The MLD 2012 Thread I

[tarheelhockey]

You know, it's never occurred to me to ask whether hockey had on-the-fly substitutions during that era.

 

[Dreakmur]

That style of play became obsolete when Odie Cleghorn (apocryphally, at least) pioneered the idea of wholesale substitutions in the form of line changes. From what I have seen, it took a little while before 2nd/3rd liners were no longer listed as spares.

I've read accounts of both Cleghorn and Lester Patrick "inventing" the idea of a second line. Haven't really looked into it enough to figure it out.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Prior to the advent of "rolling" lines, hockey teams consisted of 6 starters and a list of spares. Your starters played the whole game unless injured or exhausted. A good spare at each position was helpful. The dynamics were very similar to modern basketball.

That style of play became obsolete when Odie Cleghorn (apocryphally, at least) pioneered the idea of wholesale substitutions in the form of line changes. From what I have seen, it took a little while before 2nd/3rd liners were no longer listed as spares.

Yeah, that much I knew. I was just curious as to how it would be used in context of an all-star team. I guess if it's used as a "6th man award", that would be a bit of a setback for my case...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've read accounts of both Cleghorn and Lester Patrick "inventing" the idea of a second line. Haven't really looked into it enough to figure it out.

Not sure that I've read about Cleghorn. I believe there is quite a bit of information in the Dishing the Dirt thread about Lester Patrick's innovative strategy of rolling two line being a big part of the Victoria Cougar's upset Cup win in 1925. I have also read that it was considered innovative when Tommy Gorman rolled two pairs of defensemen in the 1930s

 

[Dreakmur]

Not sure that I've read about Cleghorn. I believe there is quite a bit of information in the Dishing the Dirt thread about Lester Patrick's innovative strategy of rolling two line being a big part of the Victoria Cougar's upset Cup win in 1925. I have also read that it was considered innovative when Tommy Gorman rolled two pairs of defensemen in the 1930s

When was Cleghorn the coach in Pittsburgh? I remember that being the place that he coached when I read about it. (On my phone, so can't really do research lol)

 

[seventieslord]

We're counting games now? Billy Gilmour played 7 full seasons.

No he didn’t. You might be lumping his University years in there, which I assume wasn’t deliberate. At the top level he played three full seasons.

- 1903, when he played all 6 of Ottawa’s games (CAHL)
- 1908, when he played all 10 of Montreal’s games (ECAHA)
- 1909, when he played 11 of Ottawa’s 12 games (ECHA)

The next largest percentage of the schedule he ever played, was in 1905, when he played one of eight scheduled FAHL games for Ottawa.

Correct me if I am wrong, but through 1903, 1904, and 1905, the years in which he’s credited as being a Stanley cup champion that Ottawa had playoff games, he only played in 9 of those 17 games too.

It is a really odd and unique resume when his biggest claim to fame is his contributions to a dynasty but at the same time he only played half of the games that mattered.

Of course GP matters. To be honest, I LOVE what you guys have dug up on him, but whatever skills and intangibles he had, they were put to use for just 40 games at the top level, including playoffs and Stanley cup games, which I realize is a number completely devoid of context as it represents half a season today. That’s why I said “3-4†season’s worth of games. I think we all agree (correct me if I’m wrong) that one can’t just snap their fingers and POOF, someone is tough or good defensively, etc. Just like offensive production, which is best proven over time with a good peak and consistency, intangibles aren’t just automatic. At least I think we all agree on that. Like unexplained fires, that one is a matter for the courts.

As I said, the low GP total is not totally unprecedented. There is Tom Hooper, and also Trihey’s linemates.

This is certainly inconsistent with Lester Patrick naming Gilmour to his "all time" team as of 1927 or Russell Bowie naming Gilmour the second best player he ever played against, after Frank McGee.

I read the thing about Patrick. Does it concern you at all that it is much different from the team he named in 1925? I just wonder if when pressed he named the first 6 good players who came to mind. To be honest, even a couple of the names he mentioned when asked in 1925 were surprising, so it should make you wonder a bit.

