Best single-season team?

[Canadiens1958]

Your Challenge

Please illustrate which teams were affected by player losses. Of the 25 players who played regularly in the PCHA in 1913/14, by my count all but three of them also played regularly in 1914/15.

The three who did not were Sibby Nichol, George Rochon and Allan Parr. If you're unfamiliar with these three, only Nichol was really a significant player. And he didn't join the military until 1917; he missed the 1914/15 season for another reason which I'm not sure of. SIHR has no record of the other two being due to military service, either.

Nothing can be attributed to wartime player losses that year, because there were no wartime player losses in the PCHA that year.

Attributing every difference in performance to rule changes also ignores normal variations in player performances etc., especially over the short seasons they played at the time.

At this point no one else has to do anything. No one else has to submit any thing. Your position has a very serious challenge that unless the sun starts rising in the west you will never overcome.

Change the cause from injury to military service to explain the loss of Maurice Richard by the Canadiens during the 1942-43 season. Would the change in cause impact in anyway the way dominoes fall?

Good luck.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

All-Star teams. No evidence has ever been submitted to suggest that an All-Star under one set of rules is guaranteed to be an All Star under different rules and resulting strategies.

Four of the six First-Team All-Stars from 1942/43 repeated as First-Team All-Stars in 1943/44. The only two that didn't were in military service.

Great players are lost and replaced from season to season, or within season,for various reasons and the link to team performance is never guaranteed.

This is true. But from 1942/43 to 1943/44 there was a mass exodus of players to military service. It was by no means the normal attrition of players that happens from year to year. The champion team lost half of its roster, all at once. Denying that this massive loss of players, many of them star players, would have a significant impact on the quality of the league is, you guessed it, nutty. It might also be quaint, I'm not sure.

What if in today's NHL, the top 15 goaltenders suddenly disappeared? You don't think that would significantly impact the overall quality of play?

The Canadiens would not have performed differently nor would the composition or performance or the results generated by the rest of the league be different.

But this isn't about the Canadiens being on top of the league that year. It's about their season in a historical context. It's about considering the strength of the opposition they played against.

Unless you are claiming and can prove that the Canadiens team performance and the rest of the resulting, performances throughout the league from players to team to league levels would have changed in any fashion by changing the loss of Maurice Richard from injury to military service the you should never again qualify another opinion as nutty.

Talking about a single player is a red herring. We're talking about the losses of many players, far more than would ever be expected in the course of a normal season. There will always be injuries and attrition, players aging and retiring and so forth. But an exceptionally large number of players, many in their primes, suddenly vanished from NHL rosters, hitting some teams far harder than others. But regardless of which teams were hit the hardest, the quality of play in the league dropped. This is important when looking at the season from a historical perspective.

No doubt that WWII removed players but the net loss or gain to a team may be replicated in different eras, different teams, different players.

Yes, but we're not talking about individual teams alone. We're talking about the overall quality of the league, which changed significantly from one year to the next due to a massive loss of quality players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Whatever the causes, the NHL in 43-44 was absolute crap because of the war. No way should a team from the depleted War Years be considered a candidate for best ever.

The 55-56 Canadiens though: 45-15-10 for 100 points over a strong league.

Olmstead - Beliveau - Geoffrion
Moore - Richard - Richard

up front

Harvey and Tom Johnson on D

Plante in net

all relatively healthy

 

[Iain Fyffe]

At this point no one else has to do anything. No one else has to submit any thing.

You're free to refuse to support your assertions.

But when you make an unsupported assertion (that wartime player losses affected a 1914/15 PHCA team, when in fact the PCHA had precisely zero player losses to the military that year), don't expect them to stand on their own.

Your position has a very serious challenge that unless the sun starts rising in the west you will never overcome.

How quaint.

Change the cause from injury to military service to explain the loss of Maurice Richard by the Canadiens during the 1942-43 season. Would the change in cause impact in anyway the way dominoes fall?

It doesn't matter, because I'm not talking about only the Montreal Canadiens but the league as a whole, so focusing on a single player is irrelevant. It's the sum total effect of all of the player losses to the military that matters.

If the Red Wings had lost half of their entire roster to injury, if the NHL had lost its three best goaltenders to injury, all at the same time and for several years each, maybe your comparison would work. But nothing of the sort happened, or has ever happened.

 

[SirKillalot]

In newer time: 2008 Red Wings.

Don't know how many games they were out-shot? There weren't a lot of games. Month of february maybe.

