Round 2, Vote 5 (2009 update)

MXD · Aug 24, 2009

God Bless Canada said:
I do have Moore ahead of Bathgate, but not by much. Moore definitely wasn't a passenger on those Cup wins - his post-season performance is a testament to that. (How good was Moore in the post-season? 14 points in 18 games in 68 for St. Louis, after sitting out for three seasons). And passengers don't set league scoring records that stand for six seasons.

... I was obviously quoting others and not myself here...

FissionFire · Aug 24, 2009

Let's stay on topic. Dickie Moore's time will come soon enough I'm sure.

Canadiens1958 · Aug 24, 2009

Max Bentley / Frank Mahovlich

God Bless Canada said:
Rankings for this round:

1. Max Bentley: The best offensive option for this round. Two-time Art Ross Trophy winner was a dazzling, offensively-aggressive player who could beat you with goal scoring or playmaking ability. Forty-six points in 51 playoff games is a tremendous total for his time.

5. Frank Mahovlich: He's not without his faults - he was a high-maintenance player whose personality was amplified by a dictator of a coach - but a top 50 without the Big M is incomplete at best and illegitimate at worst. A cog for five Stanley Cup champions who finished second in goals five times, and beat Bobby Hull for the first all-star team LW spot twice.

Max Bentley. Think you could make a better case if you look at his willingness to subordinate his scoring after being traded to Toronto and replacing Art Ross trophies with Stanley Cups. This view does impact somewhat on Doug.

Frank Mahovlich. The ability to contribute to Stanley Cups(4 with Toronto, 2 with Montreal) with two dynasty quality teams is a big plus. Also underrated defensively. Quality left wingers simply do not get the credit they deserve.

Kyle McMahon · Aug 25, 2009

God Bless Canada said:
15. Joe Malone: With all due respect: how the hell is Joe Malone an option before Dickie Moore?

Malone had many more elite seasons?

Moore had a superb five year peak, and two strong playoff runs outside of that peak, but that's basically it. Just taking into account NHL play, Malone has a slightly better record of top-10's in goals and points. When you consider all that Malone did outside of the NHL, it's really not a tough decision as far as I can tell, even if Moore did bring more to the table. When I think of Moore, I think of an original six Peter Forsberg. Great career, Top-100 for sure (I think I had them both in the 70's), but one that was cut short by injury. But I don't wish to discuss it further as we are already wandering off topic.

I am interested as well to hear why you don't think it's Boucher's time yet, while Max Bentley tops your list. Both were great playoff performers. Boucher was a better passer, Bentley was a better scorer. Boucher has more top-10 points finishes and AST selections. From what I've read, both had a somewhat similar playing style, as in they were great offensively but not lacking in other areas either. I fail to see how they can be at opposite ends of anybody's list in this vote.

Hockey Outsider · Aug 25, 2009

Here is the raw data I have regarding Hart trophy data. Two disclaimers. First, this post isn't intended to be an argument for/against any player (though it can be used to support a position). Second, keep in mind that Hart trophy voting standards appear to have changed over time and are probably not directly comparable.

The table is sorted by total Hart nominations (ie years in the top five). I have also included data regarding all-star selections.

PLAYER | FIRST | SECOND | THIRD | FOURTH | FIFTH | TOTAL | 1ST AS | 2nd AS | TOTAL
F Bathgate | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 |4
F Dionne | | 1 | 2 | | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4
F Bentley | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2
G Durnan | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6
D Park | | | | | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 7
F Conacher | | 1 | | 1 | | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5
D Coffey | | | | 2 | | 2 | 4 | 4 |8
F Boucher | | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4
F Mahovlich | | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 9
F Geoffrion | 1 | | | | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3
D Chelios | | | | | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 7
D Horton | | | | | | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6
D Pilote | | | | | | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8

* F Malone retired from the NHL before the first Hart trophy was awarded.
** G Tretiak never played in the NHL but dominated the Hart trophy voting in the Soviet league.
*** F Boucher had a few good years prior to 1930-31 (the first year all-star teams were picked).

