Round 2, Vote 6 (2009 update)

[seventieslord]

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.

Most of the humour is coming from you.

Try showing us 10-14 game portions from the careers of Patrick Roy and Jacques Plante and Terry Sawchuk. Do you think they all let in the same number of goals every 10 games? Ridiculous.

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.

Good for them that they did. But you are expecting Benedict to have a Stanley Cup on his resume by age 22 or he doesn't get your respect? That's just silly. I'm not surprised.

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.

Wow, so many goalies in history have done it, hey?

Same as above. Good for them, but that doesn't put them above Benedict. Isolating what they did before age 22 or after age 37 doesn't show you the whole picture. Why would you want to pinpoint the start or end of a career before a player was at his best? Why, to support an agenda, of course!

With the exception of Sawchuk, Benedict's range of career accomplishments easily trumps any of the above. But oh, let's focus on them winning a Stanley Cup at age 37!

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.

Priceless.

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.

Actually, the change was made January 9th, 1918, only a few games into the 1917-1918 season. Sorry that it doesn't fit your supposed ironic little storybook.

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.

Who exposed who as a what now?

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?

LOL!

What a bunch of bums! Only three cups in seven years.

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.

Do you mean to tell us that Plante, Broda, Smith, Fuhr, Bower, and Worsley were nothing but stellar in the playoffs?

The truth is, they all had a proportion of good playoffs to mediocre ones similar to Benedict.

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.

- Connell had a couple of excellent playoffs. So did Curtis Joseph and Cam Ward and JS Giguere. If these guys consistently led their league in wins, GAA, and shutouts and/or were perceived as being among the top-2 goalies in a number of seasons, we'd be talking about them too. Hainsworth had some good regular seasons and some good playoffs, he was also very mediocre a lot of the time. Benedict had a much better overall career than any of these guys, but of course let's focus on ridiculous details whose importance pales in comparison to the big picture.

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.

Should have been better than four cups in 7 seasons? Gotcha.

The reason it is impossible to take you seriously is not just that you have a hate on for Benedict. I don't particularly think that you do. But at every possible opportunity you have tried to tear down any player whose peak was before about 1925. When discussing Taylor you didn't pick another player and attempt to prove he was more dominant than Taylor and show that Taylor was not the best of his time, you used his era and league against him. Now with Benedict, you're not telling us that any of his contemporaries had anywhere close to the career he had, but even still, you're arguing that he couldn't possibly be a top-10 goalie. If you like Vezina better, that's one thing. Show us how. And then maybe we won't be so inclined to vote him so highly if he's not "clearly" the best of his era. Based on knowledge and perception right now, he is. It's clear you don't think much about this era of hockey in general and have an agenda to keep their rankings down as much as possible.

By the way, how about that career wins record? Do you still think Benedict never had it?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Seventies! I thought we were supposed to co-ordinate better this time!

====

The comments about Benedict border on historical revisionism. Calling Benedict "inconsistent" means that one is either ignorant of the (widely available) historical facts, or one is intentionally picking a very small sample of games to "prove" a point. But don't take my word for it - let's look at the evidence.

NHL PLAYOFFS

1919: 5.20 GAA in two playoff games.
1921: 0.00 GAA in two playoff games. No, that's not a typo.
1922: 2.50 GAA in two playoff games.
1923: 1.00 GAA in two playoff games.
1924: 2.50 GAA in two playoff games.
1926: 1.25 GAA in four playoff games.
1927: 0.91 GAA in two playoff games.
1928: 0.86 GAA in nine playoff games.

Benedict played in the NHL playoffs eight times. He had a GAA of 1.50 (or better) five times in eight years! He had a GAA of 2.50 (or better) seven times in eight years which, as I show below, is better than anything Plante, Roy, Sawchuk or Dryden ever achieved. I fully concede he was bad in 1919, but how is this evidence of inconsistency?

OTHER PLAYOFFS

1915 NHA: 1.00 GAA in two playoff games.
1915 Stanley Cup: 8.67 GAA in three playoff games.
1917 NHA: 3.50 GAA in two playoff games.
1920 Stanley Cup: 2.20 GAA in five playoff games.
1921 Stanley Cup: 2.40 GAA in five playoff games.
1923 Stanley Cup: 1.33 GAA in six playoff games.
1926 Stanley Cup: 0.75 GAA in four playoff games.

