Round 2, Vote 6 (2009 update)

[seventieslord]

There's an hour of our lives neither of us will ever get back, hey, HO?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There's an hour of our lives neither of us will ever get back, hey, HO?

We should co-ordinate better next time.

 

[lextune]

Thanks to seventieslord and Hockey Outsider for two excellent posts.

On a somewhat related note, I really, really, wish I had a copy of The Trail Of The Stanley Cup.

 

[lextune]

There's an hour of our lives neither of us will ever get back, hey, HO?

 

[Stonefly]

That Keon is not being considered reflects more on the process.

Indeed. The Canadiens killer. Belongs right there with Richard if not above him.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yes, but unlike Richard he has far more statistical numbers to support his case. Also, he was from a different era in Hart voting where the award criteria was very different from that during Richard's time. My primary point here really was a couple of the most vocal critics of Lindsay's Hart record before are some of the biggest supporters of Richard now so I was trying to use their own arguments against them to point out their hopefully unintended bias. If you are gonna bag on players before for that reason, how can you ignore it now?

I just do not think the criteria for Hart voting was much different for these two players at all, nor do I think Lindsay has a decided statistical advantage given the fact that he was given much more PP time(Or at least, it is not so large given the fact that I consider Henri Richard one of the greatest defensive forwards of all time, as opposed to Lindsay, who was merely good defensively)

I often look at Henri Richard and wonder just how great he would have been had he not been stuck behind Beliveau with the lesser linemates and lesser PP time. PP time is always a huge + for player statistics, and Henri Richard's coaches loved using him ES to shut down opposing forward lines. Heck, he outperformed Beliveau at ES.

Even though a few times he did get 2nd team selections behind Beliveau, I would say there definitely was a bias regarding selecting 2 members of the same team to a 1st and 2nd all star spot at the same position. How often has that happened in History really?

I really wonder how often that has happened. Does anyone have a list of players who took all star spots for the same position while on the same team?

How often in history can you look at the league and say the two best players at one position were on the same team? Unless you can point to some pattern of this being the case and the voters shunning one of the players I don't see how you can say there was any bias with credibility. I've already proven that the voters of Richard's era were willing to vote him and Beliveau 1/2 on two occasions. Can you point out times that Richard was a victim of bias where he was clearly a top 2 center in a season without earning a spot because Beliveau got one?

Sure, the voters gave Henri the 2nd team spot when he was a surefire pick. But there were a few other years in which he deserved it(Or at least was very close).

59-60 for example. He was outscored by Beliveau and Horvath, yet played 10 more games than Beliveau and was better defensively. Truly, defensive specialists are not given the credit they deserve in these earlier years.

Sure, He missed several games a few years, and thus, was not given the same credit. But on a per game basis, I would take HR over Ullman a few years. Being up against Mikita and Beliveau hurt his chances a few years as well. Lindsay by comparison had awful competition at LW for all star selections many years.

Granted, while I slag Lindsay down and do not think he belongs in the top 25, I defend him if he is still around for the top 35, but I do not think he is a far cry ahead of Henri Richard. Certainly not 30 spots.

Yes that could be true, but there are other excellent two-wat forwards who were far better offensively and equal to slightly worse defensively (Nighbor, Fedorov, D.Bentley, Keon) IMO and they likely won't make this list until the 70s or 80s. Aside from Cup counting I don't really see 20-30 place gap between him and those players. Throw in the comments from posters who watched Richard play from the last discussion who felt he was on the level of a Keon or Ullman and that just reinforces my thoughts. While player and coach quotes are useful, they can also be misleading. As reckoning stated, quotes can be found for any player and more can be found for Richard because he was a dynasty player in the most ravenous hockey market in the world. You can find a slew of quotes on every single player on those teams so the fact that there is a large quantity is nice, but not really relevant.

Keon and Ullman? Sure. But there are extenuating circumstances as to why each is not rated as highly(Keon was slightly better defensively, but not as good offensively. Ullman the opposite. not near as good defensively, but in the same area offensively). Henri Richard was at least as good, and IMO, better than Fedorov defensively, and Fedorov had a much shorter prime. D Bentley I can only go by accounts of his defensive play, but he was rated similarly, which is why I think so highly of him.

If you do not see a 20-30 spot gap between Richard and those players, then I do not possibly see how you can advocate a 20-30 spot gap between him and Ted Lindsay. I consider him closer to Lindsay than Keon or Ullman.

Nighbor is a guy I have rated too low in the past(And on my master leading up to this project), but I intend to correct it.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Stastny was more physical, playoffs are a wash. Kurri played on a dynasty, stastny was on an average team and still ripped it up. On top of that, stastny has 4 elite seasons in the czech league-world championships. He's above kurri.

The playoffs are absolutely NOT a wash. Kurri is one of the most dominant playoff goal scorers in history, the only man to lead the playoffs in goals outright four times (Rocket led five times, but two were ties). On a dynasty with two top-25 players, Kurri stood out as their top marksman during the most important part of the season. Two game-winners, (one in OT and the go-ahead goal in Game 7), in the Oilers' razor-thin victory over Philadelphia in the 1987 final just to provide an example.

Alright now, go ahead and tell me that Stastny would have done exactly the same thing if he was on Gretzky's team. The Nordique was indeed the key to any playoff success his team enjoyed while he was there. But this is based on what did happen, not hypotheticals, and Kurri did score all those playoff goals. There are reasons to rank Stastny ahead of him, but the playoffs are not one of them.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clint Benedict Counterpoint II

Benedict was 22 and hadn't hit his prime. The Westerners caught them by surprise big-time. And Vancouver had 7 HHOFers - Hugh Lehman, Frank Patrick, Cyclone Taylor, Mickey MacKay, Frank Nighbor, Barney Stanley, and Si Griffis. It was quite possibly the most awesome collection of talent ever assembed in the entire pre-merger era.

Ottawa was very green, too. Broadbent was 22. Darragh was 24. Gerard was 25. The only truly great player in his prime was 29-year old Art Ross.


that's a slanted view.

At any point throughout history there has been roughly a constant number of hall of famers in the league at one time. But not always the same number of teams. So in 1923 when there were only four teams, OBVIOUSLY there is likely to be a lot on one team. For example, in 1923, Ottawa had 8 HHOFers including Benedict. the other teams had 5, 4, and 1. Relative to the strength of the league, Benedict's supporting cast, particularly on defense, was right at the level guys like Dryden, Bower, and Brodeur enjoyed.