Howe Elbows 9 · Aug 25, 2009

Defensemen:

Norris voting

Hart voting

Scoring, 3 best seasons

Tim Horton

Season |GP |G |A |TP
1968-69 |74 |11 |29 |40
1961-62 |70 |10 |28 |38
1959-60 |70 |3 |29 |32

Pierre Pilote

Season |GP |G |A |TP
1964-65 |68 |14 |45 |59
1963-64 |70 |7 |46 |53
1966-67 |70 |6 |46 |52

Brad Park

Season |GP |G |A |TP
1973-74 |78 |25 |57 |82
1977-78 |80 |22 |57 |79
1971-72 |75 |24 |49 |73

Paul Coffey

Season |GP |G |A |TP
1985-86 |79 |48 |90 |138
1983-84 |80 |40 |86 |126
1984-85 |80 |37 |84 |121

Chris Chelios

Season |GP |G |A |TP
1988-89 |80 |15 |58 |73
1992-93 |84 |15 |58 |73
1995-96 |81 |14 |58 |72

Career regular season scoring compared to (somewhat) contemporary defensemen

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Red Kelly |1949-1967 |1197 |270 |517 |787 |0.66 |304
Bill Gadsby |1949-1966 |1090 |113 |408 |521 |0.48 |1357
Tim Horton |1949-1974 |1446 |115 |403 |518 |0.36 |1611

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Red Kelly |1955-1967 |788 |172 |334 |506 |0.64 |201
Pierre Pilote |1955-1969 |890 |80 |418 |498 |0.56 |1251
Tim Horton |1955-1969 |914 |92 |283 |375 |0.41 |1025

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Denis Potvin |1973-1985 |856 |258 |642 |900 |1.05 |1096
Brad Park |1968-1985 |1113 |213 |683 |896 |0.81 |1429
Larry Robinson |1972-1985 |927 |155 |526 |681 |0.73 |571

With the discussion about Park and Orr, should Orr's stats be included here even though he only played 550 games during this time period?

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Paul Coffey |1980-2001 |1409 |396 |1135 |1531 |1.09 |1802
Ray Bourque |1980-2001 |1532 |393 |1121 |1514 |0.99 |1068
Larry Murphy |1980-2001 |1615 |287 |929 |1216 |0.75 |1084

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
Nicklas LidstrÃ¶m |1991-2009 |1330 |228 |769 |997 |0.75 |442
Chris Chelios |1983-2009 |1644 |185 |763 |948 |0.58 |2891
Scott Stevens |1983-2004 |1558 |187 |696 |883 |0.57 |2590

Canadiens1958 · Aug 25, 2009

Adjusted

Kyle McMahon said:
Malone had many more elite seasons?

Moore had a superb five year peak, and two strong playoff runs outside of that peak, but that's basically it. Just taking into account NHL play, Malone has a slightly better record of top-10's in goals and points. When you consider all that Malone did outside of the NHL, it's really not a tough decision as far as I can tell, even if Moore did bring more to the table. When I think of Moore, I think of an original six Peter Forsberg. Great career, Top-100 for sure (I think I had them both in the 70's), but one that was cut short by injury. But I don't wish to discuss it further as we are already wandering off topic.

Malone had more elite 18-24 game seasons on teams with 9-12 man rosters,playing a strong majority of minutes a game while others had elite 60 - 70 games seasons, an adjustment that is rarely, if ever considered.

MXD · Aug 25, 2009

FissionFire said:
Let's stay on topic. Dickie Moore's time will come soon enough I'm sure.

Maybe, until then, that sucks to be stuck voting for one of his inferiors contemporaries because some people felt that Moore should be blamed for, basically, being a Montreal Canadiens.

overpass · Aug 25, 2009

Here are some EV/PP stats for the five players who starred from 1955 to 1967. This should provide some additional information about the players, the roles they played, and the context in which they scored their points.

Bernard Geoffrion

Player | Year | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | G | A | P | ESP/G | PPP/G | Pts/G
Geoffrion | 1955 | 70 | 25 | 19 | 44 | 13 | 18 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | 37 | 75 | 0.63 | 0.44 | 1.07
Geoffrion | 1956 | 59 | 18 | 20 | 38 | 11 | 13 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 33 | 62 | 0.64 | 0.41 | 1.05
Geoffrion | 1957 | 41 | 14 | 12 | 26 | 5 | 9 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 21 | 40 | 0.63 | 0.34 | 0.98
Geoffrion | 1958 | 42 | 17 | 16 | 33 | 10 | 6 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 22 | 49 | 0.79 | 0.38 | 1.17
Geoffrion | 1959 | 59 | 14 | 25 | 39 | 8 | 19 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 44 | 66 | 0.66 | 0.46 | 1.12
Geoffrion | 1960 | 59 | 20 | 22 | 42 | 9 | 19 | 28 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 30 | 41 | 71 | 0.71 | 0.47 | 1.20
Geoffrion | 1961 | 64 | 34 | 23 | 57 | 16 | 22 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 45 | 95 | 0.89 | 0.59 | 1.48
Geoffrion | 1962 | 62 | 15 | 20 | 35 | 7 | 16 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 36 | 58 | 0.56 | 0.37 | 0.94
Geoffrion | 1955-62 | 456 | 157 | 157 | 314 | 79 | 122 | 201 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 237 | 279 | 516 | 0.69 | 0.44 | 1.13

Geoffrion played a major role on the great Montreal power play, playing the point. He was the top power play scorer of his era.