Benedict played in seven non-NHL playoff series. Three times he had GAA of 1.50 (or better) and five times he had a GAA of 2.50 (or better).

TOTALS
Number of series with a sub 1.50 GAA: 8
Number of series with a sub 2.50 GAA: 12
Total number of series: 15

Keep in mind that Benedict played in a high-scoring era. Despite that, he was able to post a sub-2.50 GAA 80% of the time. If we restrict to playoff years when Benedict played at least four games (the minimum possible length for a series in the modern NHL), Benedict never posted worse than a 2.40 GAA (in six series).

To put that into perspective, Roy had 8 (of 17) playoffs with a GAA about 2.50. Plante had 6 (of 16) playoffs over 2.50. Sawchuk had 10 (of 15!) playoffs over 2.50. Dryden had 4 of 8 over 2.50. (Just count up the playoff years on hockey-reference.com). To be clear, I'm not saying that Roy, Plante, etc are inconsistent. I recognize that there will be some minor variations in goalie performance over time.

To be fair, we should probably do some type of era adjustment. Still, Benedict's career spanned a very high scoring (1910s and early 1920s) and a very low scoring era (mid to late 1920s) so I don't think the adjustment would affect him much. (It probably would affect Roy and, to a lesser extent, Dryden).

I can't make it any clearer. You're picking on two (admittedly) weak playoff performances but are ignoring Benedict's otherwise flawless and highly consistent playoff record. The data presented clearly indicates that Benedict was at least as consistent as Plante, Roy, Sawchuk and Dryden, although this is before a consideration of any era-related effects.
====

I've already given sources (in my previous post) clearly documenting Benedict's enormous contributions to the development of professional goaltending. You can call it "cheating" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the NHL changed its rules to recognize Benedict's more modern & advanced style of play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He also won the Cup in 1953.

Er right, brain fart there; forgot that he was a playoff regular before he played full regular seasons. Pretend I said "Cups that Moore was a major part of"

(Moore only had 5 points in 1953. His best pre-dynasty playoff run - and only time pre-dynasty that he was at or over a point per game - was in 1954, when he led the team in scoring in a losing effort).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah it seems weird that so far the case against Clint Benedict doesn't include anything he did from age 23-36.

So far this round, I've been sold that Clancy and Benedict are the best dman and goalie available.

 

[seventieslord]

So far this round, I may have been sold that Clancy and Benedict are the best dman and goalie available.

But.... but.... he's been exposed as being inconsistent!!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clint Benedict - Consistent?

Keep in mind that Benedict played in a high-scoring era. Despite that, he was able to post a sub-2.50 GAA 80% of the time. If we restrict to playoff years when Benedict played at least four games (the minimum possible length for a series in the modern NHL), Benedict never posted worse than a 2.40 GAA (in six series).

To put that into perspective, Roy had 8 (of 17) playoffs with a GAA about 2.50. Plante had 6 (of 16) playoffs over 2.50. Sawchuk had 10 (of 15!) playoffs over 2.50. Dryden had 4 of 8 over 2.50. (Just count up the playoff years on hockey-reference.com). To be clear, I'm not saying that Roy, Plante, etc are inconsistent. I recognize that there will be some minor variations in goalie performance over time.

To be fair, we should probably do some type of era adjustment. Still, Benedict's career spanned a very high scoring (1910s and early 1920s) and a very low scoring era (mid to late 1920s) so I don't think the adjustment would affect him much. (It probably would affect Roy and, to a lesser extent, Dryden).

I can't make it any clearer. You're picking on two (admittedly) weak playoff performances but are ignoring Benedict's otherwise flawless and highly consistent playoff record. The data presented clearly indicates that Benedict was at least as consistent as Plante, Roy, Sawchuk and Dryden, although this is before a consideration of any era-related effects.
====

I've already given sources (in my previous post) clearly documenting Benedict's enormous contributions to the development of professional goaltending. You can call it "cheating" if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the NHL changed its rules to recognize Benedict's more modern & advanced style of play.

Clint Benedict played in a high scoring era, low scoring era or a blend. Which is it?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1918.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1929.html

1917-18 the TG/G was 9.50 but had shrunk to 2.92 by 1929. Hardly high scoring. Of course the 1917-18 season was a WWI year.
Benedict played in an era when scoring steadily declined.