Oh, and I have something to say about Cy Denneny and Jack Darragh being "defensive forwards"... here it is............



Revealing of what?

- In 1920 scoring rose in the second half of the season, across the board. There were 26 more goals scored in the second half so every team should have allowed an average of 5-6 more goals each. Benedict's senators allowed 18 more. Not sure why. But their W/L record got better even though they only scored 3 more goals.

- When were you planning on telling everyone that the first "half" of the 1921 season was 10 games long and the second "half" was 14 games long: Talk about deceptive! Of course, Benedict's GAA went up from 2.3 in the first section to 3.7 in the second. It's just not the ridiculous collapse you're making it out to be.

What you of course failed to mention is that:

- In three of those four seasons Benedict ultimately ended up as the win leader, as well as leading the NHL in GAA by an average of 20% over the next best goalie each year. So what does it matter that he allowed more goals in the second half?

- Benedict's GAA dropped considerably in the playoffs in each of those four seasons, by 0.46, 1.09, 0.34, and 1.18.

By your logic, this is even more important. The later it is in the season, the more important the games, right? Well, if his GAA rises in the second half of the season you must credit him for dropping it considerably in the playoffs. You might say "significant drop in GAA as the season progressed into the playoffs.For a dynasty team and a quality goalie the expectation would be exactly this. This clutch play is very revealing."
.

Benedict was 37 years old and was hit in the face by shots from Dit Clapper and then Howie Morenz. He was out for a while and then tried coming back with a mask. He didn't like it, and retired. Surely you know this story... But no, make it sound like he got replaced by some scrub we never heard of, because he sucked!



Yes, good for you, you have managed to point out that:

A) Benedict and the whole Ottawa team had a brutal 1915 SCF,

B) Benedict's GAA during his prime went up during the second half of three seasons and he still led the league in wins and GAA each time, and

C) He was not at his best at age 37, then got hit in the head in successive games and retired.

Wow! What a bum he was!!!

Every single goalie has had his bad moments. The only one who was immune was Dryden. Plante was being booed in Montreal and looked awfully human in New York. Hasek would seem to be injured longer than you would think he should be, and of course he lost his job to Chris Osgood in 2008. Roy had these awful long goals, a couple stinkers of semifinals, and of course the Statue of Liberty gaffe. Brodeur has done nothing since losing his elite defense, making everyone else wonder what some of us have all along. Hall couldn't get it done in the playoffs. Sawchuk drank and quit on his team. And so on. The only goalie with a perfectly sparkling resume played only 8 years. EVERY great goalie has minor blemishes on their record! And none of them get to go out on top. Roy didn't. Hall didn't. Sawchuk didn't. Hasek didn't. Plante didn't. At this rate, Brodeur won't. This is nothing new.

My points which you overlook. Benedict in 1915 at age 22 was the same age as Terry Sawchuk in 1952, the remaining Senators compared favourably to the Red Wings -Howe -23, Kelly-24, Delvecchio-19, M.Pronovost -21, Ted Lindsay - 26, Abel would be the equivalent of Art Ross. So getting blown-out in three games like the Senators were. In 1916 virtually the same Vancouver team was a .500 team in the PCHA and did not qualify for the SC final. The team that beat them - Portland did so with fewer HHOFers than Ottawa, nor did Portland have a HHOF caliber goalie.

You may be able to make a case that the PCHA sandbagged the NHA in 1915 BUT you cannot ignore a goalie giving up 26 goals in 3 games.

Nor can you ignore Clint Benedict's performance in the 1919 NHL final where he gave up 26 goals in 5 games against the Canadiens after giving up 53 goals during the 18 game regular season. Likewise in 1922 when Ottawa outplayed Toronto but Roach outplayed Benedict who by accounts had a weak first game in Toronto.

Yes some playoffs his GAA improved, others it skyrocketed. Goaltenders that lack consistency should be considered accordingly.

So Ottawa had 8 out of 18 HHOFers in the NHL in 1923 or 44.4%. Other dynasty teams never had such a high percentage of HHOFers relative to the rest of the league.Clint Benedict was the goalie on the best team and his wins reflect team wins as opposed to his brilliance.

Maroons forwards who played defense. Only happens with forwards who are very responsible defensively.

Before the mask it was fairly common for goalies to be hit in the face by shots. Sawchuk and Plante to name a couple. Benedict did not retire after the incidents you related rather he played in the minors the next season..

 

[FissionFire]

The Howe goal is an interesting story, a very cute and disingenuous effort at discrediting Henri Richard by someone who has tried to discredit a player because of his lack of PK goals.Not referring to DS who like me is a Henri Richard fan.

The summary from the Howe goal:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19630020

Notice in the third period immediately after Gordie Howe scores his historic goal, the Canadiens come right back and seconds later Henri Richard gets the first assist on the clinching goal in a 6-4 win.

Way to jump off the deep end. That link wasn't intended to discredit Richard. I merely posted it to provide the story BM67 referred to for people to read. I highly doubt anyone would read about one goal and draw a conclusion about an entire career. I mean who in their right mind would take a very small sample size and apply it to an entire career? Oh wait....

Champions produce on ice not on paper.

Yet here you are, trying to tear down Clint Benedict. Inconsistent much or just promoting your private agenda again?

That Keon is not being considered reflects more on the process.

You don't like the process, then leave. This is the 4th time you've complained about it in the debate threads, plus the PM. Everyone had a chance to provide input on the process before Round 1 even began and I put a list submission deadline. Do you know how many posts you made then suggesting better ideas? ZERO. So ****, you had your chance and didn't take it. Write all your little improvements down and bring them to the next discussion thread before the next update. I've had enough of the passive-aggressive sniping so stop it.

I just do not think the criteria for Hart voting was much different for these two players at all, nor do I think Lindsay has a decided statistical advantage given the fact that he was given much more PP time(Or at least, it is not so large given the fact that I consider Henri Richard one of the greatest defensive forwards of all time, as opposed to Lindsay, who was merely good defensively)

On this point I doubt we'll ever agree.