He only scored one shorthanded goal, confirming that he rarely killed penalties.

At even strength, he was a very good scorer, but others were better.

Top 10s in scoring by game state (pre 1954, 1958-59 and 1959-60 not available)

Even strength - 4th in 1954-55, t-8th in 1955-56, t-2 in 1960-61

Power play scoring - 1st in 1954-55, 7th in 1955-56, t-10 in 1957-58, 1st in 1960-61, t-3 in 1961-62

Andy Bathgate

Player | Year | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | G | A | P | ESP/G | PPP/G | Pts/G
Bathgate | 1956 | 70 | 12 | 37 | 49 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 47 | 66 | 0.70 | 0.23 | 0.94
Bathgate | 1957 | 70 | 19 | 30 | 49 | 6 | 20 | 26 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 27 | 50 | 77 | 0.70 | 0.37 | 1.10
Bathgate | 1958 | 65 | 23 | 23 | 46 | 6 | 22 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 45 | 74 | 0.71 | 0.43 | 1.14
Bathgate | 1959 | 70 | 34 | 25 | 59 | 6 | 23 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 48 | 88 | 0.84 | 0.41 | 1.26
Bathgate | 1960 | 70 | 22 | 28 | 50 | 4 | 20 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 48 | 74 | 0.71 | 0.34 | 1.06
Bathgate | 1961 | 70 | 23 | 31 | 54 | 6 | 17 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 29 | 48 | 77 | 0.77 | 0.33 | 1.10
Bathgate | 1962 | 70 | 24 | 36 | 60 | 4 | 20 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 56 | 84 | 0.86 | 0.34 | 1.20
Bathgate | 1963 | 70 | 30 | 30 | 60 | 5 | 15 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 45 | 80 | 0.86 | 0.29 | 1.14
Bathgate | 1964 | 70 | 15 | 39 | 54 | 4 | 20 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 59 | 78 | 0.77 | 0.34 | 1.11
Bathgate | 56-64 | 625 | 202 | 279 | 481 | 47 | 167 | 214 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 252 | 446 | 698 | 0.77 | 0.34 | 1.12

Bathgate was an excellent even-strength scorer, probably the best in the league during his peak. He played the point on the power play, but didn't score as many points as Geoffrion - possibly because he had a weaker supporting cast.

Top 10s in scoring by game state (pre 1954, 1958-59 and 1959-60 not available)

Even strength - t-1 in 1955-56, 6th in 1956-57, t-7 in 1957-58, t-4 in 1960-61, t-2 in 1961-62, t-1 in 1962-63, t-1 in 1963-64

Power play scoring - t3 in 1956-57, 3rd in 1957-58, 5th in 1960-61, 2nd in 1961-62, t-3 in 1962-63, 5th in 1963-64.

Frank Mahovlich

Player | Year | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | G | A | P | ESP/G | PPP/G | Pts/G
Mahovlich | 1961 | 70 | 41 | 23 | 64 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48 | 36 | 84 | 0.91 | 0.29 | 1.20
Mahovlich | 1962 | 70 | 32 | 28 | 60 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 33 | 38 | 71 | 0.86 | 0.16 | 1.01
Mahovlich | 1963 | 67 | 29 | 27 | 56 | 7 | 8 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 36 | 36 | 72 | 0.84 | 0.22 | 1.07
Mahovlich | 1964 | 70 | 20 | 20 | 40 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 29 | 55 | 0.57 | 0.21 | 0.79
Mahovlich | 1965 | 59 | 16 | 13 | 29 | 7 | 15 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 28 | 51 | 0.49 | 0.37 | 0.86
Mahovlich | 1966 | 68 | 22 | 17 | 39 | 10 | 7 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32 | 24 | 56 | 0.57 | 0.25 | 0.82
Mahovlich | 1967 | 63 | 14 | 21 | 35 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 28 | 46 | 0.56 | 0.17 | 0.73
Mahovlich | 61-67 | 467 | 174 | 149 | 323 | 42 | 69 | 111 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 216 | 219 | 435 | 0.69 | 0.24 | 0.93
Mahovlich | 61-63 | 207 | 102 | 78 | 180 | 15 | 31 | 46 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 117 | 110 | 227 | 0.87 | 0.22 | 1.10
Mahovlich | 64-67 | 260 | 72 | 71 | 143 | 27 | 38 | 65 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 99 | 109 | 208 | 0.55 | 0.25 | 0.80

Mahovlich was an excellent even-strength scorer in the first part of the decade, but he was never a top power play scorer in Toronto. This may have been because the Leafs had one of the weaker power plays in the league, even as a great team. Their power play scoring was more evenly distributed than other teams, and it seems likely that Imlach didn't put as much emphasis on the power play as other teams and coaches did.

