Dishing the Dirt

Habsfan18

The Hockey Library
May 13, 2003
30,614
8,625
Ontario
Just thought this was a neat little piece in a February 1949 issue of The Hockey News. Nothing ground-breaking here, just thought it may be a fun read and of interest to some posters here.

Charlie Querrie had watched essentially every single Toronto home-game involving a professional club since 1912.

94DDF316-3F0E-4784-B257-E270CDED163C.jpeg


Says Howie Morenz is the greatest he ever saw. “He had fire and dash and he could lift a team. Those qualities will do in any era under any set of rules.”

G - Charlie Gardiner
D - Eddie Shore
D - King Clancy
LW - Busher Jackson/Reg Noble
C - Howie Morenz
RW - Bill Cook
 
  • Like
Reactions: tinyzombies

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,902
3,557
Edmonton
Surprising he considers Gardiner the originator of flailing around on your knees/the ground

I thought Benedict did that most notably. "Prayin Benny" because he always dropped to his knees
 

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,902
3,557
Edmonton
Found out I had access through my library to Calgary Herald, casting a net looking for more Taylor info. Found this interesting nugget

upload_2021-1-18_18-45-39.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-1-18_18-44-23.png
    upload_2021-1-18_18-44-23.png
    22 KB · Views: 2

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,902
3,557
Edmonton
I have found a newspaper from 1918 that declares that Frank Patrick and the PCHA were going to abolish the rover the following season. This is the only time I've ever seen this referenced, does anyone have any more information?

upload_2021-1-18_19-11-58.png


I've been trying to figure out more on the usage of the rover since finding this old article from Ian Fyfe, where he talks about a drop in points scored by rovers in 1918-19, corresponding with Taylor's switch from rover to center. This is one of the few references I've found to date about the Patricks even considering removing it.

Ian Fyfe's article "The Changing Role of the Rover" - I've lost the link but I saved a copy of the text to work
Some of you have probably heard of the old rover position in hockey. In the early years of the game, a hockey team played with seven men on the ice at a time, rather than the six they do now. Typically called a “fourth forward”, the rover lined up behind the center, off to one side. The National Hockey Association (the direct predecessor to the National Hockey League) did away with the seventh man in 1911—a motion which at first met with some resistance, but passed when certain owners noted they could save money on salaries with one less man to pay. Hockey's second major league at the time, the Pacific Coast Hockey Association (PCHA), kept the seventh man until 1922, when it merged with the third major league, the Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL).
Some of hockey's earliest pure scorers played the rover position. If you're not familiar with players like Russell Bowie or Fred Taylor, educate yourselves. Of course, not all of the best scorers in those days played rover, some were centers such as Frank McGee or Ernie Russell or Marty Walsh or Newsy Lalonde. Herb Jordan, a gifted scorer and likely one of the best players not in the Hall of Fame, alternated between center and rover, as did Lorne Campbell. Overall, center is more represented among the best scorers of the day. But clearly, at least in the early days of the game, the rover was an offensive position, and was counted on to score goals—perhaps not quite to the same extent as centers, but more than wings.

But an interesting thing happened over the life of the position, specifically near its end in the PCHA. I don't think this has ever been documented before, but at a certain point the rover changed from being a primarily offensive position to a primarily defensive one. And we can pinpoint that change with frightening accuracy. In the 1917-18 season, the rover was an offensive position. In 1918-19, it was a defensive one. And although we're dealing with small leagues with very few players, where an individual player can have significant effect on a league's numbers, it does not appear that this is the case here. So to any quick-witted readers who thought “wasn't that around the time Cyclone Taylor stopped playing?” —you're close, but Taylor is actually support for the idea of this clean break, rather than evidence against it.

You can see this change when you look at positional scoring figures over time. Let's look at some numbers, starting with the 1899-1900 season of the Canadian Amateur Hockey League (CAHL), which eventually became the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), then the Eastern Canada Hockey Association (ECHA), which led to the NHA. Since the NHA dropped the rover in the same season the PCHA came into existence, we'll then continue on with the western league until we hit the end of the rover's time. This table shows the proportion of team goals scored by each position. For simplicity, left and right wings are averaged together, as are the two defensive positions. They key data we're looking at here are the center and rover numbers.