SIHR has him playing from 1903-1909.

Yes, but 1904-1907 were in university, with two top level regular season games in there.

I'm pretty sure I've seen those All Star Teams elsewhere too

Do you recall where>

I remember something like that too. So that would make the last "1st Team All Star" worse than the "2nd Team All Star," because he was just a spare?

Yes, I believe so. Which would mean it’s quite important to know which 1st team all-star was there as a spare.

1905 was in a newspaper in the bio. 1907 and 1908 were from his LOH bio.

Not sue where they got 1904 and 1909. Of course, 1903 was his best season

1904 and 1907 had to be for the University league. 1905 is clearly legit. 04, 08, and 09 are worth asking about at SIHR. And especially 03, because the article about 05 says it was the first ever all-star team.

Medicine Hat selects: Bob Trapp, D
Seventies' analysis from three years ago. Has any new information changed your stance here 70's? (and if it's for the worst, forget the question )
:

Very good pick. He was definitely on my “must be selected in the MLD or it’s a damn shame†list of defensemen (down to 12 left). I think he is definitely better than Traub; actually, your selection of Traub is what made me think it may remind someone of Trapp and that maybe I better take him. Which I highly considered yesterday, but I went from thinking he was the slam dunk best pick, to just a very good one.

Which brings me to your question. It’s really funny you should ask that. Because after my realization yesterday I messaged TDMM to ask how on earth I could have missed this in 2009, how he could have missed it in 2010 and how Selfish Man could have missed it last year. Here’s what I said:

The 1926 conclusion is solid (aside from the fact that Day was not a defenseman yet; I must not have realized this at the time)... but as for 1922 and 1923... duh, what about the PCHA?

In 1922 you'd have to put Trapp behind the PCHA 1st teamers and put the 2nd teamers in the debatable category. Which makes him 8th-14th.

In 1923 he should be on par with the PCHA 1st teamers with no way of knowing who was better, so this makes him 5th-11th.

So, splitting the difference in all cases we go from a de facto 9th, 7th, 8th in all-star voting, to a more realistic 11th, 8th, 8th. I guess not a huge difference but it does add some uncertainty. He went from being my slam dunk pick, to a guy I have to think more about.

I think 8th, 8th, 11th is a realistic guess for where he slotted in during his three best years. Which is still good when you look at who else is getting picked right now. Of course, I’d take a guy who was 8th, 8th, 11th in the 30s over that, and in the 50s over either. The pool was getting deeper gradually. If I was to try to extrapolate this out to modern terms I might triple those numbers (considering I doubled the results of a my own guy from the 70s last year) – leading to a 24, 24, 33, and of course other decent non-all-star years, which roughly translates Trapp to a modern low-end #1 or OK #2-3 defenseman for most of a 9-year career (I count his years in the Big-4 league)

 

[tarheelhockey]

I've read accounts of both Cleghorn and Lester Patrick "inventing" the idea of a second line. Haven't really looked into it enough to figure it out.

Iain wrote a couple of well-researched articles on it.

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=748
http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=762

The complete second article is only available by subscription, so his final conclusions are a mystery to me...

 

[seventieslord]

Also, if Iain Fyffe is correct, Trapp's 1923 "1st Team" was as a spare. But his 1926 appears legit.

Well that really changes what I said about 1923, where I have him conservatively listed as 5th-11th.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Responding to these mega posts is torture. I have to keep a second window open just to rememeber what you are responding to.

No he didn’t. You might be lumping his University years in there, which I assume wasn’t deliberate. At the top level he played three full seasons.

- 1903, when he played all 6 of Ottawa’s games (CAHL)
- 1908, when he played all 10 of Montreal’s games (ECAHA)
- 1909, when he played 11 of Ottawa’s 12 games (ECHA)

The next largest percentage of the schedule he ever played, was in 1905, when he played one of eight scheduled FAHL games for Ottawa.

