Evolution of the Power Play

[nik jr]

Does anyone know how PP's developed and changed over time? How the structure and general play of PP changed? Or how the role of PP QB developed?

I have been trying to understand it, and i figured some posters here must be more knowledgeable about it.




Even Strength Power Plays

Phrases "power play" or "power attack" seem to have been used in the modern sense of 5 on 4, 5 on 3 and 4 on 3 play, but also for attacks where 4 or 5 players joined the attack at ES.

It seems that "power play" originally meant 4 or 5 man attacks, instead of the usual rushes of 1, 2 or 3 men; but that since it was much easier to use these "power plays" when the other team was shorthanded, "power play" became synonymous with 5 on 4 or 5 on 3 or 4 on 3.

Flashing from behind after their opponents had scored 2 quick goals in the 2nd period, Detroit's amazing Red Wings ousted the big Maroons team from the Stanley Cup hockey playoffs last night, winning the deciding contest 3-2. A capacity crowd of 14500 saw Detroit take the round 5-2 and go into the Stanley Cup semi-finals against New York Rangers.

Maroons, trailing 0-2 as a result of a Red Wing victory in Montreal last Saturday night, put on their power plays for 60 minutes, ripping up and down the ice of Olympia Arena to bowl over the frantic Detroit defence.

only a few penalties in that game, and obviously, DRW were not shorthanded for 60 minutes.

No one, however, could have greatly improved on Moore's performance. Though he came in cold, he turned back all but one of the highly-favored Leafs' thrusts, and turned them back time and again during a series of last-period power plays.

TML had no PP's during the last period. end of the game when trailing is a time when
4 or 5 players would attack, instead of 2 or 3 staying back to play D.

The old Boston Power play was powerless against Maroons Saturday night at the Forum. Master Stew Evans slapped a goal past Tiny Thompson in the 2nd period, and that was good enough for a 1-0 Montreal victory, despite the best efforts of Eddie Shore, who started power play after power play after Evans tally.
....
Time and time again they were thrown back by the power plays, but they invariably broke away for dangerous rushes on Thompson and only the Boston goalie's sensational work combined with some bad luck prevented Maroons from getting a couple of extra tallies.
....
Immediately after this goal, Eddie Shore trotted out the old power play, and it was a continual menace as 4 and 5 man attacks swept in on the Maroon net from the middle of the second period until the end of the game, but the Montreal defences, and Dave Kerr, in particular, withstood these assaults without a lapse. It was Kerr's 5th shutout of the season.

only 2 penalties in the game, both to Boston, so power play refers to ES massed attacks.

A tie seemed impending when Art Ross, manager of the Bruins, gave the signal for the power play which so often had been ridiculed and so often had proved a boomerang.

Down the ice came Shore, carrying the puck and driving it into the corner where Weiland hurried after it and, quick as a flash, passed it out in front of the net where Shore took a shot.

The Boston defence star opened the power play by driving at the enemy net as he swept through center. Four of his mates trailed him, but they were not heeded because Eddie fought his way in back of the Ottawa net, pulled the puck away from Syd Howe, and poked it out. The rubber struck goalie Bill Beveridge's skate, and the game was decided when it was deflected into his cage.
...
The Bruins countered with a 5-man attack that seldom got over the Senators' blue line, although during the last minute, Marty Barry missed a wide-open net on a power play.
...
5 minutes to go and the Bruins resumed their old-time power tactics. Shore started the play by firing into the Ottawa zone as he cut through center. Smith followed him down and there were 5 Bruins milling around in enemy territory when Shore battered his way through Bowman and followed the rubber around the Ottawa net. He passed out and the puck hit the goalie's skate and was deflected into the cage to put the Bruins out in front.

only 2 penalties in that game, and they were matching majors. power plays here again mean massed attacks at ES.

The forward pass arrives in amateur hockey next season, with its accompanying "power plays," or whatever you prefer to call net-ganging attacks.

Did Art Ross' Bruins create Power Plays?

Shore The Inventor Of Pressure Hockey?

Earl Seibert sums up the players' reaction to pressure hockey with the same neat efficiency that he displays on the ice. He says, "The forwards love it--the defencemen hate it."

The defencemen hate it, the big Chicago rearguard star explains, because they have to do the back-checking for the forwards, and the forwards love it because they no longer have that long haul back the length of the ice when their checks break away. Credit, or blame, depending on your point of view, for the new game, he pins squarely on the shoulders of the great Eddie Shore, though he thinks wily Art Ross may have had a hand in it.

"Shore used to leave his position on the defence and come up near the opposing team's blueline," big Earl recalls. "He'd only stay there for a minute or two at a time, putting on a little power play of his own. That was the way it started and I remember that Art Ross got so that he's bang a stick against the fence when he wanted Shore to move up. But I believe Shore moved up there in the first place on his own, and later Ross endorsed the move."

That is probably the truth about the origin of pressure hockey, as great individual stars have a habit of leaving their imprints on a game. Frank Nighbor, a forward with a particular genius for defensive hockey, was the cause of the kitty-bar-the-door style that prevailed for so many years. Shore, a defenceman with a brilliant offensive spark, may just as readily been the cause of the switchover to the new type of game.

Suggests Anti-offence Rule

Seibert doesn't think pressure hockey is here to stay. In his opinion, the fans don't like the new game and that is what will defeat it in the long run. He even has his own idea of what will develop.

"When all the clubs were playing defensive hockey," he pointed out, "the fans squawked all over the circuit. So they introduced the anti-defence rules. They're not always enforced, but they're there. According to the rules, only three men are allowed behind the defending blue line before the puck is carried into that defensive zone. It seems to me the next step will be anti-offence rules. They won't allow more than a certain number of players on the attacking team to go over the defending team's blue line."

Personally, he doesn't find it tougher to play the new game. He is always careful when playing "points" (that is the term defencemen use to describe their position when playing up on a power play) to keep moving. He skates at an angle and figures that helps him to turn with a forward and prevent him getting loose on a breakaway. In the old game, a defence player had to start from a standing position and he found the starting and stopping a bit wearying. Moving around as he does in the new game, his muscles are always loosened up and he doesn't tire so quickly.

"Power play (at ES)" and "pressure hockey" may be the same, or closely related. "Pressure hockey" seems to be a very important innovation towards modern hockey. I think even after the forward pass in the offensive zone was allowed, it was very common that d-men stayed back in the neutral zone and were not involved in the offense. "Leave his position at the defence and come up near the opposing team's blueline" corroborates this.


That column also mentions point position and d-men playing up at the blueline, which are important aspects of modern offense. I don't think i have seen anything else about playing the point, though. It may not have been common until the '40s. I may be completely wrong, but i get the impression that players were closer to the net in early/mid '30s PPs, and did not really play at the blueline.


It does seem that Art Ross was central in the creation and popularization of "power plays," but i don't know if that also applies to man advantage PP's.

