Round 2, Vote 6 (2009 update)

[FissionFire]

One more thing to consider on the 1st/2nd AST items for Seibert is that as I recall in his time right and left defensemen were voted on separately so it was possible to be a 2nd team AS who was better than the 1st team AS at the other defense spot. Today the top 2 in voting are 1st team so it is very possible that Seibert would have had more 1st team nods under modern rules. After all, he did have to compete again Eddie Shore for a good portion of his career for the single 1st team AS spot at his position.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'm not sure if it affects the votes (probably not), but I didn't realize that Dit Clapper was the first player for whom the HOF waived the waiting period for induction. The other nine the HOF did this for are all in our top 30.

I think Clapper's longevity did play a role in that. He was the first player to play 20 seasons in the NHL, which is an absolutely incredible feat, especially when you consider the way in which he played the game, and the fact that they didn't have the advances in medicine they have now. He and Charlie Conacher were power forwards 50 years before the term was coined in hockey. As I said before, he's the one skater we'll debate who could truly do it all, and his career is among the best the sport will ever see. One of the few truly unique players who will be discussed outside of the top 50. (He's also one of the best leaders to ever play the game, for what it's worth).

One thing to note on Lindsay's induction: he initially retired after the 1959-60 season. He came back after missing four seasons. So he may have been inducted in 1965 anyways. I don't think voters felt like making a guy like Lindsay - who meant so much to the sport on and off the ice - wait another few years for enshrinement.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Basically, he beat out Clapper for the AST more often than Clapper beat him. When Clapper beat him, he was still a second AST member. When Seibert beat Clapper, Clapper missed the ATD altogether.

I know that's pretty simplistic, but it says something about perceptions of them at the time.

Clapper didn't move to defence until later in his career. 1937-38, for some reason, stands out as the year he moved to defence. I don't think that he was an all-star his first year on the blue-line. If that's the case, then Seibert would have a 4-3 edge. Which is minimal. Both had three all-star nods in that seven-year span, although two of Seibert's came once the war started.

For what it's worth, Clapper was almost five years older than Seibert.

And FF, you forgot to mention Bourque and Gretzky among those with at least 10 straight all-star nods. (Your source might be a little outdated). And two of those for Seibert were war weakened years. But eight straight legit all-star selections is still incredible, and worthy of support for this round.

 

[God Bless Canada]

All five of these defensemen will be in my top-8 as well, in this order:

Pilote
Horton
Clancy
Seibert
Clapper

I actually was mistaken on one thing. I have Clapper at 4, the ultra-consistent Bathgate at 5, then the four career defencemen, and then the goalie I consider to be the best clutch netminder in the history of the sport, Turk Broda, at No. 10.

I really wanted to vote for Kurri in this round. In terms of Hockey IQ, I would say he's the second-best for this round, after Henri Richard. Kurri was so smart. The perfect linemate for Gretzky. Did he benefit from playing with Gretz? Yes. But Gretz benefitted from playing with Kurri. Kurri was such a smart player. He could work the give-and-go, he could set Gretzky up. But he had the great shot, and that still-talked-about-today hand-eye coordination that gave him the magnificent one-timer. And he was terrific defensively. He's probably the best defensive winger that we have considered up to this point.

But I look at the other options for this round. I see the great clutch goaltending of Broda. I see the towering defensive and physical presence of Seibert. The fearlessly skilled play of King Clancy. The tremendous defensive presence and success of Tim Horton. Sorry, Jari.

Bathgate has to be in this round. He had what I would term one bad playoff, and that was in 64 with Toronto. He was often facing all-time great teams at his peak (the unstoppable Habs of the 50s, or the smoothering Leafs of the 60s). Few guys had offensive success against the late 50s Habs in the first round. (The Lindsay-Litzenberger-Sloan line for Chicago in 59 was the exception). I don't think he was a Punch Imlach type of player. The other time he was in a situation where he could put up points in the playoffs in his peak years, he had eight points in six games against Boston in 58.

If you guys think there's much of a difference between Dionne and Bathgate, you're fooling yourselves. I had Dionne ahead on my list, but not by much. 70 points in eight straight years is almost unheard of for the Original 6. Nine straight seasons in the top five in scoring against the best players in the world. Bathgate has to go in this round.