Proportion of Team Goals Scored by Position
Year League R C W W D D
1899-00 CAHL .234 .293 .197 .197 .040 .040
1900-01 CAHL .344 .178 .204 .204 .035 .035
1901-02 CAHL .318 .265 .169 .169 .040 .040
1902-03 CAHL .272 .306 .178 .178 .033 .033
1903-04 CAHL .309 .238 .184 .184 .043 .043
1904-05 CAHL .316 .269 .158 .158 .049 .049
1905-06 ECAHA .303 .239 .178 .178 .051 .051
1906-07 ECAHA .249 .308 .173 .173 .048 .048
1907-08 ECAHA .218 .291 .169 .169 .077 .077
1908-09 ECHA .213 .360 .146 .146 .068 .068
1909-10 NHA .243 .256 .182 .182 .068 .068
1910-11 NHA .223 .276 .187 .187 .064 .064
1911-12 PCHA .245 .276 .159 .159 .080 .080
1912-13 PCHA .168 .238 .176 .176 .122 .122
1913-14 PCHA .228 .244 .180 .180 .084 .084
1914-15 PCHA .208 .264 .184 .184 .080 .080
1915-16 PCHA .202 .226 .192 .192 .094 .094
1916-17 PCHA .194 .246 .194 .194 .086 .086
1917-18 PCHA .270 .220 .190 .190 .065 .065
1918-19 PCHA .143 .291 .225 .225 .058 .058
1919-20 PCHA .110 .309 .233 .233 .055 .055
1920-21 PCHA .128 .274 .224 .224 .075 .075
1921-22 PCHA .118 .286 .219 .219 .079 .079

Although there is certainly some year-to-year variation, since individual players can have a significant impact on these numbers, from 1899-1900 to 1917-18, rovers scored basically the same number of goals as centers. Rovers scored 25.0% of team goals over that time period, as opposed to 26.3% for centers. From 1918-19 to 1921-22, the figures are 12.5% for rovers and 29.0% for centers. Although we are dealing with a small number of seasons, the effect is dramatic, and as shown below, is supported by team personnel decisions. If we look at the data for centers and rovers graphically, the change becomes quite dramatic:

It's also worth noting that in 1911-12, the NHA's average goals per game dropped from 5.21 to 4.74, which is what you'd expect if you lose an offensive position. And in 1922-23, the PCHA's goals per game increased from 2.82 to 3.44, which is what you'd expect if you lose a defensive position. It seems clear that it was a deliberate choice on the part of managers to make the rover a defensive position.

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

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

The question then arises: why was this done? Since to my knowledge this phenomenon has never been documented before, it will likely be difficult to find an answer to that question. PCHA magnates Lester Patrick and his brother Frank were hockey visionaries in many ways. Perhaps they saw that team defense was a more important facet of the game than had been realized up to that point? Indeed, they were the first to allow limited forward passing in the game, in the neutral zone, starting in 1913. This change began to move the game away from one of individual rushes to one of team offensive play. It makes sense that defending against individual rushes takes a different approach than defending against team passing play. The offensive side of the game was changing; why wouldn't the defensive side change as well?

 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
In Lloyd Percival's 1951 Hockey Handbook, the author explains a basic fake: the puck carrier moves his body in one direction and when the checker follows the move, he shifts back to another direction. He says there are many variations: faking to the left and going to the right; vice versa; faking to the left, starting to the right and then going left again; etc. Then he names a few famous players who used those fakes with great success: Harvey "Busher" Jackson, Bill Cowley, Edgard Laprade, Elmer Lach, Gordie Howe "and many others".

