Split League Consolidated All Star Team Discussion

[ResilientBeast]

The ATD Retro All-Star Teams Project

The purpose of this project is to determine, to the best of our abilities and using all available information, three teams of unofficial All-Stars for the period beginning just before official NHL teams were named (1930), and continuing back in time through the split league era and beyond, as interest permits.

For every season starting with 1929-30, evidence will be provided in this thread for everyone's digestion and consideration. After a short period of discussion where we attempt to reach a consensus, votes are submitted publicly, via a post in this thread.

Participating members:

1. seventieslord
2. ResilientBeast
3. dreakmur
4. VanIslander
5. jarek
6. BenchBrawl
7. rmartin65
8. chaosrevolver
9.
10.

All-Stars voted on:

1930:

1st Team:

2nd Team:

3rd Team:

Click to read more...

 

[ResilientBeast]

I have been working on project that is relevant to this trying to compare the strength of teams/league season by season from 1915-1921 since during this period the PCHA and NHA were roughly equal. I need to modify some benchmarks but it's pretty good about picking the Stanley Cup winner in a given year.

 

[seventieslord]

For defensemen, these are the criteria I identified that would be the most important. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

- Who was on the actual PCHA and WCHL all-star teams
- Offensive stats
- Team defensive results (very important since the defensemen played almost all the time)
- Did they have an all-star goalie helping them or not?
- Reputation/star power (quotes from surrounding seasons would be helpful, but from within each season is best)
- Player's ages and what we know about career trajectories (i.e. yes Cleghorn was better than Boucher, but was Cleghorn at 36 better than Boucher at 29?)

 

[seventieslord]

By the way, I think we should do three teams for every season.

I also would not be completely opposed to including a player or two from outside the NHA/PCHA if their play clearly merited it. I have no particular player or season in mind, but there are a couple of seasons where the OPHL leader might merit consideration or someone from the OHA senior league (don't laugh too hard, people who were alive at the time saw fit to induct a number of these players in the HHOF).

 

[seventieslord]

Another good question - what to do with rovers? We treat them like centers in the ATD and in the HOH projects, and I think that's the right thing to do. But in this project, we take center - already the most crowded forward position - and add rovers to it, then we've really cluttered it. We'd have centers and rovers missing the team that would have been 1st teamers had they played LW or RW.

On the other hand, if we decide to just have a 1st, 2nd and 3rd team rover for the 1910-1922 seasons, being that there's no rover in the east, in all PCHA seasons except 1916 and 1917, every rover would be guaranteed an all-star team spot. I don't like that either, despite the fact that they were typically excellent players.

So... what do you think we do? The only thing I can think of that's even close to a solution, is to name three full teams and then "on the side" name a 1st and 2nd team rover.

Alternate "solution" - name rovers on the all-star teams, BUT the 3rd rover spot is reserved for either a rover or a center, whoever merits it more.

Last "solution" - make two spots on every AST that are "C/R" - whichever two centers or rovers most merit the spots, get them.

Fourth solution - last one for real this time. Just name three forwards on each team, including rovers, regardless of position. There was so much switching around that we are never going to have it 100% correct anyway. This era was disproportionately strong at C and Rover anyway, as opposed to wing. These are the drafted players from this year who played mostly in the pre-NHL-ASTs era, listed by predominant position:

best Centers and Rovers: Lalonde, T.Smith, Foyston, Nighbor, MacKay, Morris, Keats, Malone, Frederickson, Taylor, Boucher, H.Smith, Morenz
best right wingers: Pitre, Oatman, Broadbent, Walker, Dye,
best left wingers: Crawford, Roberts, Harris, Noble, Denneny, Hay, Joliat

I see upsides and downsides to each solution.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I like the fourth solution the most personally, though there becomes problem with the PCHA and comparing stats. I found an old Ian Fyfe article, the role of the rover changed in the PCHA in 1918-19 for some reason

Perhaps the thing that best illustrates the idea that this was the result of a choice rather than normal turnover of player personnel is Fred Taylor (and the other rovers) of the 1917-18 season. By far the biggest scoring threat in the PCHA, Taylor was the rover for Vancouver up to and including the 1917-18 season, when he led the league with 43 points in 18 games. In 1918-19, he again led the PCHA with 36 points in 20 games. But he was now playing center; Mickey MacKay had swapped positions with him, moving from center to rover.