Conversely during the 1952-53 thru 1962-63 era when Jacques Plante played with the Canadiens it ranged from 4.79 to 5.95 taking the book end seasons with minor seasonal variances. Plante's core performance saw a 1.35 - 3.17 GAA during the playoffs without disasterous series like Benedict had. No 5.2 or 8.66.Plante well into his forties did better than Benedict.

Now a sub 2.50GAA, 80% of the time is not exactly consistant when you include some of the weak series. 5.2 GAA or an 8.66 GAA or in an era where the TG/G is plummeting towards 2.92.

Again focus on Benedict'c contemporaries and show me an NHA / PCHA / WCHL / NHL goalie with a SC final 8.66 GAA or an NHL goalie with an NHL final GAA of 5.2 pre 1930. The small sample space or it can happen to anyone cop out does not work. Afterall, why did it happen to him?

The 2.92 TG/G in 1928-29 was why the forward pass rule was introduced because scoring had dropped to less than 1/3 of what it was in twelve seasons.

Clint Benedict did not have to worry about the lead forward, tip ins, deflections by the opposition, screens, etc. nor the increased speed of the game for the vast majority of his career. When confronted with the modern forward pass game he did not adapt.He was one of the better goalies of the pre forward pass era but others like Holmes, Hainsworth, Vezina amongst others achieved results that indicate they should be at part of the debate as opposed to seeing Benedict as the token goalie for his era.

As for the rule change that Clint Benedict helped create it simply allowed what was previously not allowed.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Clint Benedict played in a high scoring era, low scoring era or a blend. Which is it?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1918.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1929.html

1917-18 the TG/G was 9.50 but had shrunk to 2.92 by 1929. Hardly high scoring. Of course the 1917-18 season was a WWI year.
Benedict played in an era when scoring steadily declined.

And his GAA's were almost always better than his contemporaries regardless of scoring level. That should be the point here. He was consistently better than 2.50, which is a splendid average in the late teens early 20's era, and when scoring dipped to the point that a 2.50 average was poor, his had shrunk down to about 1.00.

Conversely during the 1952-53 thru 1962-63 era when Jacques Plante played with the Canadiens it ranged from 4.79 to 5.95 taking the book end seasons with minor seasonal variances. Plante's core performance saw a 1.35 - 3.17 GAA during the playoffs without disasterous series like Benedict had. No 5.2 or 8.66.Plante well into his forties did better than Benedict.

Interestingly, a 3.17 GAA would be considered weak during the Plante era that your scoring average figures encompass. So Plante didn't have a disasterous series. So what? Nobody here is going to argue that Benedict was better than Plante, who is arguably the best of all time.

Now a sub 2.50GAA, 80% of the time is not exactly consistant when you include some of the weak series. 5.2 GAA or an 8.66 GAA or in an era where the TG/G is plummeting towards 2.92.

And as I pointed out above, Benedict's average had dropped well below 2.50 by the time that mark was no longer a sign of greatness. Oddly, his average remaining static during that era would have been a sign of inconsistency.

Again focus on Benedict'c contemporaries and show me an NHA / PCHA / WCHL / NHL goalie with a SC final 8.66 GAA or an NHL goalie with an NHL final GAA of 5.2 pre 1930. The small sample space or it can happen to anyone cop out does not work. Afterall, why did it happen to him?

Great performances counter-balance poor ones. Benedict had many more great ones than poor ones. If he did not have any of those blemishes, we are probably talking about him being a candidate for top-20 on the list. He's been punished for them accordingly by virtue of not being up for discussion within the top 50.

Clint Benedict did not have to worry about the lead forward, tip ins, deflections by the opposition, screens, etc. nor the increased speed of the game for the vast majority of his career. When confronted with the modern forward pass game he did not adapt.He was one of the better goalies of the pre forward pass era but others like Holmes, Hainsworth, Vezina amongst others achieved results that indicate they should be at part of the debate as opposed to seeing Benedict as the token goalie for his era.

Whether or not he had to worry about those things is besides the point. He should be getting evaluated based on performance compared to his peers, not in an absolute sense. If that were the case, any goalie presently in the NHL today is better than him. If he failed to adapt when he was 25, your argument for that would have merit (and it would probably be moot anyway since he never would have had the career he did), but he was in his late 30's. Are you going to punish Wayne Gretzky for not adapting to the dead puck era in 1999?