Laprade is a name I didn't expect there.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Another appearance by Edgar Laprade, this time in Percival's 1949-50 NHL Scoring Survey (from the same book):

"The results of this survey refer to the goals scored per good opportunity. The best percentage was one in four by Edgar Laprade of the New York Rangers. The average percentage was one in ten. Some players showed a record of scoring only once in every fiftneen clear opportunities."
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Found this bit on the impact of Bun Cook in 1930:

Here's one from his best offensive season in 1930 (before AS's were awarded by the way)

This out of the Times Union (Brooklyn NY) Jan 24, 1930

Scores hat trick

"Contributed plenty of other work that doesn't show up in the official report"

“His back checking was effective and, in general, unerring. He exhibited his customary knack of being on the spot when the visitors threatened and, as the Senators grew desperate, his accurate blade more than once saved Roach the trouble of clearing from a rally near the goal.”


img
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkey Town 18

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
newspapers.com is worth every penny. If you have a few extra dollars to spare, pull the trigger. Going to be a lot added to Bun Cook's existing bio. Here's a gem.

Times Union, 27 Nov, 1934:

"Bunny stands out as a great natural skater, possibly the finest there is"

"Defensively, though, he is a star among star forwards. In 9 seasons the writer hasn't seen him make a wrong move on defense, and during that time has saved probably 300 sure goals.

"Bunny has a habit of arriving from nowhere at the crucial instant and grabbing a loose puck just as it rebounds and just before the opponent swats it into the net"


img
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkey Town 18

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Another major find on the Bun Cook intangibles/defensive acumen train which is full speed ahead. This goes to what @The Macho King was hinting at in regards to Cook. I promise there is a lot more coming. Won't be any question about intangibles or what he provided to The Bread Line and the Rangers as a whole.

If you want to know how tough he was, I've found him having fought Eddie Shore, Nels Stewart, and Eddie Oatman so far.

The crazy thing (based on my bio's last year) is I think his game beyond scoring resembles Smokey Harris almost to a T. Big, physical (right now I'd lean towards slightly less than Harris which is still well above average), electric skaters and a defensive game that takes a large step in the plus direction. @TheDevilMadeMe


08 Feb, 1935, Times Union (Brooklyn NY)

"Bunny Cook was the lad in whose absence the entire Ranger collapsed"...

"Where Bunny was really missed was in the department of defense. His PHENOMENAL BACKCHECKING has a tendency to escape most fans unless they take to watching him exclusively for a game or two.

After that they begin to appreciate ONE OF THE LEAGUE'S MOST BRILLIANT TALENTS FOR DEFENSE.

Bunny's legs take him to the right spot unerringly, invariably. He may have five mates on the ice, but it's better than even that his stick or his skate will clear the rebounds, that he'll break up the scoring pass, or cover the loose man."


img
 
  • Like
Reactions: overpass

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
So it looks like Bun was a strong backchecker for sure. As for a physical game, I'm not convinced.

This is why we do the research. I've got about 60 bookmarks right now and not nearly done. It'll all be answered in the not too distant future. Just tagging you because you specifically asked when he was drafted. Figured you'd be interested in particular.

I'm guessing the person who was thought of as the Rangers guru didn't have access to the Times Union in particular, or just didn't look hard enough, because the past bland descriptions by said person, regarding Bun, are not remotely accurate.

If someone would pay me to do this all day, every day, I'd do it in a heartbeat haha. Just enough to keep the lights on. Could care less about social status or money. I actually enjoy spending hours digging up this material. Because quite frankly, it should be done. And done correctly.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,611
28,848
This is why we do the research. I've got about 60 bookmarks right now and not nearly done. It'll all be answered in the not too distant future. Just tagging you because you specifically asked when he was drafted. Figured you'd be interested in particular.

I'm guessing the person who was thought of as the Rangers guru didn't have access to the Times Union in particular, or just didn't look hard enough, because the past bland descriptions by said person, regarding Bun, are not remotely accurate.

If someone would pay me to do this all day, every day, I'd do it in a heartbeat haha. Just enough to keep the lights on. Could care less about social status or money. I actually enjoy spending hours digging up this material. Because quite frankly, it should be done. And done correctly.
For the record (and I didn't bookmark these so take it with whatever grain of salt you want), the NYT similarly praised Bun.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
For the record (and I didn't bookmark these so take it with whatever grain of salt you want), the NYT similarly praised Bun.

Good to know.

There is no doubt he'll be underrated moving forward once I compile everything. He definitely reads like a player who just did most everything on a solid/good level with skating, defense, and hockey IQ as being very strong (relative to peers at the time). I have a pretty cool piece talking about Bun's intelligence, his creating the drop pass, and being one of the pioneers of the modern slap shot.