Favorites all season, every game. Winning the Cup.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Whatever the causes, the NHL in 43-44 was absolute crap because of the war. No way should a team from the depleted War Years be considered a candidate for best ever.

I can't agree with this. While you have to consider the effect of playing against a lower quality of competition, you can't just write teams off because of it. The Canadiens were so good in 1943/44
that they have to be considered, regardless of the lower quality of league play.

Including playoffs, the Habs played .839 hockey that year. That's a remarkable number, even placed in the context of the wartime years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can't agree with this. While you have to consider the effect of playing against a lower quality of competition, you can't just write teams off because of it. The Canadiens were so good in 1943/44
that they have to be considered, regardless of the lower quality of league play.


Including playoffs, the Habs played .839 hockey that year. That's a remarkable number, even placed in the context of the wartime years.

They amassed a great record playing 5 teams full of minor leaguers and aging players.

You showed yourself how the Canadiens kept virtually all of their talent, while the test of the league was decimated. It was due to a deliberate strategy of Canadiens management to keep their players out of the war effort based on technicalities and has been well documented.

look at the Hart trophy voting in 43-44: nobody in the top 5 was under 27 years old.

Look at how leaguewide scoring ballooned in 43-44, as most teams (but not Montreal) lost their starting goalies.

The league was crap in 43-44. Montreal was a good NHL club playing in a league where every other club had a team that was half made of players who should have been in the minors.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

They amassed a great record playing 5 teams full of minor leaguers and aging players.

You showed yourself how the Canadiens kept virtually all of their talent, while the test of the league was decimated."

I also showed that four of the First-Team All-Stars were still in the league. Many high-quality players were gone, but many remained.

I just don't think "crap" is a fair description.

Look at how leaguewide scoring ballooned in 43-44, as most teams (but not Montreal) lost their starting goalies.

The scoring jump can't be attributed solely to the player losses, because there were also rule changes. Montreal actually did lose their starting goalie (loaned to another team); they just replaced him with Bill Durnan.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Misrepresentation

You're free to refuse to support your assertions.

But when you make an unsupported assertion (that wartime player losses affected a 1914/15 PHCA team, when in fact the PCHA had precisely zero player losses to the military that year), don't expect them to stand on their own.


How quaint.


It doesn't matter, because I'm not talking about only the Montreal Canadiens but the league as a whole, so focusing on a single player is irrelevant. It's the sum total effect of all of the player losses to the military that matters.

If the Red Wings had lost half of their entire roster to injury, if the NHL had lost its three best goaltenders to injury, all at the same time and for several years each, maybe your comparison would work. But nothing of the sort happened, or has ever happened.

Clearly stated that the 1914-15 Vancouver Millionaires did not suffer player roster loses due to WWI. How you interpret others is selective and quaint. Scotty Davidson, an NHA player enlisted in 1914 as did other players from the east. The resulting fall of dominoes impacts thru the NHA on winners and who goes out west to play Vancouver.

You will never prove the challenge before you by misrepresenting others.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We can argue semantics and debate the meaning of the word "crap" all you want, but there is no question that the NHL was weaker in 43-44 and 44-45 than at any time in it's history since the last major western league folded in the late 20s.

And we know for a fact that the Canadiens were affected by the war far less than the other 5 teams. So why is it historically impressive that they dominated these two seasons? (at least in the regular season, they managed to lose to the better-coached Maple Leafs in 1944-45 in the playoffs).

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Clearly stated that the 1914-15 Vancouver Millionaires did not suffer player roster loses due to WWI. How you interpret others is selective and quaint. Scotty Davidson, an NHA player enlisted in 1914 as did other players from the east. The resulting fall of dominoes impacts thru the NHA on winners and who goes out west to play Vancouver.

You attempted to relate the 1914/15 PCHA season to the 1943/44 season, because both had rule changes and military service player losses. But they didn't have any player losses.

As for eastern players, you got Davidson. There was Steve Vair, as well, I believe he went into the military in 1914 or 1915. Who else? You're not even close to matching the degree of 1943/44 player losses yet. Perhaps around 1917 you could, but you brought up 1914/15.

You still haven't supported your assertion. You provided one player, and I just gave you another. Who are the others?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

And we know for a fact that the Canadiens were affected by the war far less than the other 5 teams. So why is it historically impressive that they dominated these two seasons? (at least in the regular season, they managed to lose to the better-coached Maple Leafs in 1944-45 in the playoffs).