Another paper credited Boston:

The Boston Bruins, the team which put the power play in hockey, and nearly ruined the NHL with it, are back on the warpath again serving adequate notice that they are one of the many teams to beat in the championship race.

Ross credited:

the forward pass in the East and the 'power play' is generally credited to him (Art Ross)

but that may mean ES power plays.

Daily Boston Globe and Lewiston Evening Journal could be partisan toward Boston, since they are local papers, so crediting Boston with the creation of "power plays" may not be accurate, but it is not meaningless, and Dink Carroll's column in Montreal Gazette about "pressure hockey" seems to corroborate.


I have not yet found anything about Boston's "power plays" from before the rules on passing were changed in '30.

Several newspapers attributed Boston's poor '32 season to less frequent use of "power plays," which were said to have kept Boston an elite team. Boston decided to go back to using them for the '33 season, and apparently acquired Nels Stewart partly to use in "power plays." Boston's record was much better in '33.




Extra-man Power Plays

I have not found the use of the phrase "power play" in '30 (or '31).
a description of PP goals from '30:

Both of these epochal Boston goals were scored with Ace Bailey of Toronto sitting in the penalty box for tripping Shore. With the enforcement of this penalty, the Bruins forgot all about defence and swarmed up the ice.

No word or phrase for PP, and the description of forgetting D and swarming up the ice makes me think it was not usual.


There are many examples from later in the '30s of the phrase "power play" used for 5 on 4, 5 on 3, 4 on 3 situations for various teams:

Conacher's penalty left a gap for 2 power play goals in the 1st period, and on Earl Seibert's goal, 4 assists were given, to Mush March, Paul Thompson, Doc Romnes and Gottselig, as they passed the puck around before setting up the defenceman. Gottselig's goal was aided by March, Seibert and Thompson.

"Passing the puck around before setting up the defenceman" sounds like a modern PP.

Seibert has been playing nearly 40 minutes a game. The fact that he is used on all power plays makes him one of the league's outstanding defensemen.

(Coach) Stewart is certain the Hawks will show cast improvement in one type of play which repeatedly made them look bad in the past--power attacks.

Last season when a member of the opposing team was in the penalty box, the Hawks consistently failed to show a scoring punch. Stewart promises it will be different this season. He plans to use 2 power play combinations. One will be made of Thompson, Romnes, March and Gottselig. The other will be formed by Northcott, Robinson, Blinco and Dahlstrom.

Both phrases, "power plays" and "power attacks" are used.

only 4 players, all F's are mentioned on those PP's. Previous article, from 20 days later, says Seibert played all PP's, so maybe only 4 players were mentioned b/c Seibert's presence was assumed to be known. Or Seibert may have played a defensive role on those PPs.


I know some PP's used 5 F's. TML and DRW used 5 F's (Goodfellow was also a d-man, though). Boston used Shore and Chicago often used Seibert. I found a report from '33 finals in which Ching Johnson plays on PP.


DRW's PP was apparently very strong in the '30s, and helped them win Stanley Cups in '36 and '37. In the late '30s, Jack Adams said that the PP is the most effective weapon. Adams appears to have practiced PP's often.

overpass pointed out that Goodfellow may have played the point on PP.

Ebbie Goodfellow, blond-haired Ottawa boywho had led an uncertain career most of the Winter, bouncing from centre to defense and defense to centre, was the hero of the piece. He started and finished a play which will go down in the hockey books as one of the greatest of modern ice masterpieces. He stopped the puck as a frantic Toronto player tried to rifle it out of Toronto territory. He fired it into Toronto territory to another mate, Herbie Lewis. That mate moved it on to Johnny Sorrell, a confederate, with the same gangster intentions. Then back it came to the Old Master, Ebenezer Goodfellow, who a few weeks ago wasn't sure whether he was a defenseman or a centre, or even how long his job was going to last. Ebenezer took command of the little rubber biscuit, and deposited it where it did the most good. He dropped it into the twine at George Hainsworth's left side with all the power his 185 pound frame could muster.
....
(description of the same play):
Goodfellow intercepted the puck just inside the Toronto blue-line when Levinsky made a weak attempt to shoot it up the ice. Goodfellow pushed the puck up the ice to Lewis. Sorrell got it behind the Toronto cage and flipped it in front. Goodfellow was camped 10 feet out from the nets and fired into the nets at Hainsworth's left side.

That such a play was considered an "ice masterpiece" that would be recorded in history books probably means that this modern sounding play was very rare. I have the sense that pointmen played closer to the net at that time than they do now.

It is generally nearly impossible to say from old play by play descriptions whether the puck was moved around as in modern PP's. Passing to a shooter, then scrumming for the rebound seems to be very common, but i can't tell if that pass occured shortly after entering the offensive zone.




Who was the First Power Play QB?

I don't have a good idea of when and how the role of PP QB was developed.

Based on a couple of things i have read in old papers (which i cannot find right now), i thought Eddie Shore was the 1st PP QB i had encountered in reading, but i cannot be sure, since "power play" also referred to ES play, and i don't really know Shore's role on PP.

Shore seems to have initiated "power plays," but i have not seen anything about him playing like a modern QB. I know Shore sometimes shot the puck in, hit the opposing d-men on the forecheck and passed to F's. Shore was consistently described as the key player in Boston's "power plays."

Hollett rates as the NHL's most versatile player, slightly above Busher Jackson, also of the Bruins. Both can play every position except goalie and do it almost equally well.

But the Boston offense is built around their famed power play, which demands a slam-bang rushing defenseman like Eddie Shore. And without casting the slightest reflection on Dit Clapper, Jack Crawford, Earl Seibert and the other standout rear-guardsmen of today, Pat Egan is the nearest thing to Shore. Adams admits that Egan did not fit into his hockey scheme. Jack wouldn't let Pat rush at will and the player resented being leg-ironed. Ross never cares what his players do as long as they help win games.

That and other articles make me think Shore did not play like a modern PP QB. Old newspapers from Boston are generally not available for free online, though, so i don't have access to the best sources.


If it is true that Art Ross created the PP, PP QB must have been created later, or at the same time. Of course, forward passing was illegal in the offensive zone just a few years before these articles i am quoting. PP QB is probably nearly impossible without forward passing.


The first player i am aware of who is known as a PP QB is Doug Harvey. But who before him was a QB?

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Great Post

Very interesting and thought provoking post. Appreciate the research involved.

Sense that the scope of your topic may have to be subdivided into eras defined by roster sizes and rule changes. Suggest pre 1929-30, 1929-30 - 1942-43 and finally the 1943-44 post red line era.