I divided Mahovlich's years in the 60s into two in the summary, as he was significantly more effective from 1961-63 than from 1964-67. Bob Pulford, not Mahovlich, was the Leafs' top EV scorer from 1964-67.

Top scorers from 1960-61 to 1963-64

Player | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | Pts | ESP/G | PPP/G | Pts/G
Bathgate | 281 | 92 | 136 | 228 | 18 | 72 | 90 | 319 | 0.81 | 0.32 | 1.14
Mahovlich | 277 | 122 | 98 | 220 | 21 | 40 | 61 | 283 | 0.79 | 0.22 | 1.02
Hull | 272 | 118 | 89 | 207 | 33 | 43 | 76 | 289 | 0.76 | 0.28 | 1.06
Mikita | 271 | 77 | 125 | 202 | 35 | 55 | 90 | 295 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 1.09
Beliveau | 249 | 55 | 124 | 179 | 41 | 55 | 96 | 276 | 0.72 | 0.39 | 1.11
Howe | 273 | 74 | 121 | 195 | 40 | 61 | 101 | 308 | 0.71 | 0.37 | 1.13

Bathgate was the top even-strength scorer over this time, but Mahovlich was a close second. Mahovlich also scored noticeably less on the power play than the other stars of the time.

Top 10s in scoring by game state (1958-59 and 1959-60 not available)

Even strength - 1 in 1960-61, t-2 in 1961-62, t-3 in 1962-63

Power play scoring - 7th in 1960-61, 10th in 1962-63, 7th in 1964-65, t-9 in 1965-66

Pierre Pilote

Player | Year | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | G | A | P | ESP/G | PPP/G | Pts/G
Pilote | 1961 | 70 | 4 | 24 | 28 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 29 | 33 | 0.40 | 0.10 | 0.47
Pilote | 1962 | 59 | 3 | 22 | 25 | 3 | 13 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 35 | 42 | 0.42 | 0.27 | 0.71
Pilote | 1963 | 59 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 18 | 26 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.44
Pilote | 1964 | 70 | 7 | 29 | 36 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 46 | 53 | 0.51 | 0.23 | 0.76
Pilote | 1965 | 68 | 7 | 28 | 35 | 6 | 15 | 21 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 45 | 59 | 0.51 | 0.31 | 0.87
Pilote | 1966 | 51 | 1 | 19 | 20 | 1 | 14 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 34 | 36 | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.71
Pilote | 1967 | 70 | 2 | 30 | 32 | 4 | 13 | 17 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 46 | 52 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.74
Pilote | 61-67 | 447 | 27 | 164 | 191 | 21 | 82 | 103 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 50 | 253 | 301 | 0.43 | 0.23 | 0.67

Pilote was the top scoring defenseman of his era. No surprises here.

Tim Horton

Player | Year | GP | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | G | A | P | ESP/G | PPP/G | Pts/G
Horton | 1957 | 66 | 5 | 17 | 22 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 19 | 25 | 0.33 | 0.05 | 0.38
Horton | 1958 | 53 | 4 | 16 | 20 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 19 | 25 | 0.38 | 0.08 | 0.47
Horton | 1959 | 70 | 5 | 19 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 21 | 26 | 0.34 | 0.00 | 0.37
Horton | 1960 | 70 | 2 | 18 | 20 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 29 | 32 | 0.29 | 0.13 | 0.46
Horton | 1961 | 57 | 5 | 13 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 15 | 21 | 0.32 | 0.05 | 0.37
Horton | 1962 | 70 | 8 | 21 | 29 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 28 | 38 | 0.41 | 0.11 | 0.54
Horton | 1963 | 70 | 5 | 14 | 19 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 19 | 25 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.36
Horton | 1964 | 70 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 20 | 29 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.41
Horton | 1965 | 70 | 9 | 13 | 22 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 16 | 28 | 0.31 | 0.06 | 0.40
Horton | 1966 | 70 | 3 | 21 | 24 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 22 | 27 | 0.34 | 0.06 | 0.39
Horton | 1967 | 70 | 5 | 14 | 19 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 17 | 25 | 0.27 | 0.09 | 0.36
Horton | 57-67 | 736 | 58 | 179 | 237 | 16 | 37 | 53 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 77 | 225 | 301 | 0.32 | 0.07 | 0.41

Horton was remarkably consistent. It appears that he played a minor role on the power play, but was not a major contributor there, never breaking double digits in power play points. At even strength his point totals are good, very consistent, and are as good as any non-Pilote defenseman of his era, as seen in the table herehere.

seventieslord · Aug 25, 2009

Canadiens1958 said:
Still, Joe Malone lead the Quebec Bulldogs to two SCs.