 

[seventieslord]

Clint Benedict played in a high scoring era, low scoring era or a blend. Which is it?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1918.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1929.html

1917-18 the TG/G was 9.50 but had shrunk to 2.92 by 1929. Hardly high scoring. Of course the 1917-18 season was a WWI year.
Benedict played in an era when scoring steadily declined.

You know what he meant and are just playing the semantics game now. Benedict played mostly in a high scoring era, and it declined particularly in the first three post-merger seasons.

Conversely during the 1952-53 thru 1962-63 era when Jacques Plante played with the Canadiens it ranged from 4.79 to 5.95 taking the book end seasons with minor seasonal variances. Plante's core performance saw a 1.35 - 3.17 GAA during the playoffs without disasterous series like Benedict had. No 5.2 or 8.66.Plante well into his forties did better than Benedict.

We've already established that Plante is arguably the best goalie of all-time, so comparing the two is foolish. Benedict isn't as good as Plante; so what? 99.999% of goalies to ever play, weren't as good as Plante. Tell us something that narrows it down at least somewhat.

Now a sub 2.50GAA, 80% of the time is not exactly consistant when you include some of the weak series. 5.2 GAA or an 8.66 GAA or in an era where the TG/G is plummeting towards 2.92.

Way to try to slip that past us. The two series you are basing your entire life on, were in 1915 and 1919. Scoring was far from "plummeting towards 2.92" in those seasons. The majority of Benedict's playoff games were played in seasons before scoring plummeted. Besides, in the 11 games he played in the 1927 and 1928 playoffs, he had a GAA of 0.87, which, I'm pretty sure was still far below the league average: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...al=&order_by=goals_against_avg&order_by_asc=Y

Again focus on Benedict'c contemporaries and show me an NHA / PCHA / WCHL / NHL goalie with a SC final 8.66 GAA or an NHL goalie with an NHL final GAA of 5.2 pre 1930. The small sample space or it can happen to anyone cop out does not work. Afterall, why did it happen to him?

There were other factors involved in both series, but even if Benedict truly had the two worst series of the era, the facts remain that he had many of the very best ones, as well as the best total career numbers in both the regular season and the playoffs.

Clint Benedict did not have to worry about the lead forward, tip ins, deflections by the opposition, screens, etc. nor the increased speed of the game for the vast majority of his career. When confronted with the modern forward pass game he did not adapt.He was one of the better goalies of the pre forward pass era but others like Holmes, Hainsworth, Vezina amongst others achieved results that indicate they should be at part of the debate as opposed to seeing Benedict as the token goalie for his era.

Benedict's contemporaries did not have to worry about "the lead forward, tip ins, deflections by the opposition, screens, etc. nor the increased speed of the game" either, did they? He played the same game that they all did too, and he outperformed them. That's what matters. Not how old they were whena major rule change was instituted, which is what the majority of your argument is hinging on.

Keep grasping.

 

[MXD]

Sorry, but I think the man-crush on Benedict has gone a little too far. It's not that I agree with all of the C-1958, but he indeed raises points which have to be (do no really understand the 1915 SC Finals one, or the one about his last season). C19 made his points, HO and 70ies made their counterpoints, and that should be it.

I won't have Benedict as the best, not even the second best goalie.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My Point Exactly

Whether or not he had to worry about those things is besides the point. He should be getting evaluated based on performance compared to his peers, not in an absolute sense. If that were the case, any goalie presently in the NHL today is better than him. If he failed to adapt when he was 25, your argument for that would have merit (and it would probably be moot anyway since he never would have had the career he did), but he was in his late 30's. Are you going to punish Wayne Gretzky for not adapting to the dead puck era in 1999?

Unfortunately we are not evaluating Benedict to his peers or contemporaries.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Unfortunately we are not evaluating Benedict to his peers or contemporaries.

I am basing my ranking of Benedict on the fact that he was the best goaltender of his era (ie: in comparison to his contemporaries). So yes, absolutely he is being evaluated against peers, at least in my books, and I'm sure in 70's and HO's as well. You are the one that brought Sawchuk and Plante into the debate if I recall (if you weren't my apologies, I'm starting to get lost in all this Benedict talk).

