Round 2, Vote 8 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am a fan of Sushy, but I can't shake the feeling that he was a big fish in a pretty small pond, whereas Kasatonov was a big fish in a much bigger pond. The quality of play, and the physicallity, was on a completely different level in Soviet in the eighties compared to Czechoslovakia in the 60s.

Sushy might have been flashier, but Kasatonov brought a consistently dominant all-around game every night. There's no doubt in my mind that I'd take a peak Kasatonov over a peak Sushy on my team.

Not just Czechoslovakia in the 60s. It's all of Europe from 1968-1971 (Suchy was definitely great vs USSR and Sweden)

 

[begbeee]

Somebody above has mentioned Suchy scored 9 games in allstar game or so. No. It was a regular match against Ceske Budejovice.

And dont act like CSSR league was some beer league. Lafleaur also liked to party hard and I am sure smokers werent unusual in NHL 80s. So drinkers. I am not talking about some alcoholics, but beer before the game wasnt big deal for sure for some players.

 

[Pear Juice]

I am a fan of Sushy, but I can't shake the feeling that he was a big fish in a pretty small pond, whereas Kasatonov was a big fish in a much bigger pond. The quality of play, and the physicallity, was on a completely different level in Soviet in the eighties compared to Czechoslovakia in the 60s.

Sushy might have been flashier, but Kasatonov brought a consistently dominant all-around game every night. There's no doubt in my mind that I'd take a peak Kasatonov over a peak Sushy on my team.

I would probably say the exact opposite. Peak Jan Suchy is one of the greatest defensemen of all time, the problem is that his career went downwards very rapidly post 1971. Career wise I'd certainly pick very many players ahead of him, it's just that I see his game by the late 60s as more dominant than most hockey players. Jan Suchy at the height of his game is in my eyes comparable to Fetisov, it's just that he didn't manage to sustain that level of play for more than 4-5 years. Had he sustained his 1968-1971 level of play for ten or more years he'd be a candidate for my top 10.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This probably doesn't apply to how they should be ranked, but it's interesting anyway. The following gives a sense of the kind of "tactics" that were used to neutralize start like Stuart and Moose Johnson.

An article on the 100th anniversary of a notorious game in 1907:

The last week of December, days before the season began Jan. 2, the Wanderers played a team from New Glasgow, N.S., whose Cup challenge they'd accepted, and swamped them 17-5 in a two-game, total-goals series.

Then they dropped a January challenge to the Kenora Thistles 12-8, before reclaiming the Cup in March by the same score.

But the mayhem in Westmount remains by far the season's most dramatic event, one which ultimately involved arrests, fines and bitter grudges that many took to their graves.

...

" 'They Should Each Get Six Months In Jail,' Is The Opinion To Saturday Hockey Brutalities," trumpeted the front page Montreal Star headline on Monday, Jan. 14, 1907, detailing the bludgeoning of the Wanderers' Hod Stuart, Ernie Johnson and Cecil Blatchford by the sticks of Ottawa brothers Alf and Harry Smith and Charles (Baldy) Spittal.

...

Harry Smith drew honourable mention "for beating (Ernie) Johnson into unconsciousness ... by a specially artistic blow across the nose."

And to Alf Smith, a prize "for the elegant way he chopped down Hod Stuart with a lateral blow on the temple."

Both Blatchford and Johnson had been carried off the ice, out cold, after stick blows by Spittal and Harry Smith, when Smith's brother, Alf, "came skating right across the rink (toward Stuart)," the Star reported, "and without any apparent provocation hit the big fellow a blow across the forehead and Stuart dropped.

"He is so big that it took half a dozen men to carry him in and for several minutes he lay like one dead."

Stuart, himself known for testing the rules, later returned to the ice "with a lump on his temple the size of a hen's egg, but he received a fine reception."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here is my bio on Moose Johnson from ATD2010. To my knowledge, it is the most consolidated source of Moose Johnson info put together.

Johnson was a forward in the CAHL and EC(A)HL. In the NHA's first season he moved back to defense for the Wanderers. He was a defenseman for the vast majority of his time in the PCHA. Note that his bio from The Trail states he was sometimes used as a rover in his later years. I don't think it was that much, because he was still a first all-star defenseman every year through 1919. (the spike in his 1917 numbers makes you wonder, though). Since he missed the ASTs in 1920 and 1922, and was a 2nd teamer in 1921, he was either finally in decline, or his time as a rover was keeping him off the AST as a defenseman.

In my estimation, Johnson's eight 1st AST selections in the PCHA are indicative of being a top-4 defenseman in all of hockey eight times. The top end talent was spread pretty evenly between the PCHA and NHA/NHL and I see no one other than Cleghorn who was a real challenge to his status as #1 or 2 in the 1912-1919 range. (Gerard may/may not have been better but only started playing defense in 1919)

This is the most important part of the long bio you posted in my opinion.

Then the question becomes, what's more impressive? Being the best defenseman the world had ever seen prior to 1910? (Hod Stuart) Or being the second best defenseman to Sprague Cleghorn from 1912-1919 over a much deeper talent pool? It's really impossible to say for sure. So I really see no other option than to trust Lester Patrick and MacLeans when they both picked Hod Stuart over Moose Johnson. I realize that they also picked Hod over Eddie Gerard, but we have so much other information about Gerard's greatness versus other players that we just don't have for Moose.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Preliminary final thoughts:

• I hope voters take the time to read arguments this time (well I always hope that, but especially this time). I think there are multiple new candidates who could deserve to be voted in during their first appearance (not saying they have to be voted in, but they definitely deserve to be considered).
  
• I really like Ching Johnson as #1 this round. All-Star record as good or better than anyone on the list, key player on two Cup wins. His 1932 season is particularly impressive when he lost the Hart to Howie Morenz by 1 point and led all players at all positions in total All Star votes. Beat out King Clancy for THREE 1st Team All Stars, when Clancy seemed like he was still in his prime (Eddie Shore was the other 1st Teamer all three times). Could Hod Stuart or Moose Johnson beat out Clancy for three first team all stars? I honestly don't know. But Ching did. I don't see much difference between Ching and Jack Stewart in either style or results. From a value perspective, he's basically Chara without the playoffs issues.
  
• Leaning towards Hod Stuart at #2. I'm not sure he was better than Moose Johnson, but the best evidence we have (the two distinct sources from 1925) indicate that he probably was.
  
• There are 5 more guys (for a total of 7) who I think deserve being added this round. In alphabetical order: Zdeno Chara, Moose Johnson, Alexei Kasatonov, Jacques Laperriere, JC Tremblay. Too bad at least 2 of these 7 guys won't make it this round. At least it makes my top 2 next time easier.
  
• I would rate Chara the top of the next group if it weren't for his playoff woes. I'm still not sure what to make of them. On the one hand, maybe we should rate guys who were slightly worse in the regular season but more consistent in the playoffs over Chara (that would be Laperriere and Tremblay). On the other hand, we already added Rod Langway, who has a similar regular season record to Chara and not much playoff success himself.
  
• Jan Suchy is such a wild card here. I can't rate him as high as Hod Stuart, because his prime was a bit shorter in absolute years, and much shorter relative to era. But he's far from the worst guy available.
  
• There's a good chance my #10 last time will be out of my top 10 this time. Not because I think any worse of him, but because I really like the first time candidates this round.

Voting opens this evening.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is there a good argument for Tom Johnson this round?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is there a good argument for Tom Johnson this round?

I guess it would be something along the lines of "Tom Johnson played his career in the shadow of Harvey and showed what he was capable of (winning the Norris) in the one season when Harvey was injured." It definitely involves some assumptions though.

I do know that Harvey and Johnson generally played on different pairings, because Toe Blake wanted to make sure that one or the other was on the ice at all times. (And in an era when the top 4 defensemen basically played the whole game, literally one or the other could be on the ice at all times).

Not sure how much of Johnson C1958 saw, but I'd be interested in his take. Johnson would probably have to beat out Laperriere for him to be considered top 5 this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tom Johnson

Is there a good argument for Tom Johnson this round?

Too early for Tom.

 

[Epsilon]

I definitely agree with TDMM on liking a lot of the players added. I've been trying hard as we go to re-balance my votes in favor of some older players who I feel I ranked too low in my initial list.

I think there's a definite possibility that Ching Johnson, Hod Stuart, and Moose Johnson are my top 3 in that order, or at least 3 of my top 4. I think that Laperierre and Kasatonov are also going to be making my top 5 this round.

Rob Blake and Tom Johnson are two guys who I'm almost certain will not make my top 10 this round, and I don't think Larry Murphy is going to make the cut either.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Preliminary final thoughts:

• I hope voters take the time to read arguments this time (well I always hope that, but especially this time). I think there are multiple new candidates who could deserve to be voted in during their first appearance (not saying they have to be voted in, but they definitely deserve to be considered).
  
• I really like Ching Johnson as #1 this round. All-Star record as good or better than anyone on the list, key player on two Cup wins. His 1932 season is particularly impressive when he lost the Hart to Howie Morenz by 1 point and led all players at all positions in total All Star votes. Beat out King Clancy for THREE 1st Team All Stars, when Clancy seemed like he was still in his prime (Eddie Shore was the other 1st Teamer all three times). Could Hod Stuart or Moose Johnson beat out Clancy for three first team all stars? I honestly don't know. But Ching did. I don't see much difference between Ching and Jack Stewart in either style or results. From a value perspective, he's basically Chara without the playoffs issues.
  
• Leaning towards Hod Stuart at #2. I'm not sure he was better than Moose Johnson, but the best evidence we have (the two distinct sources from 1925) indicate that he probably was.
  
• There are 5 more guys (for a total of 7) who I think deserve being added this round. In alphabetical order: Zdeno Chara, Moose Johnson, Alexei Kasatonov, Jacques Laperriere, JC Tremblay. Too bad at least 2 of these 7 guys won't make it this round. At least it makes my top 2 next time easier.
  
• I would rate Chara the top of the next group if it weren't for his playoff woes. I'm still not sure what to make of them. On the one hand, maybe we should rate guys who were slightly worse in the regular season but more consistent in the playoffs over Chara (that would be Laperriere and Tremblay). On the other hand, we already added Rod Langway, who has a similar regular season record to Chara and not much playoff success himself.
  
• Jan Suchy is such a wild card here. I can't rate him as high as Hod Stuart, because his prime was a bit shorter in absolute years, and much shorter relative to era. But he's far from the worst guy available.
  
• There's a good chance my #10 last time will be out of my top 10 this time. Not because I think any worse of him, but because I really like the first time candidates this round.

Voting opens this evening.

I really think that in alot of ways the modern guys can get nitpicked a bit here. I mean Chara could have easily had a Conn Smythe last year as well as his earlier not great playoffs.

We don't have a complete picture of some of the guys in this round and it seems that alot of assumptions are getting rounded up in favor of older past greats with limited information thus making the bar for the more modern players higher, in the sense that they have to be absolutely better in every way.

I know that I'm having a really hard time slotting in the 2 earliest players room the group this round because of the great gap both in time and total information that we ahve to compare.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I really think that in alot of ways the modern guys can get nitpicked a bit here. I mean Chara could have easily had a Conn Smythe last year as well as his earlier not great playoffs.

We don't have a complete picture of some of the guys in this round and it seems that alot of assumptions are getting rounded up in favor of older past greats with limited information thus making the bar for the more modern players higher, in the sense that they have to be absolutely better in every way.

I know that I'm having a really hard time slotting in the 2 earliest players room the group this round because of the great gap both in time and total information that we ahve to compare.

I agree with you that modern players can and are unfairly nitpicked. But even if you think Chara was great in the playoffs once, Ching was great at least twice. I am not Cup counting - there is specific information about Ching's individual performances.

 

[MXD]

Preliminary final thoughts:

• I hope voters take the time to read arguments this time (well I always hope that, but especially this time). I think there are multiple new candidates who could deserve to be voted in during their first appearance (not saying they have to be voted in, but they definitely deserve to be considered).
  
• I really like Ching Johnson as #1 this round. All-Star record as good or better than anyone on the list, key player on two Cup wins. His 1932 season is particularly impressive when he lost the Hart to Howie Morenz by 1 point and led all players at all positions in total All Star votes. Beat out King Clancy for THREE 1st Team All Stars, when Clancy seemed like he was still in his prime (Eddie Shore was the other 1st Teamer all three times). Could Hod Stuart or Moose Johnson beat out Clancy for three first team all stars? I honestly don't know. But Ching did. I don't see much difference between Ching and Jack Stewart in either style or results. From a value perspective, he's basically Chara without the playoffs issues.
  
• Leaning towards Hod Stuart at #2. I'm not sure he was better than Moose Johnson, but the best evidence we have (the two distinct sources from 1925) indicate that he probably was.
  
• There are 5 more guys (for a total of 7) who I think deserve being added this round. In alphabetical order: Zdeno Chara, Moose Johnson, Alexei Kasatonov, Jacques Laperriere, JC Tremblay. Too bad at least 2 of these 7 guys won't make it this round. At least it makes my top 2 next time easier.
  
• I would rate Chara the top of the next group if it weren't for his playoff woes. I'm still not sure what to make of them. On the one hand, maybe we should rate guys who were slightly worse in the regular season but more consistent in the playoffs over Chara (that would be Laperriere and Tremblay). On the other hand, we already added Rod Langway, who has a similar regular season record to Chara and not much playoff success himself.
  
• Jan Suchy is such a wild card here. I can't rate him as high as Hod Stuart, because his prime was a bit shorter in absolute years, and much shorter relative to era. But he's far from the worst guy available.
  
• There's a good chance my #10 last time will be out of my top 10 this time. Not because I think any worse of him, but because I really like the first time candidates this round.

Voting opens this evening.

I pretty much agree on with this as a whole. I disagree on specific points (Chara being in the Top-7, amongst others), but I concur with the general message -- that is, this was probably the strongest new crop (relatively speaking) since round 3 or something like this.

Tom Johnson? Well, from I've gathered, he seems to be a more mistake-prone and less-repected amongst peers (see Eddie Shore comments when Johnson got inducted in the Hall) version of Laperriere, but with the potential to put up more points on the scoresheet, mainly due to his passing/vision. I think it's too early for him, but I guess he could end up in my Top-10 (... at the very bottom).

Suchy has, IMO, as case that takes as much the "worst" of Hod Stuart and Alex Kasatonov's candidatures. Those two guys are in my Top-10, and probably in my Top-5 (... I mean, Kasatonov -- Stuart is Top-2 at the very worst...). Not the worst, but here's a guy with the label "too early" over him.

 

[MXD]

I really think that in alot of ways the modern guys can get nitpicked a bit here. I mean Chara could have easily had a Conn Smythe last year as well as his earlier not great playoffs.

We don't have a complete picture of some of the guys in this round and it seems that alot of assumptions are getting rounded up in favor of older past greats with limited information thus making the bar for the more modern players higher, in the sense that they have to be absolutely better in every way.

I know that I'm having a really hard time slotting in the 2 earliest players room the group this round because of the great gap both in time and total information that we ahve to compare.

I'm not sure I understand this, but the only way Chara could have gotten consideration for the Smythe -- had his teams have had more success -- prior to last year would have been if the committee would have been only made of ultranationalist slovaks or individuals who couldn't resolve themselves to vote a guy smaller than 6'7.

 

[MXD]

Tidbits of info

Highest player in my list not up for voting yet : 28th, then it's 31st, 38th, 39th, 41st.
Lowest player available for voting according to my list : 74th (a mistake)
Highest player in my list up for voting : 21st
Range of players newly available : 21st to 55th.

Lowest player on my list that got voted in : 45th.
No. of players who were up for voting/already in that were absent of my list : 0

 

[MXD]

As a complete sidenote, how can we get access to ancient newspapers? I realize there aren't many French voters here so I think that request was somewhat specifically asked to me...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As a complete sidenote, how can we get access to ancient newspapers? I realize there aren't many French voters here so I think that request was somewhat specifically asked to me...

1. Click the "news" icon at the top of google.
2. Conduct your search - you will get all or mostly modern results
3. On the left hand side of the screen, you'll see specific date ranges to click on, mostly from older times.
4. If you don't want specify your own date range, click on "archives" (also on the left hand side of the screen) and you'll get a variety of "ancient" articles.
5. If you have a specific date range, click on "custom date range" (also on the left hand side of the screen) and enter the dates.

 

[MXD]

1. Click the "news" icon at the top of google.
2. Conduct your search - you will get all or mostly modern results
3. On the left hand side of the screen, you'll see specific date ranges to click on, mostly from older times.
4. If you don't want specify your own date range, click on "archives" (also on the left hand side of the screen) and you'll get a variety of "ancient" articles.
5. If you have a specific date range, click on "custom date range" (also on the left hand side of the screen) and enter the dates.

Wow, got comments on Tom Johnson calling his team "undisciplined". Things never change

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not sure I understand this, but the only way Chara could have gotten consideration for the Smythe -- had his teams have had more success -- prior to last year would have been if the committee would have been only made of ultranationalist slovaks or individuals who couldn't resolve themselves to vote a guy smaller than 6'7.

I was speaking specifically about the 2011 season where he was probably next in line for the Conn Smythe after Thomas.

Overall from 02-11 he is a 26 MPG guy in the playoffs with middling team and individual success until last year.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Preliminary final thoughts:

• I hope voters take the time to read arguments this time (well I always hope that, but especially this time). I think there are multiple new candidates who could deserve to be voted in during their first appearance (not saying they have to be voted in, but they definitely deserve to be considered).
  
• really like Ching Johnson as #1 this round. All-Star record as good or better than anyone on the list, key player on two Cup wins. His 1932 season is particularly impressive when he lost the Hart to Howie Morenz by 1 point and led all players at all positions in total All Star votes. Beat out King Clancy for THREE 1st Team All Stars, when Clancy seemed like he was still in his prime (Eddie Shore was the other 1st Teamer all three times). Could Hod Stuart or Moose Johnson beat out Clancy for three first team all stars? I honestly don't know. But Ching did. I don't see much difference between Ching and Jack Stewart in either style or results. From a value perspective, he's basically Chara without the playoffs issues.
  
• Leaning towards Hod Stuart at #2. I'm not sure he was better than Moose Johnson, but the best evidence we have (the two distinct sources from 1925) indicate that he probably was.
  
• There are 5 more guys (for a total of 7) who I think deserve being added this round. In alphabetical order: Zdeno Chara, Moose Johnson, Alexei Kasatonov, Jacques Laperriere, JC Tremblay. Too bad at least 2 of these 7 guys won't make it this round. At least it makes my top 2 next time easier.
  
• I would rate Chara the top of the next group if it weren't for his playoff woes. I'm still not sure what to make of them. On the one hand, maybe we should rate guys who were slightly worse in the regular season but more consistent in the playoffs over Chara (that would be Laperriere and Tremblay). On the other hand, we already added Rod Langway, who has a similar regular season record to Chara and not much playoff success himself.
  
• Jan Suchy is such a wild card here. I can't rate him as high as Hod Stuart, because his prime was a bit shorter in absolute years, and much shorter relative to era. But he's far from the worst guy available.
  
• There's a good chance my #10 last time will be out of my top 10 this time. Not because I think any worse of him, but because I really like the first time candidates this round.

Voting opens this evening.

I'm having a really hard time squaring the circle with Ching this round. I know about his record, and it's almost as a defensman and Dmen got way more props for Harts in the 30's when he played.

My biggest problem is that we have a guy here who didn't play competitive hockey until he was 20.

He plays for 7 years in a couple of leagues then comes to the NHL and makes the all-star team 4 times, along with 2 other times in the top 6 (in post 11 in this thread).

My critical side is asking, was he really that great or were the voters enamored with his physical play and style more than the actual affect of his play compared to others.

Maybe the actual level of play and competition really wasn't as good as we think it was back then too.

I'm asking this because I just don't see any Dman starting to play competitive hockey when he is 20 then having the accolades that Johnson did, in the last 40 years that I have watched hockey.

The improbability of his being as good as his voting record in various forms, from all star to Hart finishes makes me suspect that others in this round are quite a bit more worthy and probable as better players for selection.

I'm just not really sure what to make of the 3 early guys in this round to be frank. Another day to ponder and do more research might help but this round might be all over the map in the rankings, I'm starting to think.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Highest player in my list not up for voting yet : 28th, then it's 31st, 38th, 39th, 41st.
Lowest player available for voting according to my list : 74th (a mistake)
Highest player in my list up for voting : 21st
Range of players newly available : 21st to 55th.

Lowest player on my list that got voted in : 45th.
No. of players who were up for voting/already in that were absent of my list : 0

I'm just curious if there is anyone from your list that has risen or fell in your order of rankings in the voting in this process?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm having a really hard time squaring the circle with Ching this round. I know about his record, and it's almost as a defensman and Dmen got way more props or harts in the 30's when he played.

My biggest problem is that we have a guy here who didn't play competitive hockey until he was 20.

He plays for 7 years in a couple of leagues then comes to the NHL and makes the all-star team 4 times, along with 2 other times in the top 6 (in post 11 in this thread).

My critical side is asking, was he really that great or were the voters enamored with his physical play and style more than the actual affect of his play compared to others.

Maybe the actual level of play and competition really wasn't as good as we think it was back then too.

I'm asking this because I just don't see any Dman starting to play competitive hockey when he is 20 then having the accolades that Johnson did, in the last 40 years that I ahve watched hockey.

The improbability of his being as good as his voting record in various forms, from all star to Hart finishes makes me suspect that others in this round are quite a bit more worthy and probable as better players or selection.

I'm just not really sure what to make of the 3 early guys in this round to be frank. Another day to ponder and do more research might help but this round might be all over the map in the rankings, I'm starting to think.

As you said, he did spend 7 years in the amateurs honing his game after coming back from France, so it would be like an 18 year old NHLer starting hockey at 11 kind of, right? Ching Johnson was far from the only physical stay at home defenseman of the era - he was just the best.

Edit: there is no indication that Ching didn't skate before WW1 is there? He just didnt play competitive hockey

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ching was voted a 1st Team All Star in 1928 by the NHL GMs, a 1st Team All Star in 1932 and 33 by the media. He was inducted into the HHOF relatively early by the HHOF committee. His teammates Frank Boucher and Bun Cook both named him to their all-time teams along with Eddie Shore.

That's an awful lot of people to fool.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ching was voted a 1st Team All Star in 1928 by the NHL GMs, a 1st Team All Star in 1932 and 33 by the media. He was inducted into the HHOF relatively early by the HHOF committee. His teammates Frank Boucher and Bun Cook both named him to their all-time teams along with Eddie Shore.

That's an awful lot of people to fool.

I'm not saying that people were fooled, I'm suspecting that hard physical play, and Dmen in particular seem to do rather well in this era in terms of voting.

Kinda like the Defensive Dman push that got Langway his two Norris trophies for a modern comp.

The biggest problem, for me, is that we are primarily relying on secondary information here and don't have the eye test, or even the tape test, to fairly evaluate him aside from the secondary written sources.

I'll have to think long and hard where he goes on my ballot this round and that goes for most of the players as well.

Also the 11-18 comp is probably easier to envision than the 20-28 as there should be much more to catch up even if Johnson was a decent skater, which by all accounts wasn't his strong suit.

Could any player do that today?

It seems highly unlikely that they could even become a good regular player and that gives me great cause for concern here with ching.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not saying that people were fooled, I'm suspecting that hard physical play, and Dmen in particular seem to do rather well in this era in terms of voting.

Kinda like the Defensive Dman push that got Langway his two Norris trophies for a modern comp.

The biggest problem, for me, is that we are primarily relying on secondary information here and don't have the eye test, or even the tape test, to fairly evaluate him aside from the secondary written sources.

The all-star teams comprise the aggragate of the "eye tests" of the voters. There weren't 30 teams back when Ching played, so the voters got to watch everyone quite a few times per season.

Also the 11-18 comp is probably easier to envision than the 20-28 as there should be much more to catch up even if Johnson was a decent skater, which by all accounts wasn't his strong suit.

Could any player do that today?

It seems highly unlikely that they could even become a good regular player and that gives me great cause for concern here with ching.

Could someone as soft as Leetch or Tremblay or as poor in his own zone as Coffey play as a defenseman in Ching's time? I doubt it.

I'm sure no player today would have his development delayed by fighting in World War I

Edit: Anyway, my point was that if we start judging players by the standards of other eras, we are going down a slippery slope. We know the talent pool was fairly strong during Ching's era and we know what he did versus that talent pool. I'm sure now's where you mention that it was a Canada-only league when Ching played, and that's a fair point. But we are talking about a guy with 3 1st Team All Stars, and he doesn't have the same question marks that the only other 2 guys with 3 1st Teams have (Butch Bouchard and Babe Siebert).