Dionne led the Bulldogs to two NHA regular season championships which were more or less automatic Stanley Cups.

MXD said:
Hummm... I think I should came with the stat I saw somewhere : Joe Malone was the pro hockey leading scorer until Maurice Richard broke his record - even if we consider both western leagues as pro leagues. Lalonde was kindof the Trottier of his day : Malone was the Brett Hull.

Nope, it was Lalonde, by quite a bit, as you later mentioned.

God Bless Canada said:
15. Joe Malone: With all due respect: how the hell is Joe Malone an option before Dickie Moore?

Well, basically, because he was a lot more significant to hockey in his era, than Dicke Moore was in his era.

Kyle McMahon said:
I am interested as well to hear why you don't think it's Boucher's time yet, while Max Bentley tops your list. Both were great playoff performers. Boucher was a better passer, Bentley was a better scorer. Boucher has more top-10 points finishes and AST selections. From what I've read, both had a somewhat similar playing style, as in they were great offensively but not lacking in other areas either. I fail to see how they can be at opposite ends of anybody's list in this vote.

Bentley has Boucher topped in one area - goal scoring. Boucher has a massive playmaking edge, a sizeable defensive edge (quotes refer to him as one of the best defensive centers of his time and there is nothing on Bentley) and a small playoff performance edge as well.

Boucher should easily top Bentley.

Canadiens1958 said:
Malone had more elite 18-24 game seasons on teams with 9-12 man rosters,playing a strong majority of minutes a game while others had elite 60 - 70 games seasons, an adjustment that is rarely, if ever considered.

...And why should it be? You want to punish Malone for the size of the roster and the length of the season in his era?

Did he play with different-sized rosters and different lengths of seasons than his own contemporaries? If so, then this is worthy of discussion.

The first post I quoted here talks about Malone leading the Bulldogs to two Stanley Cups. I could have quoted your response almost verbatim:

Malone only led the Quebec Bulldogs to a regular season NHA championship, which basically meant an automatic Stanley Cup, as they only had to play teams from Sydney and Moncton, an adjustment that is rarely, if ever considered.

Some consistency, perhaps?

pappyline · Aug 25, 2009

seventieslord said:
Bentley has Boucher topped in one area - goal scoring. Boucher has a massive playmaking edge, a sizeable defensive edge (quotes refer to him as one of the best defensive centers of his time and there is nothing on Bentley) and a small playoff performance edge as well.

Boucher should easily top Bentley.

I think you got things backwards. Bentley has a massive goal scoring edge & Boucher may have a small playmaking edge. Max was a top 10 in goals 7 times. Boucher was top 10 twice. Bentley was "easily the most accurate shooter" of his era cited goalie Chuck Raynor.

Boucher was a top 10 in assists 9 times. Max was a top 10 5 times. Also to be taken into account is that Max missed 2 prime years (age 23 & 24) due to WWII. Max thought of himself as more of a playmaker "My idea was to try and set up somebody" Bentley once said. " I'd beat 2 or 3 guys and make a pass."

As far as defensive play goes, I really don't agree that a lack of quotes means much. I think we have to assume that Max performed well defensively on those Leaf cup winners. I don't think anything less would have been tolerated.

Max became famous for his drive to the net, his aggressive play to score and the fact that he was constantly in motion. He never stopped skating and had as many moves in his day, contemporaries would later say, as Wayne Gretzky did during his era. The difference was that Gretzky carried the puck from the blueline in and Bentley often took it starting from behind his own net.

I am a big Max Bentley fan & have him #1 in this round. However, I am now convinced that I under-rated Boucher & will move him up but he is still behind Max.

Dark Shadows · Aug 25, 2009

#1 Vladislav Tretiak

#2 Brad Park

#3 Boom Boom Geoffrion

#4 Chris Chelios

#5 Frank Mahovlich

#6 Joe Malone

#7 Paul Coffey

#8 Marcel Dionne

#9 Bill Durnan

#10 Pierre Pilote

#11 Charlie Conacher

#12 Andy Bathgate

#13 Tim Horton

#14 Frank Boucher

#15 Max Bentley

Dark Shadows · Aug 25, 2009

Top 10 Not yet Added.