If you want to make a case that Vezina, Holmes, or Lehman were better, I'm all ears. I have all three in my Top 100 I'm pretty sure, but in my estimation Benedict was their superior, and it's going to take a damn good argument to convince me otherwise.

 

[FissionFire]

I'd actually be very interested in seeing C1958's comparisons of Benedict to Hainsworth.

 

[Spitfire11]

Yeah it seems weird that so far the case against Clint Benedict doesn't include anything he did from age 23-36.

So far this round, I've been sold that Clancy and Benedict are the best dman and goalie available.

Just wondering, what was it that sold you on Clancy? He's probably the all-time great I know the least about.

 

[Stonefly]

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.

It seems to me this Keon/Richard/Ullman comparison came up last time too. Ullman for me just isn't close to these guys. I know if you go by stats he may seem like it. One of those instances where if you'd had the pleasure of watching them all you'd understand. A modern day comparison to Ullman would be Jason Spezza. At least that's who came to mind for me. That may conjure a negative image, I'm not sure, but to me they are similar players. Both very skilled players but...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just wondering, what was it that sold you on Clancy? He's probably the all-time great I know the least about.

Here's a quick summary of Clancy's achievements. I doubt I'll have time to do something more thorough (ie a comprehensive Clancy-Pilote-Seibert-Horton-Clapper comparison) but this should be a start.

- Offensive dominance. Clancy was an aggressive defenseman who often joined the rush. His playmaking skills are demonstrated by the fact that he finished in the top five in assists three times, in an era where offensive defensemen were rare. From 1922-1937 (the span of Clancy's career) he ranked first in scoring among all defensemen and 12th in scoring overall. Only Eddie Shore scored more points-per-game during that span. Clancy was the league's highest-scoring defenseman in 1930 & 1934; he was runner-up in 1924, 1925, 1927 & 1929.

- Outstanding defense. I read a newspaper article from the Globe & Mail (April 20, 1933) stating that Clancy was better defensively than Eddie Shore, and was as good as Lionel Hitchman and Ching Johnson in his own zone.

- Toughness/durability. Although Clancy was only 5'7", 155 lbs, he was still a fierce competitor and did not get pushed around. He placed in the top ten in PIM six times and missed no more than one game in 13 of his 16 seasons. Clancy's biographer, Brian MacFarlane, claims that Clancy started "thousands" of fights without ever winning one; while 1K is obviously an exaggeration, it shows that Clancy stood up for his teammates and never backed down.

- Awards. Clancy was a five-time Hart finalist, which is the best record among all players eligible for voting now. He earned a spot on four all-star teams... keep in mind that all-star teams were not created nine years into his career. Clancy had three seasons where he was nominated for the Hart, prior to when all-star teams were created (1927, 1929, 1930). Therefore I think it's reasonable to consider Clancy the equivalent of a seven-time all-star.

- Playoff performance. King Clancy was a top-pairing defenseman on three Stanley Cup winning teams. He wasn't just in the right place at the right time-- he was a key reason that the Toronto franchise became a winner in the 1930s. When Clancy was traded to the Leafs in 1931, Toronto had missed the playoffs two of the past three years. After his arrival, they made it to the Cup final in two of the next three years, winning the Stanley Cup once.

I'm unsure of where I'll rank Clancy. He may be the best defenseman this round, but I think a reasonable case can be made for Pilote and Seibert as well.

 

[reckoning]

King Clancy was the #1 defenseman on three Stanley Cup winning teams. He wasn't just in the right place at the right time-- he was a key reason that the Toronto franchise became a winner in the 1930s. When Clancy was traded to the Leafs in 1931, Toronto had missed the playoffs two of the past three years. After his arrival, they made it to the Cup final in two of the next three years, winning the Stanley Cup once.

Also worth noting that not only did Toronto greatly improve after acquiring Clancy from Ottawa, but Ottawa completely fell apart without him. Dropped from 4th overall (.568) to 9th (.273), which would seem to indicate how valuable he was to the Senators.

 

[Dark Shadows]

On this point I doubt we'll ever agree.

Probably not.

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.

Did he face lesser defensive forwards? Yes Without a doubt. But he also was spending more time defending against the opposing teams best forwards and defensemen. Most of the best defensemen in that era logged a ton of icetime and were often the best defensively and offensively. Gadsby, Harvey(After the trade), Kelly, Pilote, Stanley......all these defensemen played against both Beliveau and Richard, not just Beliveau.