This effect can be seen on the other PCHA lineups as well. In 1917-18, Portland played Tommy Dunderdale at center and Alf Barbour at rover. In 1918-19 (with the team back in Victoria), Dunderdale went to rover (and saw his scoring totals drop dramatically), while Barbour was a left wing. Barbour was a good forward, but was no defensive standout. The same switch happened in Seattle, where skilled scorer Frank Foyston moved from rover to left wing, while renowned defensive forward Jack Walker, often credited with inventing the poke-check, took over the fourth forward position. The effect is persistent, and the results obvious. In 1918, the rover became a third defenseman, rather than a fourth forward.

So when handling and making statistical comparisons we'll need to account for this

 

[jarek]

Another good question - what to do with rovers? We treat them like centers in the ATD and in the HOH projects, and I think that's the right thing to do. But in this project, we take center - already the most crowded forward position - and add rovers to it, then we've really cluttered it. We'd have centers and rovers missing the team that would have been 1st teamers had they played LW or RW.

On the other hand, if we decide to just have a 1st, 2nd and 3rd team rover for the 1910-1922 seasons, being that there's no rover in the east, in all PCHA seasons except 1916 and 1917, every rover would be guaranteed an all-star team spot. I don't like that either, despite the fact that they were typically excellent players.

So... what do you think we do? The only thing I can think of that's even close to a solution, is to name three full teams and then "on the side" name a 1st and 2nd team rover.

Alternate "solution" - name rovers on the all-star teams, BUT the 3rd rover spot is reserved for either a rover or a center, whoever merits it more.

Last "solution" - make two spots on every AST that are "C/R" - whichever two centers or rovers most merit the spots, get them.

Fourth solution - last one for real this time. Just name three forwards on each team, including rovers, regardless of position. There was so much switching around that we are never going to have it 100% correct anyway. This era was disproportionately strong at C and Rover anyway, as opposed to wing. These are the drafted players from this year who played mostly in the pre-NHL-ASTs era, listed by predominant position:

best Centers and Rovers: Lalonde, T.Smith, Foyston, Nighbor, MacKay, Morris, Keats, Malone, Frederickson, Taylor, Boucher, H.Smith, Morenz
best right wingers: Pitre, Oatman, Broadbent, Walker, Dye,
best left wingers: Crawford, Roberts, Harris, Noble, Denneny, Hay, Joliat

I see upsides and downsides to each solution.

This is really easy. Just add rover to the all star teams.

For the seasons that have rovers, you'll simply include rover on the all star team.

I vehemently disagree with the idea of putting centers and rovers together because the role of the rover was very different than that of the center.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is really easy. Just add rover to the all star teams.

For the seasons that have rovers, you'll simply include rover on the all star team.

I vehemently disagree with the idea of putting centers and rovers together because the role of the rover was very different than that of the center.

So all the rovers in the PCHA make the all star team by default?

 

[jarek]

So all the rovers in the PCHA make the all star team by default?

What else are you going to do? C DOES NOT equal rover.. at all. It's not even close.

The six-man game will be in vogue this season in Saskatchewan. It is as different from seven-man hockey as night is from day. Under the old style, the rover had to do the bulk of the checking back. In baseball parlance, it was the duty of the rover to back up every play. He had to check any man who got away from his cover; in short, he had to assume the responsibility for any weak spots on his team. One thing that characterizes a good rover was his ability to get goals off rebounds. Another way of putting it is that he almost had to play "inside home". He likewise had to go into the corner after stray pucks. He had to be an almost superhuman player. Every man in the history of hockey who made a name for himself as a rover had inhuman characteristics to a marked degree. Take for instance Rat Westwick, of the old Ottawa silver seven; Russell Bowie of the old Montreal Victorias; Lester Patrick, formerly of the Wanderers, Renfrew, and now of the Coast League, Pud Glass, of the Wanderers, the undying Newsy Lalonde; Si Griffis, of Rat Portage; Bruce Stuart, of Ottawa and Wanderers; every one of these men were hockey machines, with the mechanical element eliminated and brains substituted. - Saskatoon Phoenix, Dec. 10, 1919

 

[BenchBrawl]

Maybe just ranking the rovers and leave it at that?

 

[jarek]

If there truly were just a few rovers in all of hockey in any given year, it might be appropriate to simply choose one of them and he's the only one that makes the AST for that year.

Also, for the years where points and cover points were used, it might be a good idea to list the teams that way. Simply because the roles of the point and cover point were probably quite different when those positions were used.

 

[ResilientBeast]

What else are you going to do? C DOES NOT equal rover.. at all. It's not even close.

Well if you missed my post above, Taylor was a rover in the PCHA till 1918-19 until he was switched with Mickey Mackay so unless you want to say Taylor > Mackay defensively you're not completely correct with this assumption.

