Hart Trophy balloting.

The following season, 1953-54, the Hawks seemingly got worst. And while Rollins numbers took a beating he only got better. Forget about the 12-47-7 record. He played in the all star game and had 5 shutouts. Most importantly, he won the Hart Trophy as the league's MVP! That tells you just how good Rollins was - a 12 win season in 66 games earned him the most prestigious individual prize in hockey, over names like Howe and Richard!

Rollins was traded with a package of players to the Chicago Blackhawks for goaltender Harry Lumley in 1952. In the Windy City, Rollins found the club's affairs to be disorganized. He noted that in one game, he faced more breakaways than he'd seen during all three of his years in Toronto. But his heroic efforts to prop up the sagging Hawks didn't go unnoticed. He earned second spot behind Gordie Howe for the Hart Trophy as the league's MVP in 1953. Then, the next year, he took the Hart for himself.

In 1952, he was shipped to the Chicago Blackhawks in exchange for proven veteran Harry ''Apple Cheeks'' Lumley. For the better part of the decade, Rollins played valiantly for a team that regularly finished dead last in the NHL. It was with the brutal Hawks’ teams that greatly contributed to his less than stellar career record of 141-205-83. But the pundits could see that, despite the losses, Rollins was one of the League’s best net minders. In 1953-54, Rollins was named an All-Star and was awarded the Hart Trophy even though he won just 12 games while losing 47 that season. The hockey writers who voted for the award knew that Rollins faced more shots and scoring chances than any other goalie in the League, and the fact that he was able to keep scores respectable most nights was a testament to his fortitude

Bill Gadsby was the Hawks' #1 defenseman when Rollins was getting shelled (and a 2nd Team All Star both seasons). He was 25 years old when Rollins was runner up for the Hart and 26 years old when Rollins won the Hart.

It obviously wasn't entirely Gadsby's fault - he was only 1 of 4 regular defensemen for the team. And it should be noted that he might not have been in his prime yet - Gadsby was not a 1st Team All Star until his first full season the Rangers in 1955-56.

But I think it should definitely be clear that Gadsby was better offensively than defensively.

 

[pappyline]

GADSBY WAS VERY GOOD OFFENSIVELY AND VERY PHYSICAL, BUT WHAT ABOUT HIS DEFENSE AND OVERALL IMPACT?

Gadsby was Harvey's equal offensively

I'm not going to do a detailed look at the stats; someone else can if they want to.

In brief:

Doug Harvey via EagleBelfour's profile:
Bill Gadsby via arrbez's profile:

Scoring finishes among defensemen:

Harvey points: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8
Gadsby points: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 6, 7, 7

Harvey goals: 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 10
Gadsby goals: 1, 1, 2 ,2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 9

Harvey assists: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 7, 8
Gadsby assists: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 7, 8

If you look at their points-per-game numbers, they are very similar - both behind Kelly, but well ahead of the pack.

If you look at consecutive 40 point seasons (an extremely rare feat for a defenseman of the era), both Harvey and Gadsby have 4 of them.

I think it's fair to say that Gadsby and Harvey were close to equal offensively.

Gadsby was an elite shot blocker and a very physical player

Nothing more to add here, except to see his profile that has been linked a couple of times in this thread.

But how good was he defensively and what was his overall impact?

In the past, I think there was a perception that Gadsby was a very good defensive player because of his known physicality and shot blocking prowess. But some of us were skeptical in the last ATD:







(emphasis mine)

Also take into account the Hart winning goalie Al Rollins. Here is a great profile of him.

Rollins was 2nd in Hart voting in 1952-53 and won the Hart in 1953-54 as the goalie of the worst team in the league.

From the profile above:







Bill Gadsby was the Hawks' #1 defenseman when Rollins was getting shelled (and a 2nd Team All Star both seasons). He was 25 years old when Rollins was runner up for the Hart and 26 years old when Rollins won the Hart.