 

[canucks4ever]

I wonder if any of the czechoslovakia guys will be up for voting in round 7. It seems unusual that only the russians are eligible when the czechs were winning world championships in the mid to late 70s. Clearly guys like Martinec, Hlinka, and Holocek were world class. Nedomanksy put together back to back 74 point seasons in his mid 30s.

 

[nik jr]

it seems earl seibert was like a more consistent version of pronger--a huge, physically intimidating, stout defender who was capable of being his teams main scoring and puck-moving d-man, but was also not really dynamic.

it is interesting that converted forwards made the 1st AS team for six consecutive seasons. those are all the seasons seibert made the 2nd team.

'35: 1st
'36-'41: 2nd
'42: 1st
'43: 1st
'44: 1st

babe siebert, originally a LW, was 1st AS from '36-'38. also won the hart in '37.

ebbie goodfellow, originally a C, was 1st AS in '37 and '40, and 2nd AS in '36. won the hart in '40.

dit clapper was 1st AS from '39-'41, and 2nd AS in '44.

tom anderson was 1st AS in '42 and won the hart.



it could be that the level of competition during seibert's career was not as strong as it looks, but it may be instead that converted F's were favored in voting.
all of the converted F's were high scoring d-men. high scoring d-men generally did well in award and all star voting.

pratt, anderson, siebert, goodfellow and obviously shore all won the hart during earl seibert's career.

 

[MXD]

Humm, I'll try to cast my vote today, but i might have problems doing so (before midnight).

Anyhow, King Clancy, Earl Seibert, Bill Durnan, Dickie Moore and Turk Broda will be my Top-5, and probably in that order (Durnan/Moore/Broda being the main litigious point, though I'll have Durnan ahead of Broda).

And Kurri is 15th.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Earl Seibert Perspective

Silly me forgot to copy the source info on some of this Siebert stuff but I'll post a few of the things I researched on him for ATD9.....

Seibert had 10 consecutive postseason all-star berths (4 first, 6 second) and was narrowly edged out of a spot in at the start of that run by Eddie Shore when they tied in voting but Shore was given the nod due to LD verses RD breakdowns (Source). To put into perspective the type of extended dominance that represents, consider that only Doug Harvey amongst defenseman can claim this accomplishment and if you include all players only Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, and Bobby Hull get added to that list. His level of competition wasn't low either with players such as Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Babe Siebert, Ebbie Goodfellow, Red Horner, Hap Day, Ott Heller and Lionel Conacher as just a few notable names in competition.

Seibert can't be intimidated or physically outmatched. His Legends bio states "Seibert was generally regarded as second only to Eddie Shore in terms of skill and rugged play, and Shore once confessed that Seibert was the only man he was afraid to fight. Defensively, Seibert was one of the best shot-blockers in the game, and he could move the puck just as quickly as anyone.". Some call Larry Robinson is a giant at 6'4" and 225lbs so imagine how big a 6'2" 220lb Earl Seibert must have seemed in the 30s and 40s. Joe Pelletier echos the Legends bio calling Seibert "a no-nonsense defender with a reputation as among the toughest in the game." and that "Some old timers insist only Eddie Shore was better.". Earl's defense partner in New York Ching Johnson (no shrinking violet himself) said "Let’s put it this way, no one wanted any part of ‘Si’ in a fight. Even Eddie Shore (Boston) and Red Horner (Toronto) steered clear of him, and Shore and Horner were considered the toughest guys in the League at the time.".

Few people realize that Seibert was also a top offensive talent from the blueline in his time. I'm kicking myself for losing the link but in the board archives there was a table showing the Seibert was actually the 3rd highest scoring defenseman in the 30s and 40s.

- From 1932 to 1945 (ie every full season of Seibert's career) he ranked second in scoring among defensemen, and was 9th in points per game (min 100 gp). He was third in playoff scoring during the same span.

That's just a quick list. I'm still trying to find my old file of Siebert stuff.