Because of the degree of domination. If they're an .830 team in wartime, maybe they'd be a .730 team in another year? That's why they should be considered. We can't ignore the performance, we just have to place it into the proper context.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Changed

We can argue semantics and debate the meaning of the word "crap" all you want, but there is no question that the NHL was weaker in 43-44 and 44-45 than at any time in it's history since the last major western league folded in the late 20s.

And we know for a fact that the Canadiens were affected by the war far less than the other 5 teams. So why is it historically impressive that they dominated these two seasons? (at least in the regular season, they managed to lose to the better-coached Maple Leafs in 1944-45 in the playoffs).

The only valid explanation is that the league changed. Rule changes regardless of any other factors also shift competitive balances and are never subjective to semantic or definition arguments.

The WWII argument cannot be substantiated in the least as I have shown. How people adapt to and counter rule or other changes is an independent subject.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Irrelevent

You attempted to relate the 1914/15 PCHA season to the 1943/44 season, because both had rule changes and military service player losses. But they didn't have any player losses.

As for eastern players, you got Davidson. There was Steve Vair, as well, I believe he went into the military in 1914 or 1915. Who else? You're not even close to matching the degree of 1943/44 player losses yet. Perhaps around 1917 you could, but you brought up 1914/15.

You still haven't supported your assertion. You provided one player, and I just gave you another. Who are the others?

Irrelevent as death has the same impact whether it is from reason A or B.

Stop wasting time and trying to divert attention from the challenge that has been presented to you.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because of the degree of domination. If they're an .830 team in wartime, maybe they'd be a .730 team in another year? That's why they should be considered. We can't ignore the performance, we just have to place it into the proper context.

they were .500 in 42-43 and .620 in 45-46 in years when they faced somewhat decent competition.

Edit: I realize that Maurice Richard wasn't yet a factor in 42-43, but why did Montreal's record drop back down into the range of normal when the competition got most of their players back in 45-46?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The WWII argument cannot be substantiated in the least as I have shown.

Really? You haven't provided anything but words. I estimate about a 1.6% chance that no one has studied this issue before, but I'll go ahead and give a quick go.

League scoring increased by 13% in 1943/44. Using Hockey Reference's Adjusted Points to (approximately) correct for the effect of increased scoring across the league, which is due solely to rule changes (according to you), we can compare players who played in the league in both seasons. If players who stayed in the league saw their Adjusted Points (per game) increase, then that would suport the idea that the league was of a lower quality, overall.

It does not provide definitive proof, because it's a simple study, and the precise amount of the change is not easy to quantify. However, it's a data point that will have to be explained if you want to claim that no change occurred.

I note 30 forwards who played regularly in both 1942/43 and 1943/44. 18 of the 30 saw their Adjusted Points rates increase, and and 3 of the 12 whose rates technically decreased did so by tiny amounts (2% or less). The average change in their per-game Adjusted Points rates is an increase of 15%, which is greater than the increase in league scoring that you attribute solely to rule changes. This implies that they were playing against a somewhat lower quality of competition.

This difference likely results partly from increased playing time (implying a lower average quality of teammate) and partly from a reduced quality of play of the opponents on the ice.

You can hypothesize that it just so happened that the military was much more likely to take a player whose style would have been hurt by the rule changes, but that would be an extraordinary claim that would require evidence behind it.

Edit: The average age of these forwards is 28.3, by the way, even with two 18-year-olds in the mix. So they're not at the age where we would expect to see increases in scoring rates. Indeed, we would likely expect small decreases.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

they were .500 in 42-43 and .620 in 45-46 in years when they faced somewhat decent competition.

Edit: I realize that Maurice Richard wasn't yet a factor in 42-43, but why did Montreal's record drop back down into the range of normal when the competition got most of their players back in 45-46?

Could be a number of things; just because a team might go .750 in one year doesn't mean they'll necessarily do it again two years later.

Adding Durnan and a full season from Richard were obviously big deals in 43/44.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Irrelevent as death has the same impact whether it is from reason A or B.

Huh? How the player disappears from the roster is irrelevant; it's the number of quality players disappearing all at once that matters, in a historical context.

In 1914/15, there were precisely two players that disappeared for reasons other than normal attrition. That is not remotely comparable to the situation in 1943/44. It's barely more than you'd expect from normal attrition, and is probably less than the attrition you get in many seasons.

Stop wasting time and trying to divert attention from the challenge that has been presented to you.