The difference power play time has on a players statistics is generally very favorable. On average, 1/4 to 1/3 of a player's total numbers comes from the PP.

I know we disagree and I do not expect to convince anyone otherwise, but from what I saw of Henri Richard, I fully believe he would have had a sizable point boost had he been playing on every powerplay. His role on the team was crucial, and was a huge reason they won all those cups. I simply think that on another team, had he been the first center option and PP option, that he likely would have scored many more points, but fewer cups. Catch 22.

In the same Manner Messier's numbers jumped when he took over the helm as first line center in 1989-90, although the situation is quite different since Messier always got the PP time.

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.

Certainly. I see no reason to argue this point.

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.

Of course it is. I merely am trying to say that while he was playing, he was amazing. There is nothing wrong with that. He does not get points for games not played, but he certainly should be given props for his excellent complete game in the games he did play on a per game basis.

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.

I was merely covering all the bases. People tend to look at point finishes, Hart record and all star selections.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the standard for Hart voting was different in Lindsay's day in a way that impacted him? They seem to be very comparable in this instance. Both had higher profile teammates who were considered more valuable and finished above them in Hart Voting. Even though defensemen supposedly stopped getting the same consideration after the Norris came out, that does not truly impact Lindsay's case, as Kelly(And Harvey) were still getting plenty of Hart support after the Norris came out.

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.

We can look at goals, assist and points individually, but I am just going to simplify it by looking at point finishes.

Yes, I do believe the PP time has a crucial impact on final numbers. Most players on average score 1/4 to 1/3 of their points on the PP. Sometimes much more.

Lindsay's top 10 point finishes:
1947-48 NHL 52 (9)
1948-49 NHL 54 (3)
1949-50 NHL 78 (1)
1950-51 NHL 59 (7)
1951-52 NHL 69 (2)
1952-53 NHL 71 (2)
1953-54 NHL 62 (3)
1956-57 NHL 85 (2)

Richard's top 10 point finishes:
Points
1956-57 NHL 54 (9)
1957-58 NHL 80 (2)
1959-60 NHL 73 (5)
1960-61 NHL 68 (9)
1962-63 NHL 73 (4)
1965-66 NHL 61 (9)
1966-67 NHL 55 (10)

In many of these years, the difference between finishing top 5 and finishing 9th/10th is 5-10 points. Those 5 to 10 points are often less than 1/6 to 1/10th of his point total. Given how most top scorers score between 1/4 and 1/3rd of their points, thinking his point totals would have jumped is not outrageous to me.

People can ignore the what if's in this situation if they want. I do not expect to sway any opinions. But I saw what Henri Richard was capable of, and that performance is well above the sum of his statistics. Nearly every teammate or opponent who has ever commented on him will say the same.

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.

Nighbor is a player that I have not studied in enough detail to get a clear picture of. However, regarding the other two, I did see a gap, irrespective of what cases will be made for them. All the players between 50-80 are close no matter how you slice it. It comes down to what pleases each voter.

Keon was one of the few players I have ever seen who I would consider better than Henri Richard, and perhaps I did underrate him a bit. But Keon also did get the top line duties and top line PP time, but only has 2 top 10 scoring finishes(Both in 9th and 10th spots) to show for it.

Ullman was a very two way forward, but I would not put him in the same discussion with them defensively. Offensively, he did get the PP time, but his record is still not much better than Richard's offensively.

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.

I would say Richard was also as fierce a competitor as Lindsay without the dirtiness. Just as tenacious and always giving 110% with every stride.

The defensive gap between them to be is large. Not as Large as Lindsay's offensive edge mind you. But large enough that 30 spots between them is far too much(About 25 spots is right for me). Its not like I am trying to put them within 10 spots of each other or anything. I am not(I think you thought that was what I was intending, but it is not). But to me, Lindsay is 35th, Richard is 59th, possibly lower.

I had allowed people to talk me out of putting him so high last time that I overcompensated, but then I watched some old games and started remembering again just how damn great he was.

 

[FissionFire]

I don't have time this minute to go into your post in detail and answer all your questions but one factor I think you are not considering is that while Richard's stats may have taken a boost with more PP time, they would be partially offset by the lesser ES numbers he'd post. He has to sacrifice minutes somewhere to gain that additional PP time after all.....