Earl Seibert played in the NHL during the transition period between the introduction of the forward pass combined with expanded rosters from 12 - 15 players thru the introduction of the Red Line and a couple of season's beyond.

Art Coulter and Earl Seibert were the only two rookies from the 1931-32 season to reach HHOF status.Starting with the 1932-33 and ending with the 1941-42 season only five defensemen of HHOF caliber entered the leaugue. Babe Pratt* - 1935-36, Jack Stewart - 1938-39, John Mariucci*, Ken Reardon* - 1940-41 and Emile Bouchard -1941-42. * = debatable as to whether they were HHOF caliber due to their playing skills alone or if lifetime achievement in hockey was a contributing factor.Another discussion for later.

Basically once the pre- 1929-30 greats retired - Shore, Clancy, Mantha, etc the quality defensemen were not there. This is supported by the unusual number of older forwards who were moved back to defense in the second half of the 1930's - Dit Clapper, B.Siebert, N. Colville, Tommy Anderson, Ebbie Goodfellow and who were recognized as All Stars with little experience at the position. Rarely happened since and not with such frequency.

Anyone who watched Sergei Fedorov try to play defense the last few years with very little success should be able to extrapolate back and appreciate the fact that there was a dirth of quality defensemen the last ten years of Earl Seibert's NHL career.

The issue now becomes Earl Seibert's performance. Yes he had little in the way of competition and he did play for relatively weak Chicago teams(read cheap) but he was a physical presence and his offensive numbers clearly show that Earl Seibert had adapted to the demand of the forward passing game - note the very favourable assists to goals ratio which defines a playmaking defenseman:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/seibeea01.html

Better assists to goals ratios than Eddie Shore.

Also note that after the introduction of the Red Line, Earl Seibert adapted to the new rules and opportunities, continuing to produce, just as he adapted in the early 1930's when other amateur defensemen could not adapt to the new forward passing rules and larger rosters.

Earl Seibert definitely merits more consideration than he has received to date.

 

[canucks4ever]

Humm, I'll try to cast my vote today, but i might have problems doing so (before midnight).

Anyhow, King Clancy, Earl Seibert, Bill Durnan, Dickie Moore and Turk Broda will be my Top-5, and probably in that order (Durnan/Moore/Broda being the main litigious point, though I'll have Durnan ahead of Broda).

And Kurri is 15th.

Do you rank alex delvecchio above Jari Kurri. He cracked the top 10 in scoring 11 times, and when Gordie Howe retired he still put up 71 points in 1973. If you want to talk about an underrated player its him. How does someone crack the top 10 11 times and not make the top 50.

 

[MXD]

Do you rank alex delvecchio above Jari Kurri. He cracked the top 10 in scoring 11 times, and when Gordie Howe retired he still put up 71 points in 1973. If you want to talk about an underrated player its him. How does someone crack the top 10 11 times and not make the top 50.

Delvecchio and Kurri aren't that far from each other, which is why Kurri is 15th on my list this round.

 

[seventieslord]

his offensive numbers clearly show that Earl Seibert had adapted to the demand of the forward passing game - note the very favourable assists to goals ratio which defines a playmaking defenseman:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/seibeea01.html

Better assists to goals ratios than Eddie Shore.

I would think that the number of assists a defenseman gets would be indicative of their playmaking ability, not the number of assists they get relative to goals, as though them scoring goals makes them less of a playmaker. Figure that one out!

Seibert had 0.29 A/GP in his career, greatly helped by two war years in which he had his highest totals.

Shore had 0.33 A/GP in his career, greatly hindered by the no-forward-passing era in which goals were scarce and assists were scarcer.

Shore was definitely the better playmaker. But onto what you were saying, about Seibert's "assists to goals" ratio showing a greater focus on playmaking.

Eddie Shore: 179 A, 105 G. 1.70 A/G.
Earl Seibert: 187 A, 89 G. 2.10 A/G.

On the surface, what you're saying would appear to be true, but you are missing something very important: From the 1927 season through 1931, (the five seasons Shore played pre-Seibert) assists were handed out very sparingly: about 0.67 per goal. From 1941 through 1945 (the five full seasons Seibert played post-Shore) there were 1.44 assists per goal, over twice as many. In the nine seasons that their careers overlapped, the average was 1.31.