I often look at Henri Richard and wonder just how great he would have been had he not been stuck behind Beliveau with the lesser linemates and lesser PP time. PP time is always a huge + for player statistics, and Henri Richard's coaches loved using him ES to shut down opposing forward lines. Heck, he outperformed Beliveau at ES.

if only....could have....might have.....this is the same logic people apply to players who have shortened careers or injury plagued seasons. Maybe Richard outproduces Beliveau. Maybe the extra minutes take away from his even strength effectiveness. Not every player continues to excel with an expanded role. Of course, as a first line center he'd also be facing the other teams top defensive players, something that he did far less of playing second fiddle to Beliveau. So better linemates + tougher defensive forwards/defenseman + more PP time = Probably not a significant improvement statistically. Or maybe a huge jump. Or a huge drop. There is evidence supporting all three possibilites throughout hockey history so it's impossible to predict what "could have" happened.

Sure, the voters gave Henri the 2nd team spot when he was a surefire pick. But there were a few other years in which he deserved it(Or at least was very close).

59-60 for example. He was outscored by Beliveau and Horvath, yet played 10 more games than Beliveau and was better defensively. Truly, defensive specialists are not given the credit they deserve in these earlier years.

They aren't given credit in any era really, but I'd hardly call that season a slam dunk snub. The Beliveau and Horvath selections were both very defensible and arguably the logic picks.

Sure, He missed several games a few years, and thus, was not given the same credit. But on a per game basis, I would take HR over Ullman a few years. Being up against Mikita and Beliveau hurt his chances a few years as well. Lindsay by comparison had awful competition at LW for all star selections many years.

There you go giving credit for games not played again, or as commonly known the per game stat. If anything, Richard missing a game would hurt his team considerably by losing it's top ES offensive and defensive player. Him missing games isn't a plus, but a huge minus. A player not getting postseason awards because of missing games isn't something earth shattering. If voting was done on a per-game basis Chris Pronger would have a few more Norris trophies probably and Jagr would have Pronger's Hart. Thing is missing games IS a big penalty in voting, and rightly so. You are worse than the worst player on your team when you don't play.

Competition is exactly why I never compared Lindsay and Richard using All-Star voting. Not sure why you brought it up. I merely stated that Lindsay had better numbers to back him up.

Granted, while I slag Lindsay down and do not think he belongs in the top 25, I defend him if he is still around for the top 35, but I do not think he is a far cry ahead of Henri Richard. Certainly not 30 spots.

You are right. 30 spots isn't enough IMO. Lindsay was top 10 in goals 10 times (9 times top 6), top 10 in assists 8 times (also led the league twice), and top 10 in points 8 times (6 times top 5 + an Art Ross). Sure, his PP time helped but enough to explain this gigantic gap? Whatever gap Richard has in defensive play is nowhere close to the offensive gap between them. I don't see how you can tell me Lindsay and Richard are even close.

Keon and Ullman? Sure. But there are extenuating circumstances as to why each is not rated as highly(Keon was slightly better defensively, but not as good offensively. Ullman the opposite. not near as good defensively, but in the same area offensively). Henri Richard was at least as good, and IMO, better than Fedorov defensively, and Fedorov had a much shorter prime. D Bentley I can only go by accounts of his defensive play, but he was rated similarly, which is why I think so highly of him.

You prove my point. All those players are comparable to Richard. A 20-30 spot game to me indicates a player is clearly better, and with Richard that is not that case. You can make a solid case for Keon, Ullman, Fedorov, or Nighbor as being the equivalent (or slightly better/worse) than Richard.

If you do not see a 20-30 spot gap between Richard and those players, then I do not possibly see how you can advocate a 20-30 spot gap between him and Ted Lindsay. I consider him closer to Lindsay than Keon or Ullman.

A case can be made that Keon was Richard's equal (or slightly better/worse). You can't really make the same case for Richard to Lindsay without delving into the hypotheticals. The only facet of the game that Richard could be argued to be better than Lindsay in is defense, and that's not a slam dunk by any means. I've yet to see anyone come up with any proof that Richard was clearly ahead of Lindsay in any other facet of the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clint Benedict Counterpoint III

Okay, it looks like seventieslord beat me to this by about five minutes (and he did a great job at it, too).



It looks like you've excluded many years that have data contrary to your argument. Let's fill in the blanks.

1918: 63 first half, 51 second half
1919: 37 first half, 16 second half
1924: 24 first half, 30 second half

Based on the numbers we have, it looks like Benedict got worse in 1920, 1921 and 1922, the same in 1923, and better in 1918, 1919 and 1924. Overall there's no evidence to suggest that Benedict got worse as the season went on -- it looks like you just selected three years to "prove" your point without looking at any of the years with contrary data.

(Note 1: I don't have time to look through 1925-1930. If somebody does, let me know there's any evidence of Benedict getting worse as the season progresses).

(Note 2: My source is hockey-reference.com; click on "Game Results" for the Ottawa Senators for these three years and add up the first half & second half goals against yourself).



Saying that Benedict had an "inability to adapt to new rules" is demonstrably false and borders on historical revisionism. Benedict was the first goalie in hockey history to wear a mask (done in 1930 after being sent to the hospital after taking a Howie Morenz shot to the head). (Source). Benedict was the goalie to pioneer perhaps the most important change in goalie equipment in history.

Perhaps even more importantly, Benedict was the first goalie to drop to the ice to make saves. Historically, goalies were given a two minute penalty if they dropped to the ice but Benedict did that so often (under false pretenses, i.e. while pretending to pray) that the NHL finally gave up and allowed Benedict to continue with his major change to goaltending strategy. (Source).

Benedict pioneered the face mask and dropping to the ice. He didn't just adapt to new rules -- he forced the NHL to change its rules to recognize his newer, more advanced style. He was the most creative and influential goalie of his era.



According to hockey-refence, the defensemen on that roster were Francis Cain, Albert Holway, Hobie Kitchen and Dunc Munro. Are you seriously suggesting that they were the key to Benedict's success?

Your comments about having three of the forwards playing defense are factually wrong. Here are some sources to back up my claims.

Babe Siebert would become a defenseman in the future, but he wasn't a defenseman in 1926. He didn't make the switch until he was 32, in 1936. (Source).