PPQBs - first three were Doug Harvey, Billy Gadsby and Red Kelly. However the PP as we know it really took off once the Canadiens played Bernie Geoffrion on the point with Doug Harvey and Jean Beliveau at center. This had the effect of expanding the extra man advantage to the full offensive zone - blaster at the point with a big center able to win faceoffs in the low slot while working the corners/behind the net. Add Maurice Richard as a freelance low sniper and Bert Olmstead working the corners and boards.

Slowly the other teams imitated but with lesser talent.

 

[overpass]

Great research on an interesting topic, nik.

I know some PP's used 5 F's. TML and DRW used 5 F's (Goodfellow was also a d-man, though). Boston used Shore and Chicago often used Seibert. I found a report from '33 finals in which Ching Johnson plays on PP.

DRW's PP was apparently very strong in the '30s, and helped them win Stanley Cups in '36 and '37. In the late '30s, Jack Adams said that the PP is the most effective weapon. Adams appears to have practiced PP's often.

overpass pointed out that Goodfellow may have played the point on PP.

I think Chicago was a more conservative team on the power play in the 1930s, using only 3 or 4 forwards. Detroit was, as you say, a very strong team on the power play. During the 1933-34 playoffs (and probably during the season, judging by their point totals), the power play unit was Lewis, Weiland, Aurie, Goodfellow, and Sorrell. I read several accounts of power plays, but there was never any indication of who, if anyone, was playing the "point" position and holding the blue line. It was simply called a five man attack, if anything.

Who was the First Power Play QB?

I don't have a good idea of when and how the role of PP QB was developed.

Based on a couple of things i have read in old papers (which i cannot find right now), i thought Eddie Shore was the 1st PP QB i had encountered in reading, but i cannot be sure, since "power play" also referred to ES play, and i don't really know Shore's role on PP.

Shore seems to have initiated "power plays," but i have not seen anything about him playing like a modern QB. I know Shore sometimes shot the puck in, hit the opposing d-men on the forecheck and passed to F's. Shore was consistently described as the key player in Boston's "power plays."

That and other articles make me think Shore did not play like a modern PP QB. Old newspapers from Boston are generally not available for free online, though, so i don't have access to the best sources.

After reading the biography of Eddie Shore that recently came out, I suspect Shore had as much or more to do with power play innovations as Ross. Shore was an extremely independent character - a loner and a perfectionist, who examined and questioned everything and then did whatever he had decided was best.

Shore was an innovator in hockey tactics and training in his post-playing career in Springfield, and was probably also an innovator as a player.

I suspect Shore decided to join the attack on his own, and Ross was able to build the team's tactics around his play.

The first player i am aware of who is known as a PP QB is Doug Harvey. But who before him was a QB?

Max Bentley.

From Bentley's obituary:

Bentley played right point on a formidable power play and centred the Leafs' third line.

Bentley was a power play specialist in his last season with the New York Rangers. He scored 23 of his 31 points while playing the point on the power play. (Data from the Hockey Summary Project.) During the season the Rangers brought Doug Bentley back from Saskatchewan, mostly to play the other point with Max.

Hap Day on Max and Doug in 1954:

The Leafs may have some trouble with Doug and Max Bentley, the two power-play experts who will be showing at the Gardens together for the first time since they were teammates with Chicago Black Hawks six years.

"Max is the greatest player at the point position on power plays that I've ever seen" says Hap Day, assistant general-manager of the Leafs. "Max and Doug together make up the two best point men in the business."

PPQBs - first three were Doug Harvey, Billy Gadsby and Red Kelly. However the PP as we know it really took off once the Canadiens played Bernie Geoffrion on the point with Doug Harvey and Jean Beliveau at center. This had the effect of expanding the extra man advantage to the full offensive zone - blaster at the point with a big center able to win faceoffs in the low slot while working the corners/behind the net. Add Maurice Richard as a freelance low sniper and Bert Olmstead working the corners and boards.

Any comments on the contribution of the late 1940s Leafs and their "formidable power play" as described by the Gazette, with Bentley on the point? The 1953-54 Rangers with Doug and Max Bentley on the points and Camille Henry's 20 PPG would be another significant power play that came before the great Canadiens group. I realize those are before your days as a hockey observer, just wondering if you have any knowledge on how those power plays worked and how they contributed to the evolution of the tactic.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Very interesting and thought provoking post. Appreciate the research involved.

Sense that the scope of your topic may have to be subdivided into eras defined by roster sizes and rule changes. Suggest pre 1929-30, 1929-30 - 1942-43 and finally the 1943-44 post red line era.

PPQBs - first three were Doug Harvey, Billy Gadsby and Red Kelly. However the PP as we know it really took off once the Canadiens played Bernie Geoffrion on the point with Doug Harvey and Jean Beliveau at center. This had the effect of expanding the extra man advantage to the full offensive zone - blaster at the point with a big center able to win faceoffs in the low slot while working the corners/behind the net. Add Maurice Richard as a freelance low sniper and Bert Olmstead working the corners and boards.

Slowly the other teams imitated but with lesser talent.

I don't think the bolded is accurate. This quote from Joe Pelletier makes it sound like Bill Quackenbush (1942-1956) and Hy Buller (1951-1954) played like modern PP pointmen.

Buller was not an aggressive defenseman, which drew comparisons to the great Bill Quackenbush.

"Sure, I'd like to see him crack (the opposition)," said his Rangers coach Frank Boucher. "But you can't have everything. Bill Quackenbush doesn't hit them either, and he's quite a defenseman. They're both exceptional stick checkers, fine stickhandlers and rushers. Buller, like Quackenbush, is very good on point in power players. He has our best shot from the blue line and can it away without a windup. The most noticeable thing about Buller is his coolness and quick thinking under fire. He'll adapt himself to any situation."

 

[overpass]

I don't think the bolded is accurate. This quote from Joe Pelletier makes it sound like Bill Quackenbush (1942-1956) and Hy Buller (1951-1954) played like modern PP pointmen.

Buller was another member of the 1953-54 Rangers power play. He scored 12 of his 17 points on the power play before the Rangers shipped him out to Saskatchewan for his replacement, Doug Bentley.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Power Plays

Max Bentley.

From Bentley's obituary:

Bentley was a power play specialist in his last season with the New York Rangers. He scored 23 of his 31 points while playing the point on the power play. (Data from the Hockey Summary Project.) During the season the Rangers brought Doug Bentley back from Saskatchewan, mostly to play the other point with Max.

Hap Day on Max and Doug in 1954:




Any comments on the contribution of the late 1940s Leafs and their "formidable power play" as described by the Gazette, with Bentley on the point? The 1953-54 Rangers with Doug and Max Bentley on the points and Camille Henry's 20 PPG would be another significant power play that came before the great Canadiens group. I realize those are before your days as a hockey observer, just wondering if you have any knowledge on how those power plays worked and how they contributed to the evolution of the tactic.

Very true about Max Bentley and the 1953-54 Rangers. Quick count of the HSP shows they scored just over 50 goals that season. They had the core unit as described and then the rest of the team chipped in - Jack Evans even had a PP goal.