Milt Schmidt, IIRC, called Bobby Bauer the "brains" of the Kraut Line, and reading a good chunk of the stuff I have, get a similar vibe regarding Bun.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Good to know.

There is no doubt he'll be underrated moving forward once I compile everything. He definitely reads like a player who just did most everything on a solid/good level with skating, defense, and hockey IQ as being very strong (relative to peers at the time). I have a pretty cool piece talking about Bun's intelligence, his creating the drop pass, and being one of the pioneers of the modern slap shot.

Milt Schmidt, IIRC, called Bobby Bauer the "brains" of the Kraut Line, and reading a good chunk of the stuff I have, get a similar vibe regarding Bun.

Yes, finding info about Bun Cook's "smarts" is really easy - so much so that it overwhelms anything else he did in the press. I think that was widely known already, though? At least everything I've read on Bun always talks about his smarts. "Clever" seems to be the adjective the press most often described him as. (Somewhat unrelated, it shouldn't be surprising he ended up as perhaps the best coach in AHL history after he retired).

It is good to see his defensive reputation reinforced, even though he was generally the 2nd best defensive player on his own line.

I have to say that I'm glad you got him - if you can't find more concrete evidence of his supposed physical game, then nobody can!
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Yes, finding info about Bun Cook's "smarts" is really easy - so much so that it overwhelms anything else he did in the press. I think that was widely known already, though? At least everything I've read on Bun always talks about his smarts. "Clever" seems to be the adjective the press most often described him as. (Somewhat unrelated, it shouldn't be surprising he ended up as perhaps the best coach in AHL history after he retired).

It is good to see his defensive reputation reinforced, even though he was generally the 2nd best defensive player on his own line.

I have to say that I'm glad you got him - if you can't find more concrete evidence of his supposed physical game, then nobody can!

One example is He and Pit Lepine collided at center ice in a game. Bun left unscathed. Lepine ended up in the hospital with a broken leg. I think a guy like Smokey Harris, who I referenced above, was a more consistent physical player, as in he routinely sought out physical confrontation. Just going from the thorough bio I did on Smokey vs what I have read so far on Bun. From what I can gather so far, I would say Bun is a step below Harris in physicality but again, still above average I think. He was a big, husky style player. He fought a slew of the heavyweights of the 20's/30's and that was an elite era for fighters IMO. Did get a match penalty once for cracking Nels Stewart (after Stewart had butt ended him and got away with it) over the head with his stick in 1929 or 30 I think it was. Then again, that was a fairly regular occurrence for the time period. The $50 fine always get me to chuckle and quite frankly, as I've stated before, I can't believe people didn't die playing the game then. They were a different breed for sure.

Depends on how you evaluate that bolded. I don't think it's cut and dry anymore. This is another generalization that was borne out of limited research on one player vs another. I'm not criticizing people on a personal level, just that it's possible folks didn't have access to these papers in the past. It seems like there is far more material now then when I first started doing this in 2014. It was MUCH more a chore to find valuable pieces of information then.

Having read a ton of game reports and other pieces so far, Frank really shines in the neutral zone defensively. He had a Nighbor like poke check but Bunny is talked about being a defensive stalwart everywhere on the ice. There's a cool bit in a game report where he was astute enough to cover the net when Roach was pulled out and he dove across the goal mouth to block a sure goal. He seemed like the Ranger who cleared loose rebounds and danger from in and around the net. You don't see Boucher being talked about much there.

To be sure, I'm not concluding one was better than the other defensively. Just that Cook was very highly regarded. Even on a league level, which is pretty significant in a consolidated era. Especially when so little was known previously.