It obviously wasn't entirely Gadsby's fault - he was only 1 of 4 regular defensemen for the team. And it should be noted that he might not have been in his prime yet - Gadsby was not a 1st Team All Star until his first full season the Rangers in 1955-56.

But I think it should definitely be clear that Gadsby was better offensively than defensively.

Not clear at all. The 53-54 Blackhawks as a team were terrible both offensively & defensively. One of the worst teams ever. Note the emphasis on the word team. Probably the only 2 quality players they had were Gadsby and Rollins Their leading point getter was larry Wilson(9-33-42). Their leading goal scorer was Pete Conacher with 19. Both guys were soon out of the NHL and were career AHLers. Look at their lineup in the link below. A few over the hill guys, a few others who would eventually be decent but were not ready yet & a bunch of no names. Lucky that Gadsby was able to add to the offense as he finished second in points. Was he good at defense too. Maybe he was but didn't get much help.

Not sure what you are driving at here. You seem on a mission to tear Gadsby down but are not being very convincing.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1954.html

 

[pappyline]

Then again : compare Clapper's resume with Ken Reardon's, and they're EXTREMELY close.

Don't get me wrong : Clapper ranks higher in an All-Time list than in a an all-D list, but if the whole WWII didn't exist, Ken Reardon would have a longer career than him (it's 8 vs. 7 at this point!) and would still beat him as far as AST's berths are concerned, and I'm even not tackling of the subject of the support Clapper had with the Bruins, who was, albeit marginally, better than the one Reardon had in Montreal.

Reardon isn't available for voting this round (rightfully so), mainly because of longevity and possibly "weak" era for D-Men. But the same points can be raised for Clapper as well.

You make a good point but I have a hard time getting my head around your suggestion that Reardon was on the same level as Clapper (when looking at Clapper's years on D only). Certainly goes against anything I have ever heard before. will have to give it some more thought and research.

Anyone else out there have some insight on this? Is Clapper being considered too soon?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why Earl Seibert should be ranked higher than Bill Gadsby

1. Better All Star record is evidence of better consistency or longevity as an elite player.

Seibert = 4 X 1st Team; 6 X 2nd Team

1934-35 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1935-36 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1936-37 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1937-38 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1938-39 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1939-40 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1940-41 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1941-42 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1942-43 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1943-44 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)

Gadsby = 3 X 1st Team; 4 X 2nd Team

1952-53 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1953-54 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1955-56 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1956-57 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)
1957-58 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1958-59 NHL NHL All-Star Team (1st)
1964-65 NHL NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

The circumstances of Seibert's All Star teams seem similar to the circumstances of Gadsby's to me - neither one could touch the best of their era (Shore for Seibert, Harvey/Kelly for Gadsby), and neither one was beating out anyone all that impressive compared to the players up for voting now.

2. A defining all-time great playoff run

Seibert won two Cups (1933 and 1938) while Gadsby won none. But more importantly, Seibert has a defining playoff run in 1938 - when he was clearly the best and more important player on Chicago's shocking Stanley Cup win (Chicago in 1938 is often considered the worst team ever to win the Cup).

It's not Gadsby's fault his team didn't win it all (he was particularly impressive in back to back trips to the finals in Detroit later in his career). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give Seibert credit for going above and beyond in 1938.

3. Better established defensive ability

Read the post up thread that I made about Seibert (quoting reserach by other people). I think Seibert's defensive ability is probably close to Gadsby's offensive ability, as the primary attribute of each player.

But I prefer Seibert's known offense to what we know about Gadsby's defense.

(To put it in fantasy terms, If Seibert is a 7 offensively and 9 defensively, maybe Gadsby is a 9 offensively and 6 defensively).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not clear at all. The 53-54 Blackhawks as a team were terrible both offensively & defensively. One of the worst teams ever. Note the emphasis on the word team. Probably the only 2 quality players they had were Gadsby and Rollins Their leading point getter was larry Wilson(9-33-42). Their leading goal scorer was Pete Conacher with 19. Both guys were soon out of the NHL and were career AHLers. Look at their lineup in the link below. A few over the hill guys, a few others who would eventually be decent but were not ready yet & a bunch of no names. Lucky that Gadsby was able to add to the offense as he finished second in points. Was he good at defense too. Maybe he was but didn't get much help.