Correct me if I am wrong, but through 1903, 1904, and 1905, the years in which he’s credited as being a Stanley cup champion that Ottawa had playoff games, he only played in 9 of those 17 games too.

It is a really odd and unique resume when his biggest claim to fame is his contributions to a dynasty but at the same time he only played half of the games that mattered.

Why wouldn't we include the university games when talking about his longevity? He was a top level hockey player from 1903-1909, period. I fail to see how missing some ECHA games and substituting them with university games makes him a worse hockey player. These were all amateur leagues anyway. Makes it harder to know how good he was, sure. But his career as a hockey player was an uninterrupted 7 years, perfectly normal for the era.

Of course GP matters. To be honest, I LOVE what you guys have dug up on him, but whatever skills and intangibles he had, they were put to use for just 40 games at the top level, including playoffs and Stanley cup games, which I realize is a number completely devoid of context as it represents half a season today. That’s why I said “3-4†season’s worth of games. I think we all agree (correct me if I’m wrong) that one can’t just snap their fingers and POOF, someone is tough or good defensively, etc. Just like offensive production, which is best proven over time with a good peak and consistency, intangibles aren’t just automatic. At least I think we all agree on that. Like unexplained fires, that one is a matter for the courts.

As I said, the low GP total is not totally unprecedented. There is Tom Hooper, and also Trihey’s linemates.

"You guys" was all Dreakmur on this one. Again, given the fact that nobody got paid, I really don't see the big deal that he missed ECHA regular season games for University game.

I read the thing about Patrick. Does it concern you at all that it is much different from the team he named in 1925? I just wonder if when pressed he named the first 6 good players who came to mind. To be honest, even a couple of the names he mentioned when asked in 1925 were surprising, so it should make you wonder a bit.

The 1927 team was all retired players; 1925 was a mix. Of itself, I don't think Patrick's 1927 team means all that much. I don't think Bowie's statement means all that much on its own. But together, I think they mean something, especially when combined with all the ECHA All-Star Teams that are reported in various places.

Yes, but 1904-1907 were in university, with two top level regular season games in there.

And I doubt he forgot how to play, since he was in the ECHA before and afterwards. If you can repeat yourself, so can I right? 0

Do you recall where>

I guess his LOH profile like Dreak said

 

[Dreakmur]

No he didn’t. You might be lumping his University years in there, which I assume wasn’t deliberate. At the top level he played three full seasons.

- 1903, when he played all 6 of Ottawa’s games (CAHL)
- 1908, when he played all 10 of Montreal’s games (ECAHA)
- 1909, when he played 11 of Ottawa’s 12 games (ECHA)


Of course GP matters. To be honest, I LOVE what you guys have dug up on him, but whatever skills and intangibles he had, they were put to use for just 40 games at the top level, including playoffs and Stanley cup games, which I realize is a number completely devoid of context as it represents half a season today. That’s why I said “3-4†season’s worth of games. I think we all agree (correct me if I’m wrong) that one can’t just snap their fingers and POOF, someone is tough or good defensively, etc. Just like offensive production, which is best proven over time with a good peak and consistency, intangibles aren’t just automatic. At least I think we all agree on that. Like unexplained fires, that one is a matter for the courts.

While he did only play the full seasons you listed, it's not like those are his only seasons. He played 4 full seasons in the University league too. Yeah, it wasn't the greatest league, but its not like he was stuck there becasue he wasn't good enough to play top level hockey. He chose his education over "pro" hockey. The Ottawa team wanted him to stay, but they couldnlt convince him. That's why he kept coming back in the play-offs - they knew they needed him.

