George Armstrong Is he really a HHOF player?

[Hardyvan123]

This is my 1st thread.

The thought occurred to me that his career is one of the weaker ones in the Hall.

He had a long and decent career but is he really Hall worthy?

I'd love to hear the arguments for and against.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He's considered one of the best leaders of all-time and was captain of a dynasty (the 60s Leafs). Is there any other captain of a dynasty who is not in the Hall?

In terms of on-ice impact, he's definitely one of the worst. Almost certainly worse than Claude Provost both offensively and defensively.

 

[Jumptheshark]

ealier version of Bobby Clarke to a point. He was one of those players who's game was not all on the stat sheet

 

[Big Phil]

ealier version of Bobby Clarke to a point. He was one of those players who's game was not all on the stat sheet

Agree with this for sure. But yes he does have a rather underwhelming career from a HHOF standpoint but he usually doesn't get a lot of fuss for being in there. He's ahead of Pulford and Duff for his career IMO. Not to mention Armstrong was critical in the Leafs dynasty, not just a captain either (34 playoff points in 36 games for 1962, '63 and '64). Has a better PPG than Duff or Pulford and would have been in the running for the Selke a good chunk of his career. The captaincy issue helps him too.

But yeah he is certainly on the lower, lower end of HHOFers having lunch with Steve Shutt and Bernie Federko and co.

 

[seventieslord]

The flipside to that is that Armstrong rarely got PP time, and his non-PP production level (and Pulford's too) was only about 10-15% below that of Mahovlich. I don't have exact figures handy, but I looked into this before.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He's considered one of the best leaders of all-time and was captain of a dynasty (the 60s Leafs). Is there any other captain of a dynasty who is not in the Hall?

In terms of on-ice impact, he's definitely one of the worst. Almost certainly worse than Claude Provost both offensively and defensively.

That was my thinking looking over him about the leadership thing but IMO there are leaders on every team and it's the situation ie. Messier with Edmonton that perhaps over exaggerates the issue of leadership.

I say this living through Messier's mess in Vancouver were he was anything but a leader.

So I guess at the end of the day it comes down to his situation ie. playing on 4 cup teams in Toronto in a 6 team league and if he had been the exact same player, say in Boston with no cups then he would probably not be in the hall?

 

[overpass]

Armstrong's resume has too much to leave him out of the hall.

He was the captain of a dynasty. They usually make the HHOF. He was also the leading playoff scorer of a dynasty (his 34 points from 62-64 led the Leafs). They usually make the HHOF.

He played 964 games in the postwar Original Six. Playing that many games in a strong league is in itself a sign of quality. All 11 players with more games played from 1946-67 are in the HHOF.

He might be one of the weaker players in the HHOF. It's hard to say from this distance. But it's hard to imagine a player with that resume not being elected.

 

[overpass]

That was my thinking looking over him about the leadership thing but IMO there are leaders on every team and it's the situation ie. Messier with Edmonton that perhaps over exaggerates the issue of leadership.

I say this living through Messier's mess in Vancouver were he was anything but a leader.

So I guess at the end of the day it comes down to his situation ie. playing on 4 cup teams in Toronto in a 6 team league and if he had been the exact same player, say in Boston with no cups then he would probably not be in the hall?

In terms of on-ice impact, he's definitely one of the worst. Almost certainly worse than Claude Provost both offensively and defensively.

I'm not sure at all he was worse than Provost. Offensively, Provost played a lot on Henri Richard's wing - and Richard was a great even strength scorer. Defensively - how would you compare this at all? Both have good defensive reputations, and it's hard to say more from 50 years distance without having watched them play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure at all he was worse than Provost. Offensively, Provost played a lot on Henri Richard's wing - and Richard was a great even strength scorer. Defensively - how would you compare this at all? Both have good defensive reputations, and it's hard to say more from 50 years distance without having watched them play.

Honestly, I'm going by Provost's reputation as the best defensive winger of his era. Multiple "Retro Selkes" and his statistical impact on Bobby Hull. You;re right that it isn't totally definitive though, but Provost does have the better defensive reputation around these parts.

Good point on playing with Henri Richard though - Provost was certainly nothing special offensively until he got put on Henri's wing.

 

[kmad]

...and his statistical impact on Bobby Hull.

I have read that there was no difference in Hull shadowing effectiveness from Provost to Houle... if that is the case, I don't know if we can use it as a barometer for Provost's effectiveness without amplifying the common consensus on Houle, which I ascertain as being nothing special beyond a roleplayer on a dynasty.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I have read that there was no difference in Hull shadowing effectiveness from Provost to Houle... if that is the case, I don't know if we can use it as a barometer for Provost's effectiveness without amplifying the common consensus on Houle, which I ascertain as being nothing special beyond a roleplayer on a dynasty.

Where did you read that?