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

So far this round, I've been sold that Clancy and Benedict are the best dman and goalie available.

I don't know how high I'll rank Benedict, but it seems likely that I'll rank him ahead of the other goalies this round.

I'm unsure of where I'll rank Clancy. He may be the best defenseman this round, but I think a reasonable case can be made for Pilote and Seibert as well.

When you make such a good case for Clancy, you're not making this easy for me. I'm hoping that Pilote doesn't get overlooked this round.

Awards - For someone who first played organized hockey at age 17 and started playing in the NHL at age 24, Pilote has a really good resume. In 1959-60 Pierre started getting Norris votes, finishing fourth in voting that season and the next. After finishing second to Harvey in 1961-62 came three consecutive Norris Trophies against competition like Horton, Laperriere and Brewer. Horton's best finish in Norris voting gave him 51% of the votes Pilote had (in 1963-64). And in Bobby Orr's rookie season Pierre had a comfortable margin finishing second to Howell in Norris voting.

Offense - Going by PPG and points for Pilote's active years, few defensemen came close. For 1955-69, Pierre had a 0.56 PPG and scored 498 points. Red Kelly scored more often, but the majority of those seasons he spent as a forward. Harvey had a 0.52 PPG and scored 314 points while Bill Gadsby had a 0.50 PPG and scored 367 points.

Playoffs - The leader in points in the playoffs in 1961 on the Hawks wasn't Mikita (11 points) or Hull (14 points) but Pilote with 15 points. During Pierre's years in the playoffs (1959-69), he was eighth among all players in points. Those trailing him were Mahovlich, Kelly and Moore. Mahovlich and Pilote has the same PPG for these years, with Pilote playing two more playoff games.

Toughness/durability - During the start of his career, Pierre had an iron man streak running for 376 consecutive games. He played tough without having it being too detrimental, had 162 penalty minutes (third in the league) when he won his third Norris. His PIM totals was the highest in the league for 1955-69, ahead of Fontinato, Fleming, Baun and Horton.

 

[Canadiens1958]

King Clancy

Playoff performance. King Clancy was a top-pairing defenseman on three Stanley Cup winning teams. He wasn't just in the right place at the right time-- he was a key reason that the Toronto franchise became a winner in the 1930s. When Clancy was traded to the Leafs in 1931, Toronto had missed the playoffs two of the past three years. After his arrival, they made it to the Cup final in two of the next three years, winning the Stanley Cup once.

King Clancy was one of the rare players to play and contribute in the post WWI NHL as a teenager, starting his NHL career at the age of 18. When he was traded to the Leafs in 1930 he contributed enormously to the growth of a young team and a Stanley Cup championship-1932.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clancki01.html

 

[Dark Shadows]

I don't have time this minute to go into your post in detail and answer all your questions but one factor I think you are not considering is that while Richard's stats may have taken a boost with more PP time, they would be partially offset by the lesser ES numbers he'd post. He has to sacrifice minutes somewhere to gain that additional PP time after all.....

Sure. But it is much easier to score on the PP than in ES. Given that he was generating offense at ES from great defensive play against opposing teams top forwards and defensemen, I have no doubt he would have been posting even better numbers on the PP.

It did not hurt Beliveau that badly after all to lose some ES minutes for that PP time.

I am not talking some titanic increase in statistics here. I merely think playing on the PP much more, being the teams number 1 option and generally getting more icetime with the offensive forwards rather than spending the entire game checking the opposing teams top forwards would have boosted his statistics around 5-10 points a season. Is that outrageous?

Overpass posted some statistics at one point that showed Henri Richard's statistics on the PP having a minor improvement in the season Beliveau missed 15 games. His ES minutes still overshadowed it. But it was there nonetheless.

 

[MXD]

Actually, I'd consider Pilote to be the 3rd best D-Men available in this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chicken and Egg

Sure. But it is much easier to score on the PP than in ES. Given that he was generating offense at ES from great defensive play against opposing teams top forwards and defensemen, I have no doubt he would have been posting even better numbers on the PP.

It did not hurt Beliveau that badly after all to lose some ES minutes for that PP time.