Anatoli Firsov
Dit Clapper
King Clancy
Earl Seibert
Sergei Makarov
Peter Stastny
Boris Mikhailov
Clint Benedict
Dickie Moore
Doug Bentley

Dark Shadows · Aug 25, 2009

pappyline said:
I think you got things backwards. Bentley has a massive goal scoring edge & Boucher may have a small playmaking edge. Max was a top 10 in goals 7 times. Boucher was top 10 twice. Bentley was "easily the most accurate shooter" of his era cited goalie Chuck Raynor.

Boucher was a top 10 in assists 9 times. Max was a top 10 5 times. Also to be taken into account is that Max missed 2 prime years (age 23 & 24) due to WWII. Max thought of himself as more of a playmaker "My idea was to try and set up somebody" Bentley once said. " I'd beat 2 or 3 guys and make a pass."

As far as defensive play goes, I really don't agree that a lack of quotes means much. I think we have to assume that Max performed well defensively on those Leaf cup winners. I don't think anything less would have been tolerated.

Certainly, but at the cost of some of his offense. It was well documented that Doug was the guy doing the defending and backchecking in Chicago while Max and Bill Mosienko were taking more chances scoring.

seventieslord · Aug 25, 2009

Boiling it down to simple top-10 finishes is deceiving without looking at where the placements were and when they happened.

Max Bentley's top-10 finishes in assists are 2, 2, 2 (in one war-depleted and two war-recovering years), 3, 9.
Frank Boucher's finishes in assists in the NHL are 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6. He also placed 2nd, 6th, 6th in the western leagues earlier in his career (as well as 6th, 8th, 8th in goals)

In playmaking they are not remotely close. Eliminate identical seasons and you have a 3 and 9 for Bentley vs. a 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 6, plus three great western league seasons for Boucher. Be a little generous to Bentley and use his 3 and 9 to cancel out a 2 and a 2nd from the west, and you're still looking at a 1st, 1st, 1st, 4th, 6th, and two 6ths in the west, above and beyond anything Bentley ever did.

Bentley's a better goalscorer but it's not to the same degree; not even close. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 9, 10 plus one more time in the top-20 isn't that much greater than 4, 9, and four more seasons that equate to top-20. Eliminate similar seasons and you're comparing Bentley's 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 to Boucher's three seasons in the top-20. Be a bit generous to Boucher and use his three top-20s to cancel out the 8, 9, 10 and you have just a 2nd and 5th by Bentley above and beyond what Boucher achieved in the area of goalscoring.

Defensively - I didn't realize assumptions were a part of this. Just because a player won some Stanley Cups doesn't mean they "performed well defensively" in the absence of quotes confirming or refuting that.

Boucher was the highest scorer in the playoffs over the course of his career:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Bentley was 6th throughout his.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Bentley dominates Boucher in goalscoring. Boucher dominates Bentley to a far greater degree in playmaking. Boucher is far better defensively. Boucher dominated the playoffs of his era more than Bentley did his.

pappyline · Aug 25, 2009

Jekyll said:
Certainly, but at the cost of some of his offense. It was well documented that Doug was the guy doing the defending and backchecking in Chicago while Max and Bill Mosienko were taking more chances scoring.

Sources please.

Triffy · Aug 25, 2009

seventieslord said:
Boucher dominated the playoffs of his era more than Bentley did his.

Playoffs are much harder to evaluate than regular season. And I think you just took a shortcut now.

Instead of using total points, I'd say it's better to use points/game average and have a minimum number of games required.

The criteria for minimum number of games could be something like this:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

That's a link you provided. Sort the players by games played. Look how many games the player who ranks 50th had. That's the number of games required. A better way would be to adjust this somehow, to take the number of players of an era into account. But I'm too lazy to get into that kind of mess now.

Albert Leduc ranks 50th in the playoff games played category from 1927 until 1937 with 28 games. Let's use that as the minimum.

Boucher ranks 3rd.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...at=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points_per_game

Minimum number of games for Bentley's era: 35.

Bentley ranks 4th, behind the members of the Punch Line.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...at=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points_per_game

seventieslord · Aug 25, 2009

Thank you Triffy.

Fair enough, it works that way as well.

I'd say that being third over an 11-year period is pretty good. What he did in the 1928 playoffs was nothing short of amazing:

- 7 goals (there was a 9-way tie for 2nd with 2 goals apiece!)
- 3 assists (tied with Bill Cook for the lead)
- 10 points (twice as many as 2nd place Bill Cook)

Either way, both were among the best playoff performers of their times, but Boucher has the edge there.