Reg Noble would become a defenseman in the future, but he wasn't a defenseman in 1926. He didn't make the switch until after he was traded to Detroit in 1927. (Source).

Nels Stewart was usually a centre. I can't find any record of Stewart playing defense, outside of the 1926 playoffs when Dunc Munco was injured. (Source).



It appears that Benedict played poorly here (and I say "appears" because we have nothing other than GAA to judge him by). Does digging out a three game sample, before his prime, represent anything meaningful about his career?

You hold the fact that Benedict played with Hall of Famers against him. Should we not take into account the fact that his opposition in the 1915 finals had seven HOFers on their team?



You're right to an extent. I don't like using GAA, wins and shutouts when better data is available. Still, I've given some strong evidence that Benedict wasn't a product of his team.

As soon as Benedict left the Senators, they became immediately & noticeably worse. In 1924, the Senators were the best team in the league and were 2nd best in goals against. The next year, the roster was similar aside from Benedict leaving. The Senators fell to 4th (out of sixth) in both points and goals against. We don't know for sure, but based on the evidence we have, it looks like Benedict was probably the cause of that change. This implies that Benedict was an important contributor to the Senators' success.



Like you did with the 1915 playoffs, you're picking an extremely small sample size, outside of Benedict's prime, and are trying to pretend that it's meaningful.

It's worth mentioning that Benedict was injured in 1930, having been sent to the hospital by the aforementioned Morenz shot to the head. (Source). I don't blame an injured 37-year-old goalie, who had absolutely nothing left to prove, for retiring.

When Plante was up for voting, you never brought up the fact that he had a GAA over 5.00 in the playoffs in 1972 and 1973. That’s probably because you realize that it was a small sample size at the very end of Plante’s career. Why, then, does a 14 game sample of Benedict, at the absolute end of his career, suddenly become meaningful?

Thank you for filling in the additional years, thereby clearly illustrating that Clint Benedict lacked consistency. Which definitely should be considered when reviewing his career.

Clint Benedict dropping to the ice. Not a style but against the rules of the day. So the NHL made a choice between penalizing only him or letting everyone do it.

Small sample size. That was the sample size as determined by the rules. He gets credit for double shutouts against Toronto in the NHL final in 1921, two game total goals and he loses credit of r1915 and 1919. Which again raises the consistency issue which cannot be avoided.

Product of his team. !916-1918 the Senators were not as strong with fewer HHOFers than 1920-23. Did Benedict become the difference maker? No. When the team improved - 7 - 8, HHOFers between 1920-23 his stats improved yet he stumbled in 1922.

1924. Benedict was moved to the Maroons after the second place Canadiens upset the first place Senators in the NHL final 5 - 2 two game total goals. The 1924-25 Senators featured Alec Connell in goal, a fairly good goalie but the team was somewhat older and facing financial problems.

Plante's results in 1972 and 1973 were not the result of a rule change. Benedict's results during the 1929-30 season are ther result of a rule change. Also the injury happened in 1930 after the forward pass rule had been modified as scoring was getting out of hand. Still his pre injury numbers reflect a GAA that showed that Benedict was having problems adapting. The Maroons were a legit contender that season as evidenced by the success Flat Walsh had replacing Benedict.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

I think you just screwed Goodfellow's D and C years. Was a C, was then converted to a D in 35-36. (Barry's arrival, anyone?)

Here's what I edited into my post on page 1;

Player |Seasons |GP |G |A |TP |PPG |PIM
King Clancy |1921-1937 |592 |136 |147 |283 |0.48 |914
Eddie Shore |1926-1937 |444 |94 |147 |241 |0.54 |945
Hap Day |1924-1937 |538 |86 |113 |199 |0.37 |587

Sure, Day also tried a forward position for a short while, but that was just a short part of his NHL career. Because Clapper and Goodfellow both spent considerable amounts of time at both positions, I'm keeping that comparison in my post.

Moving on to the goalies:

In the case of Benedict, only his NHL years are considered in this post. Some information similar to what I'm posting may have been posted earlier in this thread.

Top 3 in shutouts

Season |First |Second |Third
1917-18 | Benedict , Vezina
1918-19 | Benedict |Vezina
1919-20 | Benedict
1920-21 | Benedict |Lockhart, Vezina
1921-22 | Benedict
1922-23 | Benedict |Vezina |Roach
1923-24 | Benedict , Vezina |Forbes, Roach
1925-26 |Connell |Worters | Benedict , Stewart
1926-27 |Hainsworth | Benedict , Connell
1937-38 |Kerr |Thompson | Broda , Robertson
1938-39 |Brimsek | Broda |Kerr
1939-40 |Kerr |Brimsek, Robertson
1940-41 |Brimsek | Broda |Mowers
1941-42 | Broda |Mowers |Brimsek, LoPresti
1942-43 |Mowers |Beveridge, Bibeault, Brimsek, Broda , B. Gardiner
1943-44 |Bibeault |Karakas | Durnan
1944-45 |Karakas, McCool | Durnan , Lumley, McAuley
1945-46 | Durnan |Bibeault, Brimsek, Lumley
1946-47 |Rayner | Broda , Durnan
1947-48 |Lumley |Broda, Durnan
1948-49 | Durnan |Rayner |Lumley
1949-50 |Broda | Durnan |Lumley
1950-51 |Sawchuk | Broda , McNeil

Summary

Player |First |Second |Third | Total
Benedict |7 |1 |1 |9
Broda |2 |6 |1 |9
Durnan |2 |3 |2 |7

Top 3 in GAA

Season |First |Second |Third
1917-18 |Vezina |Holmes | Benedict
1918-19 | Benedict |Vezina |Lindsay
1919-20 | Benedict |Mitchell |Vezina
1920-21 | Benedict |Forbes |Vezina
1921-22 | Benedict |Vezina |Roach
1922-23 | Benedict |Vezina |Roach
1923-24 |Vezina | Benedict |Forbes
1924-25 |Vezina |Forbes | Benedict
1925-26 |Connell |Worters | Benedict
1926-27 | Benedict |Chabot |Hainsworth
1938-39 |Brimsek |Kerr | Broda
1939-40 |Kerr |Goodman |Brimsek
1940-41 | Broda |Brimsek, Mowers
1941-42 |Brimsek | Broda |Henry
1942-43 |Mowers | Broda |Brimsek
1943-44 | Durnan |Bibeault |Karakas
1944-45 | Durnan |Lumley |McCool
1945-46 | Durnan |Bibeault |Lumley
1946-47 | Durnan | Broda |Brimsek
1947-48 | Broda |Lumley | Durnan
1948-49 | Durnan |Lumley | Broda
1949-50 | Durnan |Lumley | Broda
1950-51 |Rollins |Sawchuk | Broda