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I have read that there was no difference in Hull shadowing effectiveness from Provost to Houle... if that is the case, I don't know if we can use it as a barometer for Provost's effectiveness without amplifying the common consensus on Houle, which I ascertain as being nothing special beyond a roleplayer on a dynasty.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the Provost/Houle analysis is based on near retirement Provost vs young Houle. Provost's defensive forward reputation is based more on his previous performance, not his last year or two in the NHL.

 

[kmad]

Where did you read that?

Nowhere substantial. Mostly just arguments defending Houle in an ATD a while back.

 

[overpass]

Honestly, I'm going by Provost's reputation as the best defensive winger of his era. Multiple "Retro Selkes" and his statistical impact on Bobby Hull. You;re right that it isn't totally definitive though, but Provost does have the better defensive reputation around these parts.

Good point on playing with Henri Richard though - Provost was certainly nothing special offensively until he got put on Henri's wing.

Canadiens1958, in his extensive post on Provost here, also suggested that Provost was good defensively but didn't excel until he was put on Henri's wing.

Of course, Armstrong also spent much of the second half of his career on Dave Keon's wing. Neither Armstrong nor Provost were great skaters, so I imagine they each benefited from playing with a great skating centre.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Armstrong's resume has too much to leave him out of the hall.

He was the captain of a dynasty. They usually make the HHOF. He was also the leading playoff scorer of a dynasty (his 34 points from 62-64 led the Leafs). They usually make the HHOF.

He played 964 games in the postwar Original Six. Playing that many games in a strong league is in itself a sign of quality. All 11 players with more games played from 1946-67 are in the HHOF.

He might be one of the weaker players in the HHOF. It's hard to say from this distance. But it's hard to imagine a player with that resume not being elected.

So in the end his resume comes down to playing a long time and being a captain in a strong league and I really wonder how strong it was compared to today, it's debatable.

Maybe his leadership and strong 3 playoffs would be good icing but where is the cake?

To me a HHOF player has a statistical competent to his case than a intangible component the cake and icing if you will. different people will put more or less emphasis on the two but the "cake" part should be 70-90% IMO.

IMO he is really a support player and has no business in the Hall as there are at least 10 guys who had more impact and have better resumes than this guy but it might just be a matter of Cup counting and longevity here.

 

[Big Phil]

So in the end his resume comes down to playing a long time and being a captain in a strong league and I really wonder how strong it was compared to today, it's debatable.

Well there were 120 players playing in the NHL then. None with the exception of the truly elite had much job security and there weren't any patsies either. You didn't get a long term million dollar contract and then loaf. So yes the level of competition was great, maybe the best ever in NHL history from 1946-'67.

Maybe his leadership and strong 3 playoffs would be good icing but where is the cake?

being the leading playoff scorer on a dynasty is very hard to overlook. The two way play, the potential retro Selkes, the captaincy etc. His offense was not great but better than Bob Gainey's and his defense wouldn't have been too far behind. I don't usually make a fuss seeing him in there. Ahead of Duff and Pulford IMO

 

[Hardyvan123]

being the leading playoff scorer on a dynasty is very hard to overlook. The two way play, the potential retro Selkes, the captaincy etc. His offense was not great but better than Bob Gainey's and his defense wouldn't have been too far behind. I don't usually make a fuss seeing him in there. Ahead of Duff and Pulford IMO

I looked close at his stats one year he tied bob Pulford with 7 goals to lead the Leafs in the playoffs, never lead in regular season or playoffs in scoring on his own team.


As for the quality of the league, yes there ere only 120 players in the league during the years mentioned by Canada's population was only 11-12 million from 37-48, then took a spike in the late 40's and early 50's with immigration going up to 19 million in 1966.

Alot of this immigration and increase in population would have been immigrants who would not play hockey until the 1st generation grew up in Canada and the US and Europe were not yet pipelines to supply the NHL yet.

There is little evidence provided that the quality of players or competition or the level of play was better in this post war original 6 than in later years, especially the 80's to present were a large number of new talent has come from new areas of hockey production areas like Europe and the United States.

Some people might point to the large number of HHOF players from this era but that doesn't contribute anything to the argument since there are no hall defined standards and a lot of players got in because of their relationships with the committee rather than on pure hockey grounds IMO and many others.

To me the notion that it was better back then is a myth perpetuated by nostalgia and other factors and supports the high number of players from that era that are in the Hall and gives a distortion to the idea of the best players of all time.

Let's assume for a minute that the general level of talent and competition remains the same through out time as a baseline.

In a decade of the 50's in a 6 team league there are about 120 players per year and in a 21 team league during all of the 80's.

You would expect to find 3-4 times more HHOF players from the 80's era than the 50's but this is not the case.

This is even before we take into consideration the influx of talent from Europe and the United states.

Do we really think that there were more HHOF players in the 50's than the 80's even before we take into account the increased number of players and talent in the NHL in the 80's?