What challenge? I've provided both a detailed list of unusual player losses and a rough mathematical analysis that both suggest the quality of play dropped in 1943/44.

Can you provide something other than conjecture in response?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Irrelevent

Really? You haven't provided anything but words. I estimate about a 1.6% chance that no one has studied this issue before, but I'll go ahead and give a quick go.

League scoring increased by 13% in 1943/44. Using Hockey Reference's Adjusted Points to (approximately) correct for the effect of increased scoring across the league, which is due solely to rule changes (according to you), we can compare players who played in the league in both seasons. If players who stayed in the league saw their Adjusted Points (per game) increase, then that would suport the idea that the league was of a lower quality, overall.

It does not provide definitive proof, because it's a simple study, and the precise amount of the change is not easy to quantify. However, it's a data point that will have to be explained if you want to claim that no change occurred.

I note 30 forwards who played regularly in both 1942/43 and 1943/44. 18 of the 30 saw their Adjusted Points rates increase, and and 3 of the 12 whose rates technically decreased did so by tiny amounts (2% or less). The average change in their per-game Adjusted Points rates is an increase of 15%, which is greater than the increase in league scoring that you attribute solely to rule changes. This implies that they were playing against a somewhat lower quality of competition.

This difference likely results partly from increased playing time (implying a lower average quality of teammate) and partly from a reduced quality of play of the opponents on the ice.

You can hypothesize that it just so happened that the military was much more likely to take a player whose style would have been hurt by the rule changes, but that would be an extraordinary claim that would require evidence behind it.

Irrelevent.

Maurice Richard missed the a good part of the 1942-43 season. Show that any team,player or league results results or statistices change at all if the reason why he missed the time Maurice Richard did changes from injury to military service.

1943-44 season. If you were to prepare a list of NHL players or projected players who did not appear or missed time with a reason beside the name of each.Then change the reason while keeping the exact same players and circumstances throughout the league, all the results stay the same.

It does not matter either individually or in any combination why players missed time. Syl Apps missing the exact same amount of time in the same context has the same impact whether it is for one or another reason or multiple reasons. No difference in any of the results.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Maurice Richard missed the a good part of the 1942-43 season. Show that any team,player or league results results or statistices change at all if the reason why he missed the time Maurice Richard did changes from injury to military service.

That's not remotely what I'm saying.

I fully agree that the reason a particular player misses time is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with individual players and the reasons they miss time.

This has to do with the massive number of players missing time all at once. The reason is military service, but that's irrelevant. The relevant fact is that a huge number of players, players in their primes, missed several full years of play all at the same time. A number far greater than you get from normal attrition such as injury.

You have the 1942/43 season, and then you take away a very significant number of its better players all at once. This is the 1943/44 season. Some of the replacements that come in are also quality players, but most of them are career minor-leaguers, players who would not be playing in the NHL otherwise, without this unusual mass exodus of quality players.

Syl Apps missing the exact same amount of time in the same context has the same impact whether it is for one or another reason or multiple reasons.

That's right. But it's not Syl Apps, or Maurice Richard. It's Apps and Bentley and Brimsek and Broda and Mowers and Abel and Patrick and so on and so on, all at once.

You expect a certain amount of injury and attrition every year. The amount of attrition between the 1942/43 and 1943/44 seasons was enormous relative to these normal expectations. It so happens this was because of the war, but if instead a huge chunk of the league broke their legs all at once, the effect would be the same: an immediate decrease in the quality of play, because many of the best players are no longer available.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

they were .500 in 42-43 and .620 in 45-46 in years when they faced somewhat decent competition.

Edit: I realize that Maurice Richard wasn't yet a factor in 42-43, but why did Montreal's record drop back down into the range of normal when the competition got most of their players back in 45-46?

Wait, don't you mean their record jumped back up into the "normal range" (.500 -> .620)? In any event, I'm more inclined to chalk that up to the difference between starting a young (and not so good) Bibeault in '42/43, while in '45/46 he was on the bench with Durnan playing.

In any event, as much as I thought I was at least familiar with the ins and outs of this, I'm now fairly convinced that I'd be well-served picking up some books such as John Chi-Kit Wong’s "Coast to coast: hockey in Canada to the Second World War", particularly the Everett Ross feature “Arenas of Debate: The Continuance of Professional Hockey in the Second World War”, before participating too much in this tangent of the discussion.