Based on the coaching I received growing up in the fifties, there were two types of PPs.

The first was the traditional PP which featured an extra forward or two and was also used late in games to catch-up. This version used puck movement to work the puck down to the slot or low to the open man. Usually a center would work one of the points. My understanding was that the Leaf PP with Max Bentley at the point was very effective because the Leafs had a big center - Syl Apps was 6', 185lbs which in those days was big along with Ted Kennedy who was aggressive to the slot. The Leafs did not have a shooter from the opposite point and Max Bentley was not a shooter, so teams could collapse to the slot when defending

The second type of PP featured a shooter at one of the points. Bernie Geoffrion filled the role with the Canadiens. The difference with the Canadiens PP was that the two point men - Harvey a LHS playing the left point and Geoffrion a RHS playing the right point were excellent passers as well as shooters. As described previously this put the complete offensive zone in play for the PP. Collapsing was not nearly as effective. The other strength of the the Canadiens PP was that icing the puck exposed the opposition to the transition game generated by Harvey.

The PPQB question is interesting. Quackenbush entered the NHL before Harvey, Kelly and Gadsby but his point totals are rather low in comparison. Buller had one good season.

From the standpoint of a complete package Harvey was a level above especially at the transition element of the PP. Max Bentley was probably the best play making forward to play the point after the introduction of the Red Line but was he a complete package, able to take care of defensive responsibilities?

Leave the pre Red Line era for later.

 

[Killion]

From the standpoint of a complete package Harvey was a level above especially at the transition element of the PP. Max Bentley was probably the best play making forward to play the point after the introduction of the Red Line but was he a complete package, able to take care of defensive responsibilities?

I would assume the Dipsy Doodle Dandy of Delisle was responsible defensively, not because there are contemporaneous reports that I can find or link, but based on the way Smythe & Day approached the game, what they wanted in a player & gave up to get him. According to reports of the time, he had as many moves back then as Gretzky had, was a real artist. Interestingly, his father would every year flood a rink for Max & his brothers that was NHL sized in length, but much much narrower, which wouldve given all of the Bentley boys a leg up in the area of making fast, hard hairpin type turns going forward; better than normal abilities in terms of speed, strength & quick to almost instantaneous covertability to skating backwards. Offence to defence in the blink of an eye without losing a step in the process, never being caught back on your heels. Constant movement. Years ahead of its time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

PP Defense

I would assume the Dipsy Doodle Dandy of Delisle was responsible defensively, not because there are contemporaneous reports that I can find or link, but based on the way Smythe & Day approached the game, what they wanted in a player & gave up to get him. According to reports of the time, he had as many moves back then as Gretzky had, was a real artist. Interestingly, his father would every year flood a rink for Max & his brothers that was NHL sized in length, but much much narrower, which wouldve given all of the Bentley boys a leg up in the area of making fast, hard hairpin type turns going forward; better than normal abilities in terms of speed, strength & quick to almost instantaneous covertability to skating backwards. Offence to defence in the blink of an eye without losing a step in the process, never being caught back on your heels. Constant movement. Years ahead of its time.

The second half 40s into the 50s Hawks with Max and Doug Bentley or later with Doug were not known for defence.

The Leafs from the era with or without Max were very solid defensively. Rangers were not.

What is an interesting contrast is the Leafs approach to the PP with Conn Smythe and Punch Imlach. Once Kelly arrived and was moved to center he did not have much time on the point during the PP. They even acquired Kent Douglas, a dman who was a bit of a PP specialist.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pre Red Line Power Plays

As a starting point for the pre Red Line / Forward Pass era, took a quick look at the 1938-39 Boston Bruins via the HSP. The available data is not 100% complete but it sufficient to start an overview.

Penalty minute data for the 1938-39 season, 48 game schedule. Boston - 251, NYR - 387, Toronto - 372, NYA - 284, Detroit - 242, Canadiens - 292, Chicago - 361. Teams ranged from just over 5 MPG to just over 8 MPG. Factoring out estimated coincidental penalties, fighting majors and end of game short time, there were very few PP opportunities, app 3 per team per game.

Quick count of the Bruins showed app 12 PP goals for the season. Couple incomplete game summaries produce an estimate. Given that the full minor had to be served even if a goal was scored, this projects to under a 10% success rate. Weak by post Red Line standards.

As time and available data permits will look at other teams and seasons.

 

[nik jr]

"Ganging Attacks" Created the Red Line

All In Favor Of New Red Line At Centre Ice
(By the Canadian Press) It's just about unanimous now. Coach Frank Boucher of New York Rangers says he believes the new red line at centre ice will improve NHL competition by preventing power play tactics of previous seasons. Adding his voice to approval expressed by other NHL coaches and general managers, Boucher declares teams will forsake the shinny of corner scramble plays because attacking defence would be forced to remain behind the rival blueline. At the same time, Boucher says, pretty passing plays should be revived.

Clancy's Version
After refereeing a Boston exhibition, King Clancy put the okay on hockey's new rules. "I'd say it was the biggest change hockey ever made," he said, "and perhaps the best. That red line in centre ice and the added freedom in passing up to it from either end is bound to make the game better. It's just about certain to end a lot of that ganging into the corners."

Day's Version
Leaf's Happy Day doesn't think the rules will make much difference. "After all," says Hap, "it wasn't hard for a team to hold 6 men inside their own blue line under the old ganging play. The defending team frequently was unable to shoot the puck up ice for minutes on end; particularly when they were a man short due to a penalty. What chance would they have if they posted still another man out at centre ice for a possible pass? Even if a defending team does manage to get a pass out to centre, the pass receiver has to get the puck on his stick and get under way. His check will usually catch him before he can get going.

Wilf Cude also thought the red line would eliminate ganging.

Return To Old Fashioned Hockey Will Be Forthcoming

(UP) Better stick work and old fashioned hockey playing will result this season from the passage of a new rule by officials of the NHL and CAHA.

The new rule calls for adoption of a center line behind which the defending team can make passes without penalty. The change, advocated for some time, was designed to permit defending teams to break away from defending teams more easily, thus cutting the use of the lunging attack making it too hazardous for the offensive players.

Use of the power play, which permits several of the attacking players to go down ice and accept a long pass from a team mate, has increased to such an extent that rule makers believe it a threat to the life of Canada's national game.

Under the revised ruling, attackers will fear to venture at great length down the ice because of the possibility of being trapped out of position in case the puck is stolen by an opposing player. Thus the stick work and brilliant offensive work of the individual in getting the puck into the scoring zone will be brought forth.

The present blue lines will remain in use under the new ruling, but will not hinder the passing of a defensive player. The new center line will be designated by a 2-inch red tape through the ice.

No other rule changes were made by the NHL and CAHA rules committee, nor did the group make any predictions regarding professional and amateur hockey's future for the coming winter.