 

[jarek]

Well if you missed my post above, Taylor was a rover in the PCHA till 1918-19 until he was switched with Mickey Mackay so unless you want to say Taylor > Mackay defensively you're not completely correct with this assumption.

Maybe he was for those particular seasons because he was forced to be due to the nature of his position.

It's true that some teams didn't play within the confines of those particular positions. Walsh's Senators are a prime example, given how much backchecking Walsh did despite playing center.

All that being said, that was a generic description of the rover position which I used to illustrate my point that you cannot simply say rover = center because it is not.

 

[VanIslander]

There should also be an "amateur" or first era all-star team discussion for all those in the first 20 years of Stanley Cup competiton (pre-NHA/PCHA)!

 

[rmartin65]

I would absolutely be down to try this.

 

[seventieslord]

There should also be an "amateur" or first era all-star team discussion for all those in the first 20 years of Stanley Cup competiton (pre-NHA/PCHA)!

Ok, but just to be clear, we're currently discussing an all-star team for every season, not just an era.

 

[Dreakmur]

For defensemen, these are the criteria I identified that would be the most important. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

- Who was on the actual PCHA and WCHL all-star teams
- Offensive stats
- Team defensive results (very important since the defensemen played almost all the time)
- Did they have an all-star goalie helping them or not?
- Reputation/star power (quotes from surrounding seasons would be helpful, but from within each season is best)
- Player's ages and what we know about career trajectories (i.e. yes Cleghorn was better than Boucher, but was Cleghorn at 36 better than Boucher at 29?)

I would also like to see us use as many contemporary articles as possible. We already know their styles of play, but team MVPs, articles saying players are having a particularly good or bad season, and such would be nice.

 

[VanIslander]

Ok, but just to be clear, we're currently discussing an all-star team for every season, not just an era.

I don't see it. I've re-read the thread three times.

best Centers and Rovers: Lalonde, T.Smith, Foyston, Nighbor, MacKay, Morris, Keats, Malone, Frederickson, Taylor, Boucher, H.Smith, Morenz
best right wingers: Pitre, Oatman, Broadbent, Walker, Dye,
best left wingers: Crawford, Roberts, Harris, Noble, Denneny, Hay, Joliat

This does NOT reflect the first 18-20 years of Stanley Cup hockey!

It does reflect what most posters in this thread are talking about: NHA/PCHA and beyond. (This feels like the HHOF's attitude toward no-Stanley Cup European hockey history.)

Seriously, is this really trying to talk about pre-"split league" all-stars? I doubt it.

 

[jarek]

I don't see it. I've re-read the thread three times.


This does NOT reflect the first 18-20 years of Stanley Cup hockey!

It does reflect what most posters in this thread are talking about: NHA/PCHA and beyond. (This feels like the HHOF's attitude toward no-Stanley Cup European hockey history.)

Seriously, is this really trying to talk about pre-"split league" all-stars? I doubt it.

I don't think you really understand the purpose of this thread.

Specifically, what we want to do is create "retro All Star teams" for each season from 1910 to 1930.

 

[VanIslander]

Specifically, what we want to do is create "retro All Star teams" for each season from 1910 to 1930.

*sigh* That was exactly the point of my first post: that pre-1910 pre-NHA/pre-PCHA Stanley Cup hockey history deserves its own discussion.

So, you agree with me that unlike seventieslord's comment - this thread is NOT about pre-1910 hockey!

 

[jarek]

*sigh* That was exactly the point of my first post: that pre-1910 pre-NHA/pre-PCHA Stanley Cup hockey history deserves its own discussion.

So, you agree with me that unlike seventieslord's comment - this thread is NOT about pre-1910 hockey!

No, it isn't.

 

[ResilientBeast]

That was just him listing names for discussion

 

[VanIslander]

No, it isn't.

Thanks.

Looking forward to a "pre-split league early era all-star team discussion" thread, as per my initial post to this thread.

 

[jarek]

Thanks.

Looking forward to a "pre-split league early era all-star team discussion" thread, as per my initial post to this thread.

I think seventies already alluded to the fact that that particular study might be kinda boring because the same players are going to come up for every single year. I tend to agree with that. Outside of Harvey Pulford, Hod Stuart and Mike Grant, can you name any prominent defensemen from before 1910?

 

[VanIslander]

Outside of Harvey Pulford, Hod Stuart and Mike Grant, can you name any prominent defensemen from before 1910?

Moose Johnson, Si Griffis, Fred Lake, Hamby Shore + three HHOFers I shouldn't even have to mention~!