Summary

Player |First |Second |Third | Total
Benedict |6 |1 |3 |10
Broda |2 |3 |4 |9
Durnan |6 |0 |1 |7

Moving on to another topic, here are the top 6 in Soviet MVP votes:

Player | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | Total
Tretiak | 5 | 2 | 3 | | 2 |12
Makarov | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |10
Fetisov | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |9
Mikhailov | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |8
Kharlamov | 1 | 3 | | 2 | 2 |8
Maltsev | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |8

And the years when Mikhailov was considered among the top 5:

Year |1st |2nd |3rd |4th |5th
1969 |Firsov (CSKA) |Zinger (Spartak) |Starshinov (Spartak) |Kharlamov (CSKA) | Mikhailov (CSKA)
1973 |Kharlamov (CSKA) |Petrov (CSKA) |Tretiak (CSKA) | Mikhailov (CSKA) |Vasiliev (Dynamo)
1974 |Tretiak (CSKA) | Mikhailov (CSKA) |Vasiliev (Dynamo) |Maltsev (Dynamo) |Kharlamov (CSKA)
1975 |Tretiak (CSKA) |Kharlamov (CSKA) |Yakushev (Spartak) |Petrov (CSKA) | Mikhailov (CSKA)
1977 |Balderis (Riga) |Petrov (CSKA) | Mikhailov (CSKA), Tretiak (CSKA) | |Vassili (Dynamo)
1978 | Mikhailov (CSKA) |Tretiak (CSKA) |Fetisov (CSKA) |Maltsev (Dynamo) |Balderis (CSKA)
1979 | Mikhailov (CSKA)
1980 |Makarov (CSKA) |Krutov (CSKA) | Mikhailov (CSKA) |Maltsev (Dynamo) |Vasiliev (Dynamo)

For 1979, no data about voting aside from the winner is avaliable.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Keon / Henri Richard

Indeed. The Canadiens killer. Belongs right there with Richard if not above him.

Dave Keon brought his A game against all teams - evidenced by the 1969 series against a vastly superior Bruins team and thru the 1975 playoffs. Once the shackles of Punch Imlach were removed his offense flourished.

The WHA years were a waste of his skills. In a disjointed league without coherent team play from year to year most of what Dave Keon could offer, went by the wayside. The last seasons with Hartford were impressive for his age.

The comparison with Henri Richard. The WHA years took away the opportunity of seeing whether Dave Keon could contribute to a revitalized Leaf team in a fashion similar to Henri Richard's contribution to a second Canadiens dynasty plus his own Stanley Cup as captain.

Also one would have to weigh the little bit of sandpaper that Henri
Richard brought to the game against the ultimate composure that Dave Keon brought. Playing against Stan Mikita, Keon's composure certainly helped.

Ullman would not be a factor. With the Leafs his defense was lame and he tended to disappear at playoff time - see 1969 and 1975.

 

[FissionFire]

While I'll agree that a 33-year old Ullman didn't have a great playoffs in 1968 (I'd argue 1971 was worse) I think it's extremely disingenuous to point to 1975 as a poor performance. He was 38 years old and his regular season numbers reflect that he was nowhere near the offensive player he once was.

 

[seventieslord]

My points which you overlook. Benedict in 1915 at age 22 was the same age as Terry Sawchuk in 1952, the remaining Senators compared favourably to the Red Wings -Howe -23, Kelly-24, Delvecchio-19, M.Pronovost -21, Ted Lindsay - 26, Abel would be the equivalent of Art Ross. So getting blown-out in three games like the Senators were.

Broadbent, Darragh, and Ross compare favorably to Howe, Kelly, Delvecchio, Abel, and Lindsay?

In 1916 virtually the same Vancouver team was a .500 team in the PCHA and did not qualify for the SC final. The team that beat them - Portland did so with fewer HHOFers than Ottawa, nor did Portland have a HHOF caliber goalie.

Goes to show you how valuable Nighbor was.

But I can't wait to hear from you next round about how bad he sucked, too. Because there were no great players back then, right? Everyone just blended into ont big ball of mediocrity. No one stood out. Not Taylor, not Lalonde, not Benedict, not Nighbor, right?

You may be able to make a case that the PCHA sandbagged the NHA in 1915 BUT you cannot ignore a goalie giving up 26 goals in 3 games.

No one's ignoring it. He was brutal, the team was brutal. What you're ignoring is that this doesn't make him any different from any other top-10 goalie, save Dryden.

Nor can you ignore Clint Benedict's performance in the 1919 NHL final where he gave up 26 goals in 5 games against the Canadiens after giving up 53 goals during the 18 game regular season. Likewise in 1922 when Ottawa outplayed Toronto but Roach outplayed Benedict who by accounts had a weak first game in Toronto.

Let me repeat: What you're ignoring is that this doesn't make him any different from any other top-10 goalie, save Dryden.

And: This series is a wonderful case of what happens to a team when they lose Nighbor. But, you know, don't say anything about that next round.

Yes some playoffs his GAA improved, others it skyrocketed. Goaltenders that lack consistency should be considered accordingly.

By that standard, every single top goalie ever, lacked consistency. What is your point?

So Ottawa had 8 out of 18 HHOFers in the NHL in 1923 or 44.4%. Other dynasty teams never had such a high percentage of HHOFers relative to the rest of the league.Clint Benedict was the goalie on the best team and his wins reflect team wins as opposed to his brilliance.

Like I just explained to you, of course no other team had 44% of the hall of famers at one time. The league has usually had between 6 and 30 teams!

Dryden, Plante, Roy, and Brodeur have all been the goalie on the best team, too. I guess their wins reflect team brilliance as well.

Maroons forwards who played defense. Only happens with forwards who are very responsible defensively.

Well, you got us there!!!