Hockey Rule Change Kills Streamlined Game

Stick-handling forwards and rock-'em sock-'em defensemen will come back into their own this winter--if there's any hockey to be had. The NHL and CAHA at their joint meeting in Toronto voted a rule change that will make streamlined, 5 man up hockey more risky than slipping a counterfeir bill to an FBI man.

Through the simple expedient of drawing a 2 inch red line across the center of center ice and permitting the defensive team to make forward passes behind it without penalty, the hockey fathers have made streamlined hockey so vulnerable to breakaways that it will be almost suicidal to play the defensemen over the new red line and thus virtually ending the new 5 men up game.

The American League, of which the (Pittsburgh) Hornets are members, was not represented at the meeting, but it is reasonable to presume that it will make the same change at its next meeting. In the past the AHL has wisely made rule changes to conform with NHL regulations.

Too Much Power Play
Passage of the new rule is a result of the extensive use of the power play, which although speeding up the game, took away the more colorful phases, such as stick-handling, checkboard passing and body-checking. Hockey purists have long lamented the decreasing use of body-checking and stickhandling. It is interesting to note that one of hockey's leading advocates of the conservative body-checking game, Mervyn (Red) Dutton, now leads the NHL. Dutton took over last winter when Frank Calder died. Dutton was one of the game's body-checking defensemen (and incidentally, penalty getters).

Reverses Trend
Until the action this week-end, every rule change in hockey had been designed to aid the offensive. 200 goals a season have become commonplace since Lester Patrick, New York Ranger pilot, demonstrated how great an offensive machine could be moulded by playing 5 men up. Only 15 years ago it was quite an accomplishment for a club to get 100 goals per season. With all forward passing prohibited, goalie George Hainsworth of Montreal once held the opposition to 43 goals in 44 games, and Alex Connell racked up 6 consecutive shutouts.

Fortunately for pro coaches, scholastic and college mentors in Canada have never ceased teaching the art of stickhandling, passing and checking, so that the youngsters coming up will be ready to step in and play the game as it was meant to be played.

note that Lester Patrick, not Art Ross, is credited with the idea of playing 5 men up.



Before the red line was introduced, Eddie Shore said about the ganging style of hockey: "It smells." Newsy Lalonde described it as "wrestling on skates."


Red Line did not stop ganging, and very soon there was much talk about removing the red line. Red line was not removed, but penalty shot lines, 15 feet from the goal mouth, which also served as icing lines, were removed and the goal line was extended to the boards. Minor penalty shot was discarded, but major penalty shot retained. Offsides now required the entire body to be across the line, not any part. Officials also tried to reduce the number of whistles and stoppages.

In 1951, CAHA changed icing rule to reduce ganging attacks. Puck had to be shot from behind the defensive blueline, not the redline.

Complaint Department
Toronto newspapers are publishing squawks of Toronto Maple Leaf officials against hockey's new red line. "It's a farce," says Manager Frank Selke, worried about declining Toronto attendance. Coach Hap Day says the new rule allowing forward passing as far as mid-ice is responsible for the "shoot and chase" play now prevalent in the NHL. The players shoot the puck into the opposition zone, then scramble madly for possession. Day says the new rule was introduced to stop ganging plays, "and look what's happened. There's more ganging than ever."

"Yesterday's pattern-passing plays were vastly more skillful than anybody is likely to see in the hit-and-miss ganging attacks of the enlightened era'" Mike (Rodden) says. "When (NHL President) Campbell says modern stickhandlers are as good as those of the past, he is talking arrogant nonsense."

Mike mentions Aurel Joliat, Harvey Jackson, Nels Stewart, George Boucher and a host of others as proof that no modern players can come close to the stickhandling greats of the past.

Rodden was a columnist and former referee.



It is an important question here how chaotic were ganging attacks. It appears that the puck often was pinned in a corner for a long time, and defenders very much struggled to clear the zone with possession. Players got injured scrumming in the corners, and goalies struggled with opponents crashing their nets, and shoving the puck in.

Another issue is whether the slower and less skilled but physical d-men who were used to just blocking opponents from getting into the zone or near the net were overwhelmed by gang attacks. Those d-men may not have been mobile enough to escape opponents, or skilled enough to pass out. And before the redline, they could not pass across the defensive blueline. Something i read mentioned the decline of the rushing d-man as a problem.

Seibert talked about point position in '42, and the Bentley's played the points, so PP's were not just crude scrums, a least not for pointmen. Most gang attacks were probably at ES, though.

I am thinking fans just got used to gang attacks. Those observers who complained about "power plays" and gang attacks probably were accustomed to hockey with much more space for maneuvering and more display of individual skills.

The Phrase "ganging attack" is still common in newspapers in the '50s, but seems much less common in '60s.


Those ganging attacks are probably found in every single game today:
crashing the net
screening and getting garbage goals
dump and chase
working the boards




Shorthanded Power Plays

NYR in '40s were apparently very aggressive on PK.

Has "Pressure Hockey" Gone a Step Further?

All of this NHL season, we have seen and heard much of "pressure hockey," the new trend of sustained offensive play that has led to so many high-scoring games, and done away with any sense of security in the matter of building up a lead of 2 or 3 goals. New York Rangers, always a free-wheeling, fast-skating and beautiful passing team, introduced stream-lined hockey as such, some years ago, and have invariably been the leading exponents of the constant attack. It is their stock in trade.

They also were the first club to develop to a high degree of efficiency, the 4 man power play when they were penalized. Instead of settling back into a defensive shell when they were a man short, the Rangers rushed to the attack and often kept the other team bottled up, despite the man power advantage it enjoyed.

This season, which has essentially been one of offensive hockey, it is appropriate that the Rangers should be leading the league with every expectation that they will finish and take the NHL title. It is the kind of hockey in which clubs like Rangers and Toronto Maple Leafs are key-noters.

that marc mcneil column is not about PK specifically, but mostly just increasing levels of offensive play.

One of Lester (Patrick)'s innovations this year has been his power play. Rangers turn on the terrific heat when they, and not the opposition, are a man short. They've scored more goals this way than the opposition scored on them during the time a Ranger served his penalty.

Another contribution to the Ranger success is what Lester calls "stream-lined" hockey. His 3 attacking lines are balanced. Only a few points separate them in the scoring records to date.

i have also read that Frank Boucher, NYR's coach at this time, also invented the PK box, so NYR had very important innovators on PK strategy.

Noranda helped matters for the Kirkland gang by picking up 2 penalties in 3 minutes. One to Gendron for using his stick like an ax, and the other to Marcotte for making love to Roche.