Not sure what you are driving at here. You seem on a mission to tear Gadsby down but are not being very convincing.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1954.html

Yes, the Blackhawks team of the early 1950s was one of the worst ever and that is certainly not Gadsby's fault.

But I just can't see Scott Stevens or Chris Pronger letting his goalie get shelled like that.

 

[Dreakmur]

Gadsby was Harvey's equal offensively

I think I would actually say that Gadsby was better offensively than Harvey.

Both guys were in their primes between 1950 and 1963. It's actually odd that their careers peaked and dropped off during the same seasons, but it worked out perfectly. Either way, that's the time I looked at.

Harvey had 492 points and 70 goals in 937 games.
Gadsby had 474 points and 106 goals in 907 games.

In terms of points, it is dead even, but goals is a distinct advantage to Gadsby.

One important aspect here is strength of teammates. Since Harvey was part of the best team of all time, I think it's fair to say he had a lot more help than Gadsby. I don't want to say the word "leach", but Harvey definately benefitted from passing to all-time fowards - especially compared to the messes that Gadsby worked with. Taking that into consideration, I think Gadsby's 0.52 PPG is much more impressive than Havey's 0.53.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Yes, the Blackhawks team of the early 1950s was one of the worst ever and that is certainly not Gadsby's fault.

But I just can't see Scott Stevens or Chris Pronger letting his goalie get shelled like that.

I don't see how one player can keep his goalie from being shelled.

Even if they played the whole 60 minutes, if the other 4 guys stink the goalie still gets unloaded on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think I would actually say that Gadsby was better offensively than Harvey.

Both guys were in their primes between 1950 and 1963. It's actually odd that their careers peaked and dropped off during the same seasons, but it worked out perfectly. Either way, that's the time I looked at.

Harvey had 492 points and 70 goals in 937 games.
Gadsby had 474 points and 106 goals in 907 games.

In terms of points, it is dead even, but goals is a distinct advantage to Gadsby.

One important aspect here is strength of teammates. Since Harvey was part of the best team of all time, I think it's fair to say he had a lot more help than Gadsby. I don't want to say the word "leach", but Harvey definately benefitted from passing to all-time fowards - especially compared to the messes that Gadsby worked with. Taking that into consideration, I think Gadsby's 0.52 PPG is much more impressive than Havey's 0.53.

Possibly. From what I've read and the very limited video that I've seen, Gadsby was a puck rusher, so he would have been more involved in creating his team's offense. Harvey was a lot like Lidstrom in that he was defense-first, but still had the talent to get a lot of points in transition and on the power play.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Don't put words in my mouth. Brad Park is the best defenseman of the Norris era not to win it, IMO. Stevens is second best though. Since my top 5 went last round; Stevens is my favorite for 1st in this round.

At first glance, I have the defensemen in two tiers:

Tier 1: Scott Stevens, Chris Pronger, Tim Horton, Al MacInnis, Earl Seibert

Tier 2: Borje Salming, Brian Leetch, Bill Gadsby, Valeri Vasiliev, Serge Savard

Not sure what to do about Dit Clapper, though I considered him more in the higher tier when I put together my Round 1 list.

And, of course, I'm always open to moving people around based on arguments.

Okay I was joking but you missed the possiblypart, if there is a bigger Stevens supporter in the history section I haven't seen him.

I'd put Clapper in the 1st tier and switch Seibert and Leetch around but otherwise those tiers look reasonable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay I was joking but you missed the possibly part, if there is a bigger Stevens supporter in the history section I haven't seen him.

I'd put Clapper in the 1st tier and switch Seibert and Leetch around but otherwise those tiers look reasonable.

I voted Stevens 6th last round. 4 voters had him higher than me and 2 had him just as high.

Why do you have Leetch over Seibert?