I am not talking some titanic increase in statistics here. I merely think playing on the PP much more, being the teams number 1 option and generally getting more icetime with the offensive forwards rather than spending the entire game checking the opposing teams top forwards would have boosted his statistics around 5-10 points a season. Is that outrageous?

Overpass posted some statistics at one point that showed Henri Richard's statistics on the PP having a minor improvement in the season Beliveau missed 15 games. His ES minutes still overshadowed it. But it was there nonetheless.

Interesting chicken and egg question. Jean Beliveau missed the first 27 games of the 1961-62 season due to a knee injury. Henri Richard's powerplay time increased but his numbers overall were not on a pace for a career best season, perhaps fifth best.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clancki01.html

The Canadiens PP was not as efficient during Beliveau's absence.

On the other hand Henri Richard missed the last 16 games of the 1961-62 season and the playoffs due to a broken arm suffered in a game against Detroit(from memory) and the Canadiens defense suffered as a result.

Granted it may be easier to score on the PP but it is also a question of having a synergy between the players on the PP with each one having clearly defined responsibilities.

Good defense generates offense is a hockey truism. Still it comes down to having the proper synergy between linemates and having each one fulfill a defined role when making the transition from defense to offense and vice versa.

Perhaps the optimum for Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau as well as Ralph Backstrom was the exact situation that they were in with the Canadiens.

An interesting sidebar would be the Plante / Worsley trade which included Don Marshall, Phil Goyette and Dave Balon. Marshall and Goyette saw their responsibilities and playing time with the Rangers increase but their personal stats did not skyrocket while Balon in a different roll in Montreal also enjoyed a small spike.

The Dave Keon situation in Toronto was interesting. After Imlach left the players enjoyed much greater offensive latitude. Keon's offensive stats improved but the net team results went in the opposite direction.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just wondering, what was it that sold you on Clancy? He's probably the all-time great I know the least about.

As usual, Hockey Outsider explained it much better than I could.

Basically, I already had him quite high this round, as he was by all accounts, the second most dominant defenseman (after Shore) prior to World War 2. What clinched it for me was his incredible Hart record, of which I was unaware. Yes I know that defensemen got more Hart recognition prior to World War 2, but still...

When you make such a good case for Clancy, you're not making this easy for me. I'm hoping that Pilote doesn't get overlooked this round.

Both should be in the Top 5 in this round, but I do have Clancy a bit ahead.

As for the Bendict vs. Broda, vs. Durnan thing, whatever order they are in (and I'll probably have them Benedict first, then Broda, then Durnan), I do think they form the next tier of goalies and all of them should be voted in this round.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Interesting chicken and egg question. Jean Beliveau missed the first 27 games of the 1961-62 season due to a knee injury. Henri Richard's powerplay time increased but his numbers overall were not on a pace for a career best season, perhaps fifth best.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clancki01.html

The Canadiens PP was not as efficient during Beliveau's absence.

On the other hand Henri Richard missed the last 16 games of the 1961-62 season and the playoffs due to a broken arm suffered in a game against Detroit(from memory) and the Canadiens defense suffered as a result.

Granted it may be easier to score on the PP but it is also a question of having a synergy between the players on the PP with each one having clearly defined responsibilities.

Good defense generates offense is a hockey truism. Still it comes down to having the proper synergy between linemates and having each one fulfill a defined role when making the transition from defense to offense and vice versa.

Perhaps the optimum for Henri Richard and Jean Beliveau as well as Ralph Backstrom was the exact situation that they were in with the Canadiens.

An interesting sidebar would be the Plante / Worsley trade which included Don Marshall, Phil Goyette and Dave Balon. Marshall and Goyette saw their responsibilities and playing time with the Rangers increase but their personal stats did not skyrocket while Balon in a different roll in Montreal also enjoyed a small spike.

The Dave Keon situation in Toronto was interesting. After Imlach left the players enjoyed much greater offensive latitude. Keon's offensive stats improved but the net team results went in the opposite direction.

I won't pretend my memory is perfect regarding those years, but the data provided by Hockey Summary Project disagrees with you.

It clearly shows a jump in PP production for several players(They had a revolving door in PP players in which Henri Richard did not partake), but that Henri Richard was consistently used still at even strength on a line with Provost and Bonin. It seems Blake wanted to keep Henri Richard ready for checking the opposing teams top line at all costs that year.

Backstrom and Provost received more PP time than Henri Richard.