BM67 · Aug 25, 2009

pappyline said:
I think you got things backwards. Bentley has a massive goal scoring edge & Boucher may have a small playmaking edge. Max was a top 10 in goals 7 times. Boucher was top 10 twice. Bentley was "easily the most accurate shooter" of his era cited goalie Chuck Raynor.

Boucher was a top 10 in assists 9 times. Max was a top 10 5 times. Also to be taken into account is that Max missed 2 prime years (age 23 & 24) due to WWII. Max thought of himself as more of a playmaker "My idea was to try and set up somebody" Bentley once said. " I'd beat 2 or 3 guys and make a pass."

As far as defensive play goes, I really don't agree that a lack of quotes means much. I think we have to assume that Max performed well defensively on those Leaf cup winners. I don't think anything less would have been tolerated.

Max became famous for his drive to the net, his aggressive play to score and the fact that he was constantly in motion. He never stopped skating and had as many moves in his day, contemporaries would later say, as Wayne Gretzky did during his era. The difference was that Gretzky carried the puck from the blueline in and Bentley often took it starting from behind his own net.

I am a big Max Bentley fan & have him #1 in this round. However, I am now convinced that I under-rated Boucher & will move him up but he is still behind Max.

OK I can buy a 7 to 2 edge in top-10s in goals being a sizable advantage, but how does a 9 to 5 edge in top-10s in assists equate to a small advantage?

Boucher led the NHL in assists 3 times, and was 2nd 4 times. Bentley was 2nd twice. Does seem that small to me.

Then you look at point finishes. Boucher was top-10 8 times, Bentley only 5 times. Bentley did win two scoring titles, and finished 3rd twice, which is better than Bouchers 2nd and two 3rds. Of course you then have to look at the fact that Boucher played in a 50% bigger league, and there are the "war years" to muddy the picture as well.

As for Bentley missing time, Boucher played 4 years out west which are missing from this NHL only comparison as well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bouchfr01.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bentlma01.html

Triffy · Aug 25, 2009

seventieslord said:
Either way, both were among the best playoff performers of their times, but Boucher has the edge there.

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. Unless you've done some deeper research. I think my previous post showed that they are pretty even. I can't give the edge to neither one based on that.

It's also worth noting that the war years inflated the Punch Line's stats. It's not out of reach to say that Bentley's 0,88 PPG is equal to or even better than Lach's 0,92 PPG. That would raise him 3rd, behind the Rocket and Toe Blake. As you said, both were elite playoff performers. Without further evidence, I can't see any difference between them. Bentley had tougher competition. Boucher was the better defensive player.

pappyline · Aug 25, 2009

seventieslord said:
Boiling it down to simple top-10 finishes is deceiving without looking at where the placements were and when they happened.

Max Bentley's top-10 finishes in assists are 2, 2, 2 (in one war-depleted and two war-recovering years), 3, 9.
Frank Boucher's finishes in assists in the NHL are 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6. He also placed 2nd, 6th, 6th in the western leagues earlier in his career (as well as 6th, 8th, 8th in goals)

In playmaking they are not remotely close. Eliminate identical seasons and you have a 3 and 9 for Bentley vs. a 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 6, plus three great western league seasons for Boucher. Be a little generous to Bentley and use his 3 and 9 to cancel out a 2 and a 2nd from the west, and you're still looking at a 1st, 1st, 1st, 4th, 6th, and two 6ths in the west, above and beyond anything Bentley ever did.

Bentley's a better goalscorer but it's not to the same degree; not even close. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 9, 10 plus one more time in the top-20 isn't that much greater than 4, 9, and four more seasons that equate to top-20. Eliminate similar seasons and you're comparing Bentley's 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 to Boucher's three seasons in the top-20. Be a bit generous to Boucher and use his three top-20s to cancel out the 8, 9, 10 and you have just a 2nd and 5th by Bentley above and beyond what Boucher achieved in the area of goalscoring.

Defensively - I didn't realize assumptions were a part of this. Just because a player won some Stanley Cups doesn't mean they "performed well defensively" in the absence of quotes confirming or refuting that.

Boucher was the highest scorer in the playoffs over the course of his career:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Bentley was 6th throughout his.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Bentley dominates Boucher in goalscoring. Boucher dominates Bentley to a far greater degree in playmaking. Boucher is far better defensively. Boucher dominated the playoffs of his era more than Bentley did his.

Funny thing about numbers. By being selective, you can use them to prove many things. Anyway you have added in Western league numbers, went to top 20 finishes & completely ignored the fact that Max sat out age 23 &24 seasons due to the war.