To be statistically fair to Shore, his assist totals for his first five seasons should be doubled, and Seibert's from his last five full seasons should be worth 91% of what they are. That would leave Seibert with 178 assists and Shore with 233. Their assists-to-goals ratios would then be 2.22 (Shore) and 2.00 (Seibert) - So Seibert wasn't really more of a playmaker than Shore, by any measure.

What does this prove? Nothing in particular about these players. I am voting for Seibert very highly this round, and I know that you must also know a comparison to Shore is truly silly. But this does show that statistical comparisons should not be made haphazardly without full understanding, and then disclosure, of the context.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overlooking

I would think that the number of assists a defenseman gets would be indicative of their playmaking ability, not the number of assists they get relative to goals, as though them scoring goals makes them less of a playmaker. Figure that one out!

Seibert had 0.29 A/GP in his career, greatly helped by two war years in which he had his highest totals.

Shore had 0.33 A/GP in his career, greatly hindered by the no-forward-passing era in which goals were scarce and assists were scarcer.

Shore was definitely the better playmaker. But onto what you were saying, about Seibert's "assists to goals" ratio showing a greater focus on playmaking.

Eddie Shore: 179 A, 105 G. 1.70 A/G.
Earl Seibert: 187 A, 89 G. 2.10 A/G.

On the surface, what you're saying would appear to be true, but you are missing something very important: From the 1927 season through 1931, (the five seasons Shore played pre-Seibert) assists were handed out very sparingly: about 0.67 per goal. From 1941 through 1945 (the five full seasons Seibert played post-Shore) there were 1.44 assists per goal, over twice as many. In the nine seasons that their careers overlapped, the average was 1.31.

To be statistically fair to Shore, his assist totals for his first five seasons should be doubled, and Seibert's from his last five full seasons should be worth 91% of what they are. That would leave Seibert with 178 assists and Shore with 233. Their assists-to-goals ratios would then be 2.22 (Shore) and 2.00 (Seibert) - So Seibert wasn't really more of a playmaker than Shore, by any measure.

What does this prove? Nothing in particular about these players. I am voting for Seibert very highly this round, and I know that you must also know a comparison to Shore is truly silly. But this does show that statistical comparisons should not be made haphazardly without full understanding, and then disclosure, of the context.

Pre forward pass era saw fewer assists because of the different rules. The only shortage of assists came from the lack of rebound assists which are not really playmaking assists that Shore would have been denied. Your "statistically fair" position is totally bogus since it adjusts without accounting for the rule changes or the resulting changes in style of play.

As applied to defensemen, this meant that players like Clancy, Cameron, Cleghorn, Shore inevitably had more goals than assists.

Once the forward pass was introduced you had significantly more assists because the lead pass,forward pass, tip-in and deflection type assists became part of the game, reflecting playmaking.This was also true for defensemen since the point became an offensive position. The puck could be passed backwards to the point and then quickly relayed forwards.

Some of the greats like Shore and Clancy adapted and you saw their stats reverse from goals surpassing assits to assists surpassing goals. Others like Ching Johnson, Taffy Abel and Sylvio Manthadid not adapt as well, while Lionel Conacher was in the middle. Earl Seibert amongst the first of the forward pass era defensemen to make the HHOF part of the reason being his strong playmaking skills.

As for the "War Years" you conveniently overlook the introduction of the Red Line which opened the game even more leading to more breakaway passes and outlet passes, again reflecting playmaking.

Sadly we can only speculate as to how Eddie Shore would have adapted but we have evidence that Earl Seibert adapted very well even though you choose to ignore the additional rule changes brought about by the Red Line and how it increased the speed of the game.

 

[seventieslord]

Pre forward pass era saw fewer assists because of the different rules. The only shortage of assists came from the lack of rebound assists which are not really playmaking assists that Shore would have been denied. Your "statistically fair" position is totally bogus since it adjusts without accounting for the rule changes or the resulting changes in style of play.

As applied to defensemen, this meant that players like Clancy, Cameron, Cleghorn, Shore inevitably had more goals than assists.