He played 4 full seasons in a lesser league, but that doesn't mean we ignore thos seasons. Ask yourself this question - while playing for McGill, was Gilmour a worse player than when he played for Ottawa?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Would anyone mind sharing a little feedback on my Dustin Brown pick? I realize he was probably taken earlier than necessary, because I didn't want to wait and end up missing him if someone else had their eye on him. My main concern is whether he does in fact belong in the MLD at this point.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Would anyone mind sharing a little feedback on my Dustin Brown pick? I realize he was probably taken earlier than necessary, because I didn't want to wait and end up missing him if someone else had their eye on him. My main concern is whether he does in fact belong in the MLD at this point.

I think your 988 pick of him may be slightly early, but you got your man and given what the Kings accomplished in the playoffs, I think he belongs in the top 1200 or MLD 2012 now.

 

[seventieslord]

Why wouldn't we include the university games when talking about his longevity? He was a top level hockey player from 1903-1909, period. I fail to see how missing some ECHA games and substituting them with university games makes him a worse hockey player. These were all amateur leagues anyway. Makes it harder to know how good he was, sure. But his career as a hockey player was an uninterrupted 7 years, perfectly normal for the era.

"You guys" was all Dreakmur on this one. Again, given the fact that nobody got paid, I really don't see the big deal that he missed ECHA regular season games for University game.

Is he unique in some way that I am missing? For any other player we would be very concerned about the level of competition in the leagues he played in.

While he did only play the full seasons you listed, it's not like those are his only seasons. He played 4 full seasons in the University league too. Yeah, it wasn't the greatest league, but its not like he was stuck there becasue he wasn't good enough to play top level hockey. He chose his education over "pro" hockey. The Ottawa team wanted him to stay, but they couldnlt convince him. That's why he kept coming back in the play-offs - they knew they needed him.

Fair enough, but he still played just 9 of those 17 playoff games.

He played 4 full seasons in a lesser league, but that doesn't mean we ignore thos seasons. Ask yourself this question - while playing for McGill, was Gilmour a worse player than when he played for Ottawa?

Obviously he was the same player, but I can think of dozens of other players with “competition level” question marks for a variety of reasons, and an appropriate level of downgrading is done to all of them. Should Gilmour be an exception?

Would anyone mind sharing a little feedback on my Dustin Brown pick? I realize he was probably taken earlier than necessary, because I didn't want to wait and end up missing him if someone else had their eye on him. My main concern is whether he does in fact belong in the MLD at this point.

I don’t think it was particularly early. I knew he was bound for a big jump. He was a potential 4th like LW for me; 8th on my list for bottom sixers. His percentage scores stand up (compared to most other available players suited for a bottom-6 role), and he’s got proven physicality, agitation, and a defining playoff as the captain and 2nd best offensive player on a cup winner.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Would anyone mind sharing a little feedback on my Dustin Brown pick? I realize he was probably taken earlier than necessary, because I didn't want to wait and end up missing him if someone else had their eye on him. My main concern is whether he does in fact belong in the MLD at this point.

He was on our radar, but we had the same problem you did - struggling to figure out where he belongs.

The only issue I see is that his defense is good, but maybe not good enough to be used in a shutdown role. I can see him as a very good 4th liner or perhaps third line physical presence

Future ATD 4th liner or MLD scoring line glue guy, but probably not there yet.

Heres an interesting thought - how does Brown compare to Gary Dornhoefer

 

[seventieslord]

The only issue I see is that his defense is good, but maybe not good enough to be used in a shutdown role. I can see him as a very good 4th liner or perhaps third line physical presence

exactly

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is he unique in some way that I am missing? For any other player we would be very concerned about the level of competition in the leagues he played in.



Fair enough, but he still played just 9 of those 17 playoff games.



Obviously he was the same player, but I can think of dozens of other players with “competition level” question marks for a variety of reasons, and an appropriate level of downgrading is done to all of them. Should Gilmour be an exception?

I don't think we should use the same criteria for guys who played when every league was still officially amateur as we do for guys who play now.