Another way of looking at it is to just look at points which is fairer to Max since he was both a shooter & a passer wheras Boucher was pretty much just a playmaker. Plus it doesn't make sense to just look at certain elements separately as we are evaluating the total player. Also lets look at strictly top 5 point finishes which is more indicative of superstar status.

Max finishes were 3,1,1,5,3. Boucher's were 3,2,3,4. Dropping the ties. Max comes out ahead at 1,1,5 vs. Boucher's 2, 4. There I have just proven that Max's peak was better than Boucher's.

Thank you Triffey for illustrating that both these guys were great playoff performers.

Seventies, I would be interesting to see what sources you have for Boucher's defensive play. (hope it is not one of the obscure statements from "The Trail" or Legends).

seventieslord · Aug 25, 2009

I know your post was pro-Boucher, BM67, but you were inadvertently unfair to Boucher. Using points comparisons for a player who was a considerably better playmaker than goalscorer can undervalue him. Since points are just goals plus assists and assists were handed out much more sparingly in Boucher's time, Boucher had a harder time placing high on the points lists than post-1940 players.

This is obviously very rough, but if you multiple everyone's assists by 1.5 to level out the playing field, his points finishes of 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10 become 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 7.

hockey-reference has these figures done up more systematically than I just did visually - they have him with 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 7 compared to Bentley's 1, 1, 3, 3, 5 in partially war-weakened seasons.

pappyline · Aug 25, 2009

seventieslord said:
I know your post was pro-Boucher, BM67, but you were inadvertently unfair to Boucher. Using points comparisons for a player who was a considerably better playmaker than goalscorer can undervalue him. Since points are just goals plus assists and assists were handed out much more sparingly in Boucher's time, Boucher had a harder time placing high on the points lists than post-1940 players.

This is obviously very rough, but if you multiple everyone's assists by 1.5 to level out the playing field, his points finishes of 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10 become 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 7.

hockey-reference has these figures done up more systematically than I just did visually - they have him with 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 7 compared to Bentley's 1, 1, 3, 3, 5 in partially war-weakened seasons.

All you have done here is undervalue goal scorers and over value playmakers.

seventieslord · Aug 25, 2009

pappyline said:
Funny thing about numbers. By being selective, you can use them to prove many things. Anyway you have added in Western league numbers, went to top 20 finishes & completely ignored the fact that Max sat out age 23 &24 seasons due to the war.

I included time that Boucher played in a top pro league and did not include time that Bentley did not play. What is your point?

Another way of looking at it is to just look at points which is fairer to Max since he was both a shooter & a passer wheras Boucher was pretty much just a playmaker. Plus it doesn't make sense to just look at certain elements separately as we are evaluating the total player.

Actually, for players from these eras, it makes perfect sense because assists have not always been handed out as generously as they are now.

For reasons I outlined just above, the points leaderboards tended to be very biased towards goalscorers in the 1930s and earlier, compared to the 1940s and beyond.

Also lets look at strictly top 5 point finishes which is more indicative of superstar status.

Yes, of course, let's look only at top-5s since the only time Max was in the top-10 was his times in the top-5. Let's ignore Boucher's 6, 6, 7, 10 because those weren't superstar seasons. 5th? Superstar. 6th, 7th? drop it from the discussion.

Max finishes were 3,1,1,5,3. Boucher's were 3,2,3,4. Dropping the ties. Max comes out ahead at 1,1,5 vs. Boucher's 2, 4. There I have just proven that Max's peak was better than Boucher's.

See, the thing is, you didn't. Because when you adjust for the frequency of assists in Boucher's time, his points finishes are 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4. Now eliminate the ties and you have 2, 2, 4 for Boucher vs. 3, 5 for Bentley.

Thank you Triffey for illustrating that both these guys were great playoff performers.

Yes, they both were, and it is a bit hyperbolic to claim Boucher was any better. Though he did have the best single playoff performance of the two, probably by any player up for discussion.

Seventies, I would be interesting to see what sources you have for Boucher's defensive play. (hope it is not one of the obscure statements from "The Trail" or Legends).

Explain "obscure".

It's well-known around here that Boucher was great defensively. I'm at work and don't have anything here with me, but when I get home I will have no trouble finding some quotes for you.

seventieslord · Aug 25, 2009

pappyline said:
All you have done here is undervalue goal scorers and over value playmakers.

No, I didn't. Read it again.

If comparing points finishes between a pre-1940 player and a post-1940 player you must account for the scarcity of assists before 1940.

Round 2, Vote 5 (2009 update)

Original #4

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Original #4

Registered User

Student Of The Game

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Student Of The Game

Registered User

Registered User

Student Of The Game

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Student Of The Game

Registered User

Student Of The Game

Student Of The Game

Ad

Ad

Ad