I think Chicago was a more conservative team on the power play in the 1930s, using only 3 or 4 forwards. Detroit was, as you say, a very strong team on the power play. During the 1933-34 playoffs (and probably during the season, judging by their point totals), the power play unit was Lewis, Weiland, Aurie, Goodfellow, and Sorrell. I read several accounts of power plays, but there was never any indication of who, if anyone, was playing the "point" position and holding the blue line. It was simply called a five man attack, if anything.

that is consistent with things i have read. another phrase for PP was "5 man attack," and "gang attack."

point position itself is an interesting subject. seibert talked about playing the point in that 1942 column, but i have not seen anything from the '30s about playing the point. some reports i have read (in mid '30s) sound like the PP was grouped around the slot. that report of 4a on a PP goal seems to indicate that that kind of passing around was unusual.

early PP's seem to have been crude, and point position may have developed over '30s as PP became more refined.


i posted in the ATD section an article about DRW's PP in the late '30s. i had originally included it here, but i thought OP was too long.

Red Wings Plan To Use Conacher As Spearhead of Power Attack

Detroit Red Wings are out to revive the power play that did a big job in their 2 marches to NHL championships and the Stanley Cup. This time, though, only 2 who were in on the play in its palmy days are still members.

"We lost too many games last year because we could not score when the other team was short-handed," Manager Jack Adams said today. "We've got to revive the power play to start winning again. There's no more effective weapon than a power play."

And the Wings power play this season will feature Ebbie Goodfellow and Herbie Lewis, veterans of the team that won the NHL championship and the Stanley Cup in 1935-36 and 1936-37. They will be supported by 3 recent acquisitions, Carl Liscombe, Alex Motter and Charlie Conacher. Conacher had the hardest shot in the league when he played for Toronto Maple Leafs. Charlie retired from hockey last year after 9 seasons with the Leafs. Now, fully recovered from a kidney ailment, he's attempting a comeback with Detroit. Adams expects Conacher to be the backbone of the Wings' attack.
"Jovial Jawn" sums up the situation like this:
"When you have a set of men who can apply the pressure, the other team doesn't play quite so hard. They want to avoid penalties. They know that losing a man is almost like giving a team a goal."

"That's the way it was from 1935 to 1937 when we had Marty Barry, Larry Aurie, Johnny Sorrell, Lewis and Goodfellow to throw in whenever the opposition was penalized. They scored 32 times on that play in 1935-36, an average of 3 goals every 2 games. Next season, it worked almost as well."

Adams said the play needed men with specialized techniques in shooting, and he believes he has them in Conacher and Goodfellow. Like the Big Bomber, Goodfellow has one of the strongest shots in the NHL.

32g in 48 games is actually 2g every 3 games, which still seems very good.

i have seen some articles in which PP used those 5 players.

i had not heard about charlie conacher's kidney problem.


in '49, bud poile (2nd all star RW) was apparently successful on PP, but was shut down along with the PP in the playoffs.

After reading the biography of Eddie Shore that recently came out, I suspect Shore had as much or more to do with power play innovations as Ross. Shore was an extremely independent character - a loner and a perfectionist, who examined and questioned everything and then did whatever he had decided was best.

Shore was an innovator in hockey tactics and training in his post-playing career in Springfield, and was probably also an innovator as a player.

I suspect Shore decided to join the attack on his own, and Ross was able to build the team's tactics around his play.

coincidentally, i was reading some of that same book on google books before i posted this thread.

if ES PP's changed hockey away from passive d-men, and if shore was central to that change, it is easier to understand why shore was such a legendary figure.



milt schmidt said that the krauts always carried the puck in, b/c art ross told his players to keep the puck and not dump it in. eddie shore apparently taught a kind of puck possession style as coach of springfield, so i wonder how that was related to how boston played on PP.

a couple of things i have read said shore shot the puck in and retrieved it, so it was not an hard rule.

Max Bentley.

From Bentley's obituary:

Bentley was a power play specialist in his last season with the New York Rangers. He scored 23 of his 31 points while playing the point on the power play. (Data from the Hockey Summary Project.) During the season the Rangers brought Doug Bentley back from Saskatchewan, mostly to play the other point with Max.

Hap Day on Max and Doug in 1954:

i had heard about the bentleys from pappyline, but i didn't think of them, since i was thinking of d-men.

do you have PP goals vs PP assists for the bentleys?

I don't think the bolded is accurate. This quote from Joe Pelletier makes it sound like Bill Quackenbush (1942-1956) and Hy Buller (1951-1954) played like modern PP pointmen.

that does not seem conclusive to me. some pointmen are shooters and some PP QB's, though a player can be both.


earl seibert may have been a QB, since he often played point on PP.

another bit i found:

But Hamill slipped in the tying goal at 17:59 on a power play set up by Doug (Bentley) and Seibert's clever passing.

Defenseman Pat Egan, standing about a foot inside the Detroit blueline, trapped an attempted Red Wing passout and let fly a long screened shot which Lumley didn't see.

that goal was scored 11s after the penalty ended, on a NYR "ganging attack."

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent

Another superb contribution nik jr. The pieces of the large puzzle are slowly coming together.

One of the more telling quotes is from the Edmonton Journal 12-31-43.

The Hap Day segment seems to suggest a link between the Red Line Rule and the introduction of the Icing Rule March 13, 1939.

Previous to the Icing Rule a defensive team could dump the puck from its own end into the oppositions corner and chase, overpowering the retreating dman with an extra man. The counters to this move would be the "ganging" phenomena described. With the touch Icing Rule this was to end in theory but without the Red Line splitting the neutral zone it had little effect. The Red Line forced teams to at least move the puck beyond the Red Line before executing the dump and chase. As Hap Day states the change to the dump and chase tactic was minimal.

The Frank Selke comment is interesting in that it reflects certain "old school" thinking specifically about the transition game. You have the Conn Smythe / Frank Selke lineage thru the coaches - Dick Irvin, Hap Day, Joe Primeau, King Clancy, Howie Meeker that featured a cool and slow adaptation to the transition game. Evidenced by the constraints Dick Irvin placed on Doug Harvey in Montreal, changed with Toe Blake, and the way the Leaf defense played post Red Line into the Punch Imlach days.

There is also an interesting sub question evolving. The authors of the articles were the "old guard" newspaper sports reporters who also voted on various awards and honours. Did their voting reflect how the game was evolving?

Will comment on the Rangers PK etc later.

 

[tarheelhockey]

[Those ganging attacks are probably found in every single game today:
crashing the net
screening and getting garbage goals
dump and chase
working the boards

That's what really strikes me about the subject as a whole. It sounds like the early founders of the game wanted to make it much more like soccer than the game we see today, with players spaced out such that 1-on-1 matchups are showcased. The rough-and-tumble elements that grated their nerves are the majority of a typical NHL game today.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Passing

That's what really strikes me about the subject as a whole. It sounds like the early founders of the game wanted to make it much more like soccer than the game we see today, with players spaced out such that 1-on-1 matchups are showcased. The rough-and-tumble elements that grated their nerves are the majority of a typical NHL game today.