A defense corps led by Dunc Munro, plus two forwards who LATER played defense = an outstanding team! Benedict had nothing to do with their success.

Before the mask it was fairly common for goalies to be hit in the face by shots. Sawchuk and Plante to name a couple. Benedict did not retire after the incidents you related rather he played in the minors the next season..

But he retired from the NHL, didn't he?

Benedict left voluntarily that season and who would hold it against him if he didn't? HE WAS 38!

Thank you for filling in the additional years, thereby clearly illustrating that Clint Benedict lacked consistency. Which definitely should be considered when reviewing his career.

So by illustrating that sometimes a goalie will let in more or less goals in different 10-14 game stretches illustrates inconsistency? BRILLIANT!

Clint Benedict dropping to the ice. Not a style but against the rules of the day. So the NHL made a choice between penalizing only him or letting everyone do it.

So?

Small sample size. That was the sample size as determined by the rules. He gets credit for double shutouts against Toronto in the NHL final in 1921, two game total goals and he loses credit of r1915 and 1919. Which again raises the consistency issue which cannot be avoided.

just because a goalie doesn't win the Stanley Cup every year, doesn't mean he is inconsistent.

Product of his team. !916-1918 the Senators were not as strong with fewer HHOFers than 1920-23. Did Benedict become the difference maker? No. When the team improved - 7 - 8, HHOFers between 1920-23 his stats improved yet he stumbled in 1922.

So when the team got some better players, the team did better?

WOW!!!! BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!

1924. Benedict was moved to the Maroons after the second place Canadiens upset the first place Senators in the NHL final 5 - 2 two game total goals. The 1924-25 Senators featured Alec Connell in goal, a fairly good goalie but the team was somewhat older and facing financial problems.

Almost every great goalie has seen his team (or himself) decide to part ways following a disappointing season (or finish to the season) - as usual, what is your point?

Plante's results in 1972 and 1973 were not the result of a rule change. Benedict's results during the 1929-30 season are ther result of a rule change. Also the injury happened in 1930 after the forward pass rule had been modified as scoring was getting out of hand. Still his pre injury numbers reflect a GAA that showed that Benedict was having problems adapting. The Maroons were a legit contender that season as evidenced by the success Flat Walsh had replacing Benedict.

Who cares what happened when he was 38?? Dryden, Roy, and Tretiak did not even play until 38 and Brodeur, to date, has not either. What on earth is your point?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Norm Ullman

While I'll agree that a 33-year old Ullman didn't have a great playoffs in 1968 (I'd argue 1971 was worse) I think it's extremely disingenuous to point to 1975 as a poor performance. He was 38 years old and his regular season numbers reflect that he was nowhere near the offensive player he once was.

Norm Ullman did not have a great 1968 playoff????????? Of course not his team did not make the playoffs.

As for the 38 year old Ullman, the performance is relevent in comparison to a 38 year old Henri Richard who despite a weak season had a decent playoff:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/richahe01.html

Or a 38 or 39 year old Dave Keon:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/keonda01.html

After all someone grouped Keon, Richard and Ullman together.

 

[overpass]

if only....could have....might have.....this is the same logic people apply to players who have shortened careers or injury plagued seasons. Maybe Richard outproduces Beliveau. Maybe the extra minutes take away from his even strength effectiveness. Not every player continues to excel with an expanded role. Of course, as a first line center he'd also be facing the other teams top defensive players, something that he did far less of playing second fiddle to Beliveau. So better linemates + tougher defensive forwards/defenseman + more PP time = Probably not a significant improvement statistically. Or maybe a huge jump. Or a huge drop. There is evidence supporting all three possibilites throughout hockey history so it's impossible to predict what "could have" happened.

Henri Richard played on very strong teams throughout his career. As a result, he had to share the ice time with other very good players, including Jean Beliveau. He played a lesser role than he would have on other teams, and was terrific in that role, playing it better than any other player in the league could have.

There were costs and benefits to that situation for Richard. The cost was that his counting numbers were less than they could have been, because he didn't get as much power play time as comparable even-strength scorers. The benefit was that he won 11 Stanley Cups.

If you will only give credit for "what actually happened" and refuse to consider that Richard's stats were less than they could have been because he played on a good team, why don't you give credit for 11 Cups won? Those actually happened. Richard was a major contributor to those, as an excellent even-strength scorer and defensive centre. Yet you are so against "Cup counting" that you won't give him credit for either what he would have done on a weaker team or what he did do on a strong team. I'm no Cup counter either, but I think you have to give him credit for excelling in his role on great teams, and stop comparing his numbers straight up to players on weaker teams.

 

[seventieslord]

Even if we don't consider that Richard could have done better with first line minutes and PP time (which is likely, but not a guarantee) his scoring placements over the years still make him a lock for the top-80, if not higher, even if he toiled on bad teams for a long time (think Johnny Bucyk). Given what we know about the circumstance, and his significant contribution to so many winning teams, it is certainly reasonable to give him a bump from approximately 80th to 55th-65th. I agree we can't credit him too much for what-ifs, but outpointing the whole league at even strength over a long period is quite the accomplishment.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I really don't care about Hart Trophy finishes in this process, because it is an MVP Award, and not a best player award. Voters usually aren't going to have two players from the same team in the top five, they are less likely to have two forwards from the same team in the top five, and it would be a very rare circumstance to have two centres from the same team in the top five. Henri Richard had zero shot at finishing in the top five because of Beliveau. But I'm not going to hold it against Richard that he was on the same team as one of the top three centres in the history of the sport.