I mean, Canadians were being enlisted as early as '39 (obviously), and I now find it interesting, having noted the Canadiens' yearly record, that they had their worst record then, but were building back up toward the '44 Cup steadily in the mean time. I'm also aware of military hockey teams being formed, and "masses" of players (including guys like Turk Broda - so there's at least one other team, Toronto, who can claim to have been majorly affected in '43/44) who jumped at the chance to earn a paycheck playing for them (on top of their NHL salaries, apparently) while also avoiding overseas conscription. Apparently 40 NHL players returned from the war/service for the '45/46 season (in a 6 team league I guess that's "massive"), and while the Habs weren't able to duplicate their 0.800 records of the two years previous, they were still able to win the Cup that year. I'd really like to see that list of 40 players right now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wait, don't you mean their record jumped back up into the "normal range" (.500 -> .620)? In any event, I'm more inclined to chalk that up to the difference between starting a young (and not so good) Bibeault in '42/43, while in '45/46 he was on the bench with Durnan playing.

In any event, as much as I thought I was at least familiar with the ins and outs of this, I'm now fairly convinced that I'd be well-served picking up some books such as John Chi-Kit Wong’s "Coast to coast: hockey in Canada to the Second World War", particularly the Everett Ross feature “Arenas of Debate: The Continuance of Professional Hockey in the Second World Warâ€, before participating too much in this tangent of the discussion.

I mean, Canadians were being enlisted as early as '39 (obviously), and I now find it interesting, having noted the Canadiens' yearly record, that they had their worst record then, but were building back up toward the '44 Cup steadily in the mean time. I'm also aware of military hockey teams being formed, and "masses" of players (including guys like Turk Broda - so there's at least one other team, Toronto, who can claim to have been majorly affected in '43/44) who jumped at the chance to earn a paycheck playing for them (on top of their NHL salaries, apparently) while also avoiding overseas conscription. Apparently 40 NHL players returned from the war/service for the '45/46 season (in a 6 team league I guess that's "massive"), and while the Habs weren't able to duplicate their 0.800 records of the two years previous, they were still able to win the Cup that year. I'd really like to see that list of 40 players right now.

Back down to a record you would see from a good team in a normal year, not the absurd >.800 records the Canadiens put up against garbage competition in the two worst war years.

You might be interested in arrbez's study of the war years:

https://spreadsheets0.google.com/sp...7edGdqV2RMYnBWTzVKRVFYQzI5TlVaalE&output=html

he lists every player who left to fight in the war from each O6 team. The NY / Brooklyn Americans, who were the last team to fold before the war are omitted, buy their only "relevant" players to miss time were Chuck Rayner and Ken Mosdell, I believe.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Back down to a record you would see from a good team in a normal year, not the absurd >.800 records the Canadiens put up against garbage competition in the two worst war years.

You might be interested in arrbez's study of the war years:

https://spreadsheets0.google.com/sp...7edGdqV2RMYnBWTzVKRVFYQzI5TlVaalE&output=html

he lists every player who left to fight in the war from each O6 team. The NY / Brooklyn Americans, who were the last team to fold before the war are omitted, buy their only "relevant" players to miss time were Chuck Rayner and Ken Mosdell, I believe.

Do we know that all of these guys missed time due to service (and perhaps just as importantly, whether they came back to the league or not), or were these simply names that were there one year, and not in another (retirement, demotion, etc)? Just want to double-check that, since there are obviously more than 40 highlighted names in the '45 column, and yet it's my understanding that no "stars" lost their lives in combat. Part of me is also wondering how many guys left and didn't come back afterwards, and how many would have been close to retirement, etc. anyway, and shouldn't really contribute that strongly to our idea of "tainted" level of talent (as a younger player brought in to replace them might have even had "more impact").

Obviously most of that can be researched/checked on my own time.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You might be interested in arrbez's study of the war years:

https://spreadsheets0.google.com/sp...7edGdqV2RMYnBWTzVKRVFYQzI5TlVaalE&output=html

This is a pretty good illustration, and points out that there's more to consider than just 1943 to 1944. Between 1941/42 and 1942/43 there were more player losses, which means that the drop in quality between 41/42 and 43/44 is even larger than the one discussed above.

 

[Fleuryoutside29]

I think the 96 Colorado Avalanche should be considered. They had forsberg, sakic, roy, foote, Ozolinsh, Deadmarsh, and Kamensky. Most of these players were young and they all had great years to lead the Avalanche to the stanley cup.