Soccer allowed onside forward passing all over the field while hockey did not until 1929-30 further liberalized with the introduction of the Red Line.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lester Patrick

One of the newspaper excerpts posted by nik jy referred to Lester Patrick.

"Posted by Vancouver Sun: 1-16-1940
One of Lester (Patrick)'s innovations this year has been his power play. Rangers turn on the terrific heat when they, and not the opposition, are a man short. They've scored more goals this way than the opposition scored on them during the time a Ranger served his penalty.

Another contribution to the Ranger success is what Lester calls "stream-lined" hockey. His 3 attacking lines are balanced. Only a few points separate them in the scoring records to date."

When teams played a forward on the point in man advantage situations they were at risk in certain defensive situations because the forward playing the point did not have the experience of a defenseman. This could be exploited to create scoring chances for the PK team.

Two examples.

In their defensive zone the PK team would target the lone defenseman. The idea was to trap him at the blueline and create a two on one or one on one where the forward playing the point was the only player between the attack and his goal.

Dumping the puck down ice was not a random act. The idea was to dump the puck to the corner where the point forward had to retrieve the puck the way a dman normally would. With little experience handling the situation the point forward was vulnerable to an aggressive forecheck with possible turnovers producing scoring opportunities.

The three balanced forward lines became the goal of many teams. The 40s dynasty Leafs, the 60s multiple cup winning Canadiens and Leaf did not produce any Art Ross trophy winners. Offensively they ranked at the top.

 

[Beef Invictus]

This thread is awesome.

 

[overpass]

i had heard about the bentleys from pappyline, but i didn't think of them, since i was thinking of d-men.

do you have PP goals vs PP assists for the bentleys?

I have the stats from 1952-53 on.

1952-53: Max had 4 G, 5 A.
1953-54: Max had 9 G, 14 A. Doug had 0 G, 8 A.

Looks like Max, at least, was a threat to score.

PP stats for defencemen in the 1950s:

Red Kelly
1952-53: 4 G, 12 A
1953-54: 5 G, 9 A
1954-55: 6 G, 7 A
1955-56: 10 G, 18 A
1956-57: 6 G, 11 A
1957-58: 3 G, 5 A
1958-59: 1 G, 2 A

I'm pretty sure I've read that Kelly played forward on the PP, at least some of the time. His PPG totals compared to other defencemen would support that.

Hy Buller
1952-53: 0 G, 9 A
1953-54: 1 G, 11 A

Bill Quackenbush
1952-53: 0 G, 3 A
1953-54: 0 G, 11 A
1954-55: 0 G, 6 A
1955-56: 0 G, 8 A

Doug Harvey
1952-53: 2 G, 18 A
1953-54: 2 G, 11 A
1954-55: 3 G, 23 A
1955-56: 1 G, 25 A
1956-57: 2 G, 24 A
1957-58: 4 G, 15 A
1958-59: 2 G, 5 A

Allan Stanley
1952-53: 1 G, 7 A
1953-54: 0 G, 1 A
1954-55: 2 G, 7 A
1955-56: 1 G, 6 A
1956-57: 3 G, 10 A
1957-58: 0 G, 5 A

Bill Gadsby
1952-53: 0 G, 6 A
1953-54: 4 G, 5 A
1954-55: 2 G, 4 A
1955-56: 3 G, 20 A
1956-57: 0 G, 15 A
1957-58: 7 G, 14 A

Jimmy Thomson
1952-53: 0 G, 9 A
1953-54: 0 G, 8 A
Rest of career: 0 G, 0 A

 

[Canadiens1958]

I have the stats from 1952-53 on.

1952-53: Max had 4 G, 5 A.
1953-54: Max had 9 G, 14 A. Doug had 0 G, 8 A.

Looks like Max, at least, was a threat to score.

PP stats for defencemen in the 1950s:

Red Kelly
1952-53: 4 G, 12 A
1953-54: 5 G, 9 A
1954-55: 6 G, 7 A
1955-56: 10 G, 18 A
1956-57: 6 G, 11 A
1957-58: 3 G, 5 A
1958-59: 1 G, 2 A

I'm pretty sure I've read that Kelly played forward on the PP, at least some of the time. His PPG totals compared to other defencemen would support that.

Hy Buller
1952-53: 0 G, 9 A
1953-54: 1 G, 11 A

Bill Quackenbush
1952-53: 0 G, 3 A
1953-54: 0 G, 11 A
1954-55: 0 G, 6 A
1955-56: 0 G, 8 A

Doug Harvey
1952-53: 2 G, 18 A
1953-54: 2 G, 11 A
1954-55: 3 G, 23 A
1955-56: 1 G, 25 A
1956-57: 2 G, 24 A
1957-58: 4 G, 15 A
1958-59: 2 G, 5 A

Allan Stanley
1952-53: 1 G, 7 A
1953-54: 0 G, 1 A
1954-55: 2 G, 7 A
1955-56: 1 G, 6 A
1956-57: 3 G, 10 A
1957-58: 0 G, 5 A

Bill Gadsby
1952-53: 0 G, 6 A
1953-54: 4 G, 5 A
1954-55: 2 G, 4 A
1955-56: 3 G, 20 A
1956-57: 0 G, 15 A
1957-58: 7 G, 14 A

Jimmy Thomson
1952-53: 0 G, 9 A
1953-54: 0 G, 8 A
Rest of career: 0 G, 0 A

Great data overpass. You can see the ebb and flow of careers, the impact of trades - Gadsby to the Rangers. Do you have the PPGF data to give an overview to the data?

 

[tarheelhockey]

This thread is awesome.

Yes, it definitely is

One item of possible interest here is that the term "power play" also came into common use in American football during the same time period that it was introduced in hockey. I have seen it in a newspaper article from 1930, but it's a safe bet it was being used earlier than that to describe a play where the offense outnumbers the defense at the line of scrimmage. And it wasn't just a "power" play as in current usage -- it was called a "power play", both words.

Also, just a couple of scraps from the Chicago Tribune that may be of interest to those researching the subject.

December 24, 1933

Late in the [first] period the Bruins threw four men in a power play, leaving Dit Clapper alone on defense. Lamb carried into the Chicago zone and Conacher, after stopping his advance, got off to a flying start and beat the Bostonians back to their one. The big defenseman passed to Lolo Couture after entering Boston territory. The latter passed to Johnny Gottselig, and Gottselig scored.

March 7, 1934

The Hawks have had two days of drills in which a new power play calculated to produce more scoring was evolved by Manager Gorman.

March 31, 1934

(a recap of the Wings beating the Leafs for the Cup)

Goodfellow's [Cup-winning] goal was scored with the Wings' famous "power play". Herbie Lewis raced into a corner, passed to Johnny Sorrell, and he laid the puck on Goodfellow's stick about 6 feet out from the net. Goodfellow's shot got the high far corner perfectly and George Hainsworth, Leaf goalie, was beaten cleanly.