I'll get as much as I can! Hoping to be done within 2 weeks. At leas the meat and potatoes haha.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
One example is He and Pit Lepine collided at center ice in a game. Bun left unscathed. Lepine ended up in the hospital with a broken leg. I think a guy like Smokey Harris, who I referenced above, was a more consistent physical player, as in he routinely sought out physical confrontation. Just going from the thorough bio I did on Smokey vs what I have read so far on Bun. From what I can gather so far, I would say Bun is a step below Harris in physicality but again, still above average I think. He was a big, husky style player. He fought a slew of the heavyweights of the 20's/30's and that was an elite era for fighters IMO. Did get a match penalty once for cracking Nels Stewart (after Stewart had butt ended him and got away with it) over the head with his stick in 1929 or 30 I think it was. Then again, that was a fairly regular occurrence for the time period. The $50 fine always get me to chuckle and quite frankly, as I've stated before, I can't believe people didn't die playing the game then. They were a different breed for sure.

Depends on how you evaluate that bolded. I don't think it's cut and dry anymore. This is another generalization that was borne out of limited research on one player vs another. I'm not criticizing people on a personal level, just that it's possible folks didn't have access to these papers in the past. It seems like there is far more material now then when I first started doing this in 2014. It was MUCH more a chore to find valuable pieces of information then.

Having read a ton of game reports and other pieces so far, Frank really shines in the neutral zone defensively. He had a Nighbor like poke check but Bunny is talked about being a defensive stalwart everywhere on the ice. There's a cool bit in a game report where he was astute enough to cover the net when Roach was pulled out and he dove across the goal mouth to block a sure goal. He seemed like the Ranger who cleared loose rebounds and danger from in and around the net. You don't see Boucher being talked about much there.

To be sure, I'm not concluding one was better than the other defensively. Just that Cook was very highly regarded. Even on a league level, which is pretty significant in a consolidated era. Especially when so little was known previously.

I'll get as much as I can! Hoping to be done within 2 weeks. At leas the meat and potatoes haha.

I don't put a ton of stock into guys fighting in the 20s and 30s - almost everyone did! I mean, it shows he wasn't soft, which is nice, but there's a big difference between not being soft and being a physical beast like his brother Bill. What I really like are quotes indicating a player was thought to be the "best" or the "most" at something... like a few quotes in the Smokey Harris profile, at least comparing his physical play to other PCHAers.

That's also why I think Bun Cook wasn't Frank Boucher without the puck. Boucher is often listed in articles where the writer is talking about "the best defensive" players of the era, and Bun isn't. Maybe the "poke check" (which seemed to be Boucher's specialty and which also seems to have been most useful at center ice) was overly glamorized in that era because of Nighbor, I don't know.

That said, you have definitely shown enough to show that Bun is a very good defensive guy. As for corner work/physical play, right now, I can buy that Bun can contribute to "puck winning by committee," but don't really buy him as a protector for soft players on his line, like I would his brother Bill. (Re: Our teams this year - he's fine next to Lemaire, but I wouldn't want him as Bowie's main protector).
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Pretty sure everyone here knows about Johnny Bower.

Pretty sure they don't know about his AHL exploits. That was made evident in the top 200 project.

It's amazing how good work gets ignored and shit on around here.

Should I not be allowed to post my findings on a player like Bower in "dishing the dirt"? Last I checked AHL all star records aren't available to the masses here. They are now. Did you/we know about those? How many people even knew he won 3 consecutive league MVP's.

Do I make prickish comments when the same people post the same cut and paste bio's every single year? No. Are most of the bio's done this year putting out new information? You don't see me being a dick and saying "people already know about Charlie Conacher". And ironically I don't see you attacking these bullet point bio's either.

What is the point of your post? I'd wager it's no different than the remark made my Macho a few days back stating the only reason I did a bio on Bun Cook was to "prove a point". I'm (people) just shilling for players I drafted. Come on out and just say it.

I don't give a damn about winning the ATD anymore. Nobody will buy that, but add up logic and you'll get there from my POV.

Did my deep research help me in that regard last year? No. Or any other year? No. Why would I conclude that spending dozens and dozens of hours pouring over this stuff is worth my time, if I didn't enjoy doing it? Why would I continue to admin a draft that I haven't won, despite, at least over the last few years, doing more valuable research than anyone else (don't think anyone would argue that either).

Yes, a part of why I research these players are because I'm drafting them. No different than any other GM. That's a fact. You can see this fact in the bio threads. Players are researched by those who draft them. Doesn't mean our only reason for doing a bio is to win a fantasy draft. Some people do it so they can link the short bio to their roster page, for easy viewing. Cool. I generally just use existing bio's or ones I created in that manner, but I'm not going to shit on someone for doing it their own way. Most people probably have lives (married, kids full time, jobs, etc) that don't allow them to research as much as me. That isn't lost on me.