Once the forward pass was introduced you had significantly more assists because the lead pass,forward pass, tip-in and deflection type assists became part of the game, reflecting playmaking.This was also true for defensemen since the point became an offensive position. The puck could be passed backwards to the point and then quickly relayed forwards.

Some of the greats like Shore and Clancy adapted and you saw their stats reverse from goals surpassing assits to assists surpassing goals. Others like Ching Johnson, Taffy Abel and Sylvio Manthadid not adapt as well, while Lionel Conacher was in the middle. Earl Seibert amongst the first of the forward pass era defensemen to make the HHOF part of the reason being his strong playmaking skills.

As for the "War Years" you conveniently overlook the introduction of the Red Line which opened the game even more leading to more breakaway passes and outlet passes, again reflecting playmaking.

Sadly we can only speculate as to how Eddie Shore would have adapted but we have evidence that Earl Seibert adapted very well even though you choose to ignore the additional rule changes brought about by the Red Line and how it increased the speed of the game.

We judge players versus their contemporaries, as those are the players they played with and against. Those are the players who played with the exact same set of rules as the players in question.

By no measure is Earl Seibert more of a playmaking defenseman than Shore. It's irrelevant to this thread, but I demonstrated this for you. Don't blah-blah-blah your way out of it. Just be more careful in your future use of statistics.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Kindly ....................

We judge players versus their contemporaries, as those are the players they played with and against. Those are the players who played with the exact same set of rules as the players in question.

By no measure is Earl Seibert more of a playmaking defenseman than Shore. It's irrelevant to this thread, but I demonstrated this for you. Don't blah-blah-blah your way out of it. Just be more careful in your future use of statistics.

Kindly stop misrepresenting my position.

I never claimed that Seibert was more of a playmaking defenseman than Shore, I used the stat to show how he adapted to the changes brought about by rule changes and this adaptation was evidenced by the difference in the goals to assists ratio.

 

[MXD]

It's not like I want to put pressure on anybody, but, what happened?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not like I want to put pressure on anybody, but, what happened?

My guess is the long Labor Day weekend in the US threw things off. Hopefully we get until the following weekend to vote in the next round, as this week is already getting short.

 

[lextune]

I figured the same, FissionFire is running the show all by himself after all, and he probably has a life outside of the site

I'm sure we'll get it done in due course.

 

[canucks4ever]

Here is my case for Tony Esposito being an option for round 7.

Hart Trophy Voting:
1970- 2nd
1971- 8th
1972- 6th
1973- 9th
1974- 5th
1978- 9th
1979- 11th
1980- 3rd

That's got to be one of the most impressive hart trophy voting records I have ever seen, but o wait his detractors will say he chocked in 1971 and 1973 against the Habs. As if facing the habs is the same thing as playing against the north stars and canucks in back to back finals.

Most people dont even have Mike Liut in thier top 200, but his hart trophy record is very impressive too.

1980- 6th
1981- 2nd
1987- 3rd

Liut and Espo were both cream of the crop goalies.

 

[seventieslord]

Esposito was shafted last time in favour of a guy who played 7 full seasons. Esposito was the 1970s version of Martin Brodeur minus playoff success. He really should be a top-100 candidate.

 

[FissionFire]

Sorry guys things are a mess right now. My first week of classes has been cancelled by a teachers strike and I'm scrambling around trying to salvage something out of this semester while I can. Most of my time has been spent organizing student rallies and protests on campus. I'll get the stuff up ASAP and we'll have an extra week before voting.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

He really should be a top-100 candidate.

I agree with this, but think that next round would be a bit early for Tony.

ushvinder - if you haven't already, check out HO's thread titled Hart trophy shares, where Tony Esposito is mentioned.

 

[MXD]

Sorry guys things are a mess right now. My first week of classes has been cancelled by a teachers strike and I'm scrambling around trying to salvage something out of this semester while I can. Most of my time has been spent organizing student rallies and protests on campus. I'll get the stuff up ASAP and we'll have an extra week before voting.

Thanks for quickly mentionning us what was going on.
Good luck with your teachers.

 

[foame]

Wrong post