It's kind of like guys who played at a certain level both before and after the war. Only less guesswork, since Gilmour was actually playing hockey in university and still joined his old team for the playoffs when he could

 

[vecens24]

I almost commented on it this morning when I woke up tarheelhockey, but yeah I certainly believe that Brown is a worthy bottom 6er here. MAYBE a touch early, but he certainly will not be out of place at all.

If youre building a nice two-way third line I think that he will be a very good fit as a physical, tough glue guy who physically wears people down.

Also, could he be the youngest captain in MLD history? If you went in that direction I certainly wouldn't blame you.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Considerations

Why wouldn't we include the university games when talking about his longevity? He was a top level hockey player from 1903-1909, period. I fail to see how missing some ECHA games and substituting them with university games makes him a worse hockey player. These were all amateur leagues anyway. Makes it harder to know how good he was, sure. But his career as a hockey player was an uninterrupted 7 years, perfectly normal for the era.

You summarize a key element of evaluating talent. The discussion gets bogged down in irrelevent issues, sample size, provenance, longevity, etc. The "could he play" aspects gets lost or replaced by he did not play often which begs the original question.

 

[jkrx]

Brynäs if selects two forwards to complete our more defensive line.

P.J. Axelsson, LW

and Niklas Sundstrom, RW/LW/C

 

[Dreakmur]

Is he unique in some way that I am missing? For any other player we would be very concerned about the level of competition in the leagues he played in.



Fair enough, but he still played just 9 of those 17 playoff games.



Obviously he was the same player, but I can think of dozens of other players with “competition level†question marks for a variety of reasons, and an appropriate level of downgrading is done to all of them. Should Gilmour be an exception?

Actually, yes, Gilmour is unique. Like many others, it was his choice to play in a lower league. Unlike them, however, Gilmour proved to be a top level player in the top league before, during, and after his time at McGill.

With the other guys, we have to guess how they would do if they played in the top league. Some guys star in lesser leagues, but flop in the best one, so you just can't be certain with guys from those lesser leagues. There are no such questions about Gilmour - the guy was a mutil-time all-star in the best league.

Many of his contemporaries name him among the best of that era (lester patrick, dubbie bowie, and alf smith, plus the all-star teams)

 

[seventieslord]

I don't think we should use the same criteria for guys who played when every league was still officially amateur as we do for guys who play now.

well, make no mistake, I'm certainly much more "forgiving" of this aspect of his career than I'd be if it was some guy in the modern day leaving the NHL to go back to College, or to a lesser extent, someone leaving to the KHL for more money.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel better about the Brown pick, knowing it wasn't a total reach. Didn't get carried away and take a AAA'er.

Comparison to Dornhoefer is interesting... they'll have a similar role, relative to their top-6/bottom-6 placement.

 

[jkrx]

Forgot to PM Farkas, so I just PMed him. Could we start his clock now and reduce mine as punishment? He shouldn't suffer for my error.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

When was Cleghorn the coach in Pittsburgh? I remember that being the place that he coached when I read about it. (On my phone, so can't really do research lol)

He coached the Pirates from 25-26 until 28-29. I've read the same accounts about Patrick and Cleghorn but never really tried to see which was first.

Here's a real source claiming Odie was the only NHL coach to roll multiple lines from December 1925.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cHgrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FEoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6918%2C2509147

You know, it's never occurred to me to ask whether hockey had on-the-fly substitutions during that era.

Odie invented changing on-the-fly as well supposedly.

 

[Dreakmur]

He coached the Pirates from 25-26 until 28-29. I've read the same accounts about Patrick and Cleghorn but never really tried to see which was first.

Here's a real source claiming Odie was the only NHL coach to roll multiple lines from December 1925.

If that is correct (and I assume you are), then Lester Patrick was the first to use 2 lines. He did that in the 1925 Stanley Cup challenge. Apparently, he knew his guys couldn't keep up to Morenz and Joliat all game, so he employed a two lines so they would always be fresh, and they'd be able to give more effort.

We'll give Odie credit for being the first guy smart enough to copy Patrick!