Let's face it the HHOF has put in way too many players from the original 6 then decided in the late 60's to start limiting the amount of players going in every year.

Another time when I have more of it, I will do a breakdown of players by the decades played and show why the original 6 is over represented in HHOF players and it's my belief that this has led many to believe falsely that the level and competition and quality of player was better back then when it wasn't by any measurable variable.

George Armstrong and about half the Hall members from that time era should be taken out unless we want to start adding 10 Mike Gartner and lesser types every year IMO.

HHOF should imply greatness to some degree and there is no evidence that Armstrong was any better than Rod Brind'Amour and he won't get into the Hall unless he buys a ticket.

 

[Regal]

Let's assume for a minute that the general level of talent and competition remains the same through out time as a baseline.

In a decade of the 50's in a 6 team league there are about 120 players per year and in a 21 team league during all of the 80's.

You would expect to find 3-4 times more HHOF players from the 80's era than the 50's but this is not the case.

This is even before we take into consideration the influx of talent from Europe and the United states.

If the level of talent remains the same, then there should be the same number of HoF players in the 80s as there was in the 50s, before we look at European influence.

Of course, if we're assuming the same percentage of talent that increases with the population, then it's greater, but certainly not in line with the percentage of increase of expansion. Having players that never would have played in the NHL in the O6 era does not produce more HoFers.

I do agree to some degree, at least in terms of number of HoFers, though I actually think the pre-50s days are the ones that get overrated. There's a lot of guys with short careers and short peaks that were considered stars that I'd bet are comparable to a lot of guys we would never consider HoFers today. I still think the amount of talent on a team by team basis in the O6 era was greater than at any other time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If the level of talent remains the same, then there should be the same number of HoF players in the 80s as there was in the 50s, before we look at European influence.

Of course, if we're assuming the same percentage of talent that increases with the population, then it's greater, but certainly not in line with the percentage of increase of expansion. Having players that never would have played in the NHL in the O6 era does not produce more HoFers.

I do agree to some degree, at least in terms of number of HoFers, though I actually think the pre-50s days are the ones that get overrated. There's a lot of guys with short careers and short peaks that were considered stars that I'd bet are comparable to a lot of guys we would never consider HoFers today. I still think the amount of talent on a team by team basis in the O6 era was greater than at any other time.

To your last point how and why is the talent in 06 better, I hear this all the time but without any factual backup except for the amount of HHOF players from the era and I see the mistake I made with my opening assertion.

In 06 years there is only 1 # 1 line and PP minutes per team and in a 21 or 30 team league there is 4-5 times great opportunity for the skilled players to shine, read Hank Sedin and there should be HHOF inductions % wise about the same as %wise during the era played if everything else is equal, which it isn't but it's a baseline or starting point IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

I looked close at his stats one year he tied bob Pulford with 7 goals to lead the Leafs in the playoffs, never lead in regular season or playoffs in scoring on his own team.


As for the quality of the league, yes there ere only 120 players in the league during the years mentioned by Canada's population was only 11-12 million from 37-48, then took a spike in the late 40's and early 50's with immigration going up to 19 million in 1966.

Alot of this immigration and increase in population would have been immigrants who would not play hockey until the 1st generation grew up in Canada and the US and Europe were not yet pipelines to supply the NHL yet.

There is little evidence provided that the quality of players or competition or the level of play was better in this post war original 6 than in later years, especially the 80's to present were a large number of new talent has come from new areas of hockey production areas like Europe and the United States.

Some people might point to the large number of HHOF players from this era but that doesn't contribute anything to the argument since there are no hall defined standards and a lot of players got in because of their relationships with the committee rather than on pure hockey grounds IMO and many others.

To me the notion that it was better back then is a myth perpetuated by nostalgia and other factors and supports the high number of players from that era that are in the Hall and gives a distortion to the idea of the best players of all time.

Let's assume for a minute that the general level of talent and competition remains the same through out time as a baseline.

In a decade of the 50's in a 6 team league there are about 120 players per year and in a 21 team league during all of the 80's.

You would expect to find 3-4 times more HHOF players from the 80's era than the 50's but this is not the case.

This is even before we take into consideration the influx of talent from Europe and the United states.

Do we really think that there were more HHOF players in the 50's than the 80's even before we take into account the increased number of players and talent in the NHL in the 80's?

Let's face it the HHOF has put in way too many players from the original 6 then decided in the late 60's to start limiting the amount of players going in every year.

Another time when I have more of it, I will do a breakdown of players by the decades played and show why the original 6 is over represented in HHOF players and it's my belief that this has led many to believe falsely that the level and competition and quality of player was better back then when it wasn't by any measurable variable.

George Armstrong and about half the Hall members from that time era should be taken out unless we want to start adding 10 Mike Gartner and lesser types every year IMO.

HHOF should imply greatness to some degree and there is no evidence that Armstrong was any better than Rod Brind'Amour and he