Maybe you're not being snide to me in the slightest and I'm out to lunch, but take a step back and look at what you wrote, not quoting it btw, so that I'd see it, from my perspective. If I'm totally off base here, I apologize.

This is the stuff that really pushes me to not wanting to participate in the ATD. You're seeing people fleeing. Long time members who will not come back. Members like Tony, who almost didn't participate, after being here far longer than me, not because they were bored with the draft. Rather they were tired of being talked down to, shit on by other members. I finally felt like we had a near drama free draft this year and it flew by because people kept their barbs down.

I've been a prick in years past and have made a great effort to repair my image and standing around here. I know some will always view me in that light, and I have no one to blame but myself. I don't pull punches. I own up to being a dick and allowing emotion to get the best of me in years past and a big part of what I'm doing for the ATD is because of past behaviors.

I was divorced 2.5 years ago and that marriage wasn't one that impacted me positively, mentally speaking. Consequently, being on the other side of that, and getting a clear mind, and new outlook on life has, as evidenced by some people directly communicating with me, seen a change for the better in how I interact with people here, and most importantly, my priorities for doing the ATD to begin with.

I genuinely enjoy the research. And you see me doing it on depth ATD coaches (Green) players (Westwick, Cook, Smokey Harris, Holmes, still working on him). Information that will really help people in the future when they have questions about players who have been largely ignored in this regard. I'm proud of that.

I am trying to pay it back to the ATD for some past behaviors. That's a bulk of my drive today. I want to be looked as someone who cares about the process. About the research and tradition. If it pushes the needle in terms of how people vote, great, but I certainly don't expect that. We can look at other incredible bio's by other members (Harry Cameron by jarek) (20's Senators dynasty by BB) that really did little in changing opinion or where someone was drafted in subsequent years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Claude The Fraud

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Pretty sure everyone here knows about Johnny Bower.

Yeah, I don't really see the point in diminishing research work that does expand our base of knowledge. I guess everyone knows that the AHL was really good before the expansion and that Bower must have been pretty good because he had a long career there, but I don't think everyone knew all the details and who the AHL all-stars were in year X or year Y. Right?
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,522
3,360
Yeah, I don't really see the point in diminishing research work that does expand our base of knowledge. I guess everyone knows that the AHL was really good before the expansion and that Bower must have been pretty good because he had a long career there, but I don't think everyone knew all the details and who the AHL all-stars were in year X or year Y. Right?

Yes, I'm quite certain the AHL allstar info for Bower at least was already in previous bios for him.

The big issue though, is Bower was already rated in the top 20 goaltenders of all time here on the boards and as a top 100 player of all time by the NHL.

How underrated can he be with accolades like that, and realistically who does he move ahead of even if this was new information to some of those voters? It gets to a point where you are splitting hairs.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Yes, I'm quite certain the AHL allstar info for Bower at least was already in previous bios for him.

No it wasn't. Not broken down as I have done.

You did a bio on him in 2014, and had his MVP/Calder info there in 2014 That's about it. Nothing in the 2015 bio by Rob. Nothing else is touched on. You didn't look at the individual AS years, you didn't dig up the yearly AS teams for the AHL, or put together the start of a comprehensive list of AHL/NHL players.

This is your contribution:
Les Cunningham Award winner (AHL MVP) 1956, 1957, 1958
Hap Holmes Award winner (AHL Best GAA) 1952, 1957, 1958
Calder Cup winner 1948, 1951, 1953
Inducted to the AHL Hall of Fame 200

I'm 100% certain there is no way that comment above is made if my name was that of many other reputable members. You wouldn't have made that post had TDMM or Theo posted the material.

Whatever. I'll continue to post information that I don't find available for the masses in places like this. If you think it sucks or repetitive, how about ignoring it? Or better yet, do the research and contribute to the process. I'm here doing the work, running the draft, contributing in many ways. You are flying by and making snide comments that contribute absolutely nothing.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->