Bottom line is a guy played the way Richard played and won two assist titles. He was a big part of 11 Stanley Cup rings. And when you look at all the praise, time after time, from teammates and opponents, you realize just how incredible of a hockey player he was. It's too bad he wasn't an option before this round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

These are the Top 5 finishers in goals and assists for the 5 Cups that Moore won:

1956 Points
1. Beliveau 19
2. Geoffrion 14
3. Olmstead 14
4. M Richard 14
5. Moore 9

1957 Points
1. Geoffrion 18
2. Beliveau 12
3. M Richard 11
4. Moore 10
5. Olmstead 9

1958 Points
1. M Richard 15
2. Beliveau 12
3. Geoffrion 11
4. Harvey 11
5. Moore 11

1959 Points
1. Moore 17
2. Bonin 15
3. Geoffrion 13
4. Harvey 12
5. H Richard 11

1960 Points
1. Geoffrion 12
2. H Richard 12
3. Moore 10
4. Beliveau 7
5. Bonin 5

1956 Goals
1. Beliveau 12
2. Geoffrion 5
3. M Richard 5
4. Olmstead 4
5. H Richard 4

1957 Goals
1. Geoffrion 11
2. M Richard 8
3. Beliveau 6
4. Moore 3
5. Curry 3

1958 Goals
1. M Richard 11
2. Geoffrion 6
3. Beliveau 4
4. Goyette 4
5. Moore 4

1959 Goals
1. Bonin 10
2. Provost 6
3. Moore 5
4. Geoffrion 5
5. H Richard/Backstrom 3

1960 Goals
1. Moore 6
2. Beliveau 5
3. Harvey 3
4. H Richard 3
5. (Three with 2)

Moore was clearly behind the top 3 forwards in 56, 57, and 58. He came into his own in 59 and 60 (the same years Henri Richard started showing up high in the scoring lists), and then was injured before the Canadiens got themselves together for the 60s dynasty.

Here's a comparison of Henri Richard and Dickie Moore during the dynasty with their rank among teammates that year.

1956
Dickie Moore: 9 points (5), 3 goals (6T)
Henri Richard: 8 points (6), 4 goals (4T)

1957
Dickie Moore: 10 points (4), 3 goals (4T)
Henri Richard: 8 points (6), 2 goals (6T)

1958
Dickie Moore: 11 points (3T), 4 goals (3T)
Henri Richard: 8 points (6), 1 goal

1959
Dickie Moore: 17 points (1), 5 goals (3)
Henri Richard: 11 points (5), 3 goals (5)

1960
Dickie Moore: 10 points (3), 6 goals (1)
Henri Richard: 12 points (1T), 3 goals (3T)

Overall 1956-60:
1. Bernie Geoffrion 49GP 29-39-68
2. Dickie Moore 49GP 21-36-57
3. Jean Beliveau 41GP 28-27-55
4. Henri Richard 49GP 13-34-47
5. Maurice Richard 42GP 25-19-44
6. Doug Harvey 49GP 8-32-40
7. Bert Olmstead 51GP 11-28-39

Conclusion:
Do Henri Richard's defensive responsibilities (and the corresponding lack of PP time) make up for the 10 point advantage that Moore has over him during this time frame? I think it brings them to about even. And then look at the huge longevity advantage that Henri Richard owns, and his major contributions to six other Cup winners, and he has to end up quite a few spots ahead of Moore on the list.

 

[tommygunn]

These are the Top 5 finishers in goals and assists for the 5 Cups that Moore won:

He also won the Cup in 1953.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clint Benedict Counterpoint - The Next Stage

Having submitted data that clearly indicated that Clint Benedict lacked consistency some of his backers are now trying to use humour to get themselves out of an interesting dilemma.

So far it has been shown that at age 22 Clint Benedict despite being surrounded by a team with a significant number of HHOFers had the worst Stanley Cup final 8.66 GAA average that any regular NHA/PCHA/WCHL/NHL ever had in a series. On the other hand 22 year old or younger goalies - Terry Sawchuk, Patrick Roy led their teams with incredible Stanley Cup performances. Even a 23 year old - Harry Lumley led his team to a victory over the reigning Stanley Cup dynasty champion Maple leafs in 1950, despite a near fatal injury to Gordie Howe, followed by a Stanley Cup victory over the Rangers. Yet at 22 or 23 Benedict did not have such a pedigree.

Nor did he have it at age 37. The new forward pass(1929-30) rules caused Clint Bnendict problems, he could not adapt. By the time he was injured it was rather clear that he was struggling. Other goalies, Hainsworth, Connell, Worters, Thompson adapted and continued. There is a trend to write-off 37 year old goalies as to old but the reader should remember that the following led their teams to Stanley Cup victories when they were 37, Georges Vezina ( contemporary of Benedict), Turk Broda, Johnny Bower, Terry Sawchuk, while another contemporary of Benedict's - Hap Holmes did it at age 36. Holmes BTW also won four Stanley Cups.

The flop or cheat and we'll let everyone do it. Until 1918 NHL goalies had to remain upright while stopping the puck. If they flopped , fell to make the save it was a penalty. Clint Benedict was used to flopping or falling to make a save. Rather simple theory. A penalty could alway be killed but a goal could not be recovered.

Simple question for the reader. If you are that good do you have to cheat? Benedict"s backers paint this as style.

The league had a choice. Penalize Clint Benedict or making flopping legal. The league choose to make flopping legal in 1918 before the start of the 1918-1919 season. Ultimate irony Clint Benedict flopped in the NHL finals - 5.2 GAA average.

Now previously Benedict backers have been exposed as cup counters - quick to point out when their favourite is shortchanged, so we are doing this based on their criteria.

HHOF teammates. For a good part of Clint Benedict's NHL career team rosters consisted of 10 players including a goalie. During his seven seasons with the Ottawa Senators including Clint Benedict the team had between 7 - 9 HHOFers, on their roster yet they won only three Stanley Cups. Why didn't they win more? Benedict's lack of consistency has been confirmed by his backers and they do not deny some weak playoff performances but they hide behind the other goalies red herring. Well Jacques Plante did not have any weak playoff performances between 1956 and 1960, Turk Broda was a rock, likewise Ken Dryden, Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr, Johnny Bower, even the Gumper with the Canadiens. Now of course the Benedict backers ignore most of these because they are not All-Time top 10 goalies BUT that is not what a team or a coach wants. Teams want their goalie to be consistent. Simple. No one is looking for top 10 all-time that is unpredictable.

The other part of the HHOF teammates position is that contemporaries regularly won Stanley Cups with 4-6 HHOFERS on the roster. We mentioned Holmes and Vezina, others like Connell with a much weaker Ottawa team, won a Stanley Cup - Connell's 0.60 GAA in 1927 being a contributing factor, while his 1.12 GAA in 1935 led the Montreal Maroons to a Stanley Cup. The 1935 Maroons are considered one of the weakest cup winners. George Hainsworth won two Stanley Cups with the Canadiens with lesser HHOF representation on the roster.