Interestingly enough, the term "power play" in the hockey sense is completely absent from the Tribune until November 1933, when it was used by a writer named Edward Burns to describe a bullrush to the net by Art Coulter (ie, a powerful play). The first reference to a coordinated power play is in December (quoted above) by an anonymous writer, and it was around 1936-37 that it started popping up frequently in hockey articles.

For reference, the first hockey use of "power play" in the New York Times is on 3/29/33 and in that instance and for many years afterward it only appears in Associated Press articles. I don't know if the connotations of AP articles were the same back then, but today it would imply they weren't written in-house so it's hard to identify whether it was being used locally.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting

Yes, it definitely is

One item of possible interest here is that the term "power play" also came into common use in American football during the same time period that it was introduced in hockey. I have seen it in a newspaper article from 1930, but it's a safe bet it was being used earlier than that to describe a play where the offense outnumbers the defense at the line of scrimmage. And it wasn't just a "power" play as in current usage -- it was called a "power play", both words.

Interesting football comparable - when did the power sweep originate?

 

[Killion]

Interesting football comparable - when did the power sweep originate?

I dont know, and tarheels over on the boh board drinking bourbon so he may be awhile, incoherent when he arrives... I believe the term "power sweep" is also known as "student-body-left" (or right) which leads me to believe it has its roots in College Ball... Other football terms, like Smash Mouth, adopted by a pretty decent band btw, have absolutely no affinity nor correlation to hockey as you are only too well aware Im sure...

 

[dbr2]

Could we do one of these for the PK too?

Nice work.

 

[overpass]

Both nik and tarheelhockey have quoted a recap of a 1934 Detroit playoff game from the Border Cities Star. This paper published detailed recaps of all Detroit playoff games in 1934 and they can be found in the Google News Archive. Those recaps include descriptions of most power plays, including the best chances and goals.

Detroit invariably used their "five-man attack" or "five-man power attack" of Goodfellow, Sorrell, Lewis, Aurie, Weiland. Toronto also used five forwards, playing Cotton, Blair, Doraty, Conacher, and Primeau. (Jackson had a shoulder injury and only played sparingly. At one point he jumped on for Cotton after the first half minute of the PP was a scramble.)

No mention of who was playing where, but one can deduce some things from descriptions of play. Goodfellow is described as shooting or driving the net for a shot several times, so that may have been a play they looked for, as he had a powerful shot. On two instances where opponents picked off a pass across the top of the zone, Aurie was the passer or the target. Maybe Aurie was on the point? Lewis and Sorrell each crashed the net for rebounds at different times. For Toronto, the tiny Ken Doraty scored a pair of PP goals around the net on rebounds or tap-ins, and he seems to have been around the net a lot. A precursor to Camille Henry?

In the final, Chicago "sent out the orthodox three forwards and two defencemen." They used their first line of Thompson-Romnes-March. The d-men were not named. Maybe they didn't join the attack?

 

[overpass]

I found an early mention of five forwards on the ice for a power play.

From the Montreal Gazette, March 29, 1930. The context is a playoff game, Montreal Canadiens vs New York Rangers.

Rangers tried the Maroons' trick of putting on five forwards when Canadiens were a man short at the start of the overtime. But as two of them stayed mostly on the defense the effect was not obvious and Hainsworth was not greatly troubled.

It's interesting that it was called a "trick", suggesting that it was a fairly new innovation as of 1930. And the fact that the trick was attributed to the Maroons gives us an idea of where the innovation started.

The five man power play seems to have still been a work in progress, as it mentions that two of the forwards still remained "mostly on the defense."

The 1929-30 season was the first in which forward passing was permitted inside the offensive zone, so it would make sense that the five man attack started during that season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Great find!

Dunc Munro was player-coach for that Maroons team. As a defenseman, it seems odd that he would invent a strategy of getting himself off the ice during scoring opportunities.

 

[overpass]

To follow up on my earlier post, I checked out the game recap of a Montreal Maroons game from 1930. Specifically, their first playoff game against Boston.

Montreal Gazette, March 24, 1930:

Right after this goal (ed: a man advantage goal by Hooley Smith from Nels Stewart), the Maroon bench seeing a ray of hope burst through the already thick clouds of imminent defeat, did a bit of desperate master-minding. Five forwards were thrown into the fray, and all five swept to the attack, leaving nobody to guard Walsh. Stewart, Dave Trottier, Hooley Smith, Bill Phillips, and Jimmy Ward were the wing men in action. Encouraged by the one goal, the Maroons' rally became even more intense.

The master-minding brought immediate results. From out of a mass of players bunched around the Boston goal-mouth, Nels Stewart got a pass from Dave Trottier. The big centre made no mistake this time, and Thompson was not left with an earthly chance to save. Stewart was almost on top of him.

But "in the dying minutes of the game"...

Weiland got away, and Walsh had no one in front of him. Maroons had thrown caution to the winds, taken every chance; they came close and then lost out. As Weiland swung down the ice, the Montrealers last hopes went with him. Walsh saw a long chance of preventing the almost certain goal, and took it by coming out a long way out of his net in an attempt to check Weiland himself. Dit Clapper, however, tore in from behind on Weiland's left and, outstripping following Maroon checks, took Cooney's pass to coast in on an empty net and fire the puck into it.

Another summary of the game put it this way, giving us some times for the events.

...and with eight minutes to go Coach Laflamme put on five forwards. With five minutes to go Montreal scored, and the rooters, already on their feet, maintained one incessant roar from then to the end in as thrilling a match as has been seen for some time."

In this case the five man attack was not on a man advantage, but an attempt to come back from a 3-1 deficit with eight minutes left in the third period of a playoff game.

This game took place in Montreal just six days before the Gazette writer wrote of the Rangers trying the "Maroons' trick of putting on five forwards." It's likely that the writer of the latter article, C.H. Peters, was referring to the Maroons' comeback attempt listed here.

And that comeback attempt was probably not the origin of the five-man attack. Regular season Maroon game summaries are not as detailed as the playoff writeups, but of their January 9 game against the Rangers it says "Bill Phillips broke away from (the Rangers') closing five-man attack long enough to tally what proved to be the deciding goal."

I checked the game recaps of Montreal playoff games in the Gazette in 1927 and 1928, but found no mention of five-man attacks or any indication that more than three players at a time were in the attack. It seems likely that the new rules of 1929-30 made a five-man attack possible, whether it was with a man advantage or while trying to tie the game at the end.

The sense I get is that five-man attacks were seen as a bit risky - almost like pulling the goalie today, although not to that extent. With the changing rules, defencemen probably weren't used to defending the rush all the way back from the opposing blue line, and goalies weren't used to seeing opposing players coming in on clear breakaways with no defenders standing in the way.