Again with Clint Benedict you have nice numbers if you ignore the playoff flops. If you break down the numbers and look at the supporting cast you see that the results should have been better.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Positional Responsibilities

These are the Top 5 finishers in goals and assists for the 5 Cups that Moore won:

1956 Points
1. Beliveau 19
2. Geoffrion 14
3. Olmstead 14
4. M Richard 14
5. Moore 9

1957 Points
1. Geoffrion 18
2. Beliveau 12
3. M Richard 11
4. Moore 10
5. Olmstead 9

1958 Points
1. M Richard 15
2. Beliveau 12
3. Geoffrion 11
4. Harvey 11
5. Moore 11

1959 Points
1. Moore 17
2. Bonin 15
3. Geoffrion 13
4. Harvey 12
5. H Richard 11

1960 Points
1. Geoffrion 12
2. H Richard 12
3. Moore 10
4. Beliveau 7
5. Bonin 5

1956 Goals
1. Beliveau 12
2. Geoffrion 5
3. M Richard 5
4. Olmstead 4
5. H Richard 4

1957 Goals
1. Geoffrion 11
2. M Richard 8
3. Beliveau 6
4. Moore 3
5. Curry 3

1958 Goals
1. M Richard 11
2. Geoffrion 6
3. Beliveau 4
4. Goyette 4
5. Moore 4

1959 Goals
1. Bonin 10
2. Provost 6
3. Moore 5
4. Geoffrion 5
5. H Richard/Backstrom 3

1960 Goals
1. Moore 6
2. Beliveau 5
3. Harvey 3
4. H Richard 3
5. (Three with 2)

Moore was clearly behind the top 3 forwards in 56, 57, and 58. He came into his own in 59 and 60 (the same years Henri Richard started showing up high in the scoring lists), and then was injured before the Canadiens got themselves together for the 60s dynasty.

Here's a comparison of Henri Richard and Dickie Moore during the dynasty with their rank among teammates that year.

1956
Dickie Moore: 9 points (5), 3 goals (6T)
Henri Richard: 8 points (6), 4 goals (4T)

1957
Dickie Moore: 10 points (4), 3 goals (4T)
Henri Richard: 8 points (6), 2 goals (6T)

1958
Dickie Moore: 11 points (3T), 4 goals (3T)
Henri Richard: 8 points (6), 1 goal

1959
Dickie Moore: 17 points (1), 5 goals (3)
Henri Richard: 11 points (5), 3 goals (5)

1960
Dickie Moore: 10 points (3), 6 goals (1)
Henri Richard: 12 points (1T), 3 goals (3T)

Overall 1956-60:
1. Bernie Geoffrion 49GP 29-39-68
2. Dickie Moore 49GP 21-36-57
3. Jean Beliveau 41GP 28-27-55
4. Henri Richard 49GP 13-34-47
5. Maurice Richard 42GP 25-19-44
6. Doug Harvey 49GP 8-32-40
7. Bert Olmstead 51GP 11-28-39

Conclusion:
Do Henri Richard's defensive responsibilities (and the corresponding lack of PP time) make up for the 10 point advantage that Moore has over him during this time frame? I think it brings them to about even. And then look at the huge longevity advantage that Henri Richard owns, and his major contributions to six other Cup winners, and he has to end up quite a few spots ahead of Moore on the list.

You are a good guy BUT please look beyond the paper numbers.
Dickie Moore played left wing. Part of a left wing's assignments is covering the right winger on the opposing line. During the 1956-60 stretch the Canadiens had two HHOF left wingers Moore and Bert Olmstead who were defensively solid.

Part of Dickie Moore's playoff responsibilities in the 1956.1957,1958 playoffs was covering the opposing right wingers like Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate and Vic Stasiuk, the last two were handled very efficiently by the Canadiens and Gordie Howe did not hurt them. This came at a cost to Dickie Moore's offensive numbers.

In the 1959 and 1960 playoffs the Canadiens played Chicago and Toronto, two teams that had strong left wingers but so-so right wingers so Dickie Moore's defensive responsibilities were less demanding so the offensive numbers went up. Not a question of coming into his own.

 

[lextune]

Dickie Moore played left wing. Part of a left wing's assignments is covering the right winger on the opposing line.

Ummm.....no. Generally the LW's defensive responsibility is to cover the opposing right Defenseman.

The RW of the other team is trying to fight for the puck in the corners and/or positioning themselves in front of the net. They are covered by defensemen.

One of the basic tenets of playing wing is not to play too deep in your own zone.

Don't you claim to have been a coach?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Reading

Ummm.....no. Generally the LW's defensive responsibility is to cover the opposing right Defenseman.

The RW of the other team is trying to fight for the puck in the corners and/or positioning themselves in front of the net. They are covered by defensemen.

One of the basic tenets of playing wing is not to play too deep in your own zone.

Don't you claim to have been a coach?

What part of part don't you understand. I clearly wrote part of the responsibility NOT ALL. That being said we were discussing the 1956-60 era. Different defensive schemes, tactics and responsibilities.

Remember how in the sixties Claude Provost a RW used to cover Bobby Hull a LW.Provost is rather famous for his efforts. Well if you can reason it thru then Bobby Hull a LW was responsible for covering Claude Provost a RW. Rather elementary and basic hockey.

Yes I did coach.

 

[lextune]

Flailing and Failing

What part of part don't you understand. I clearly wrote part of the responsibility NOT ALL. That being said we were discussing the 1956-60 era. Different defensive schemes, tactics and responsibilities.

Remember how in the sixties Claude Provost a RW used to cover Bobby Hull a LW.Provost is rather famous for his efforts. Well if you can reason it thru then Bobby Hull a LW was responsible for covering Claude Provost a RW. Rather elementary and basic hockey.

Yes I did coach.

Having a winger cover an opposing winger is in no part part of a 'normal' (certainly not an Art Ross winning) wingers responsibility.

Comparing the likes of a checking, shadowing at times (i.e - Hull), winger like Provost to Moore is laughable.

If you really think that ANY part of Moore's defensive responsibility (such as it was), was covering opposing right wingers you are beyond help. That type of extreme defensive realigning is a hyper-speciality that can ONLY be called shadowing. He did what scoring wingers always do. Covered his point man and tried to give his center and/or d-men a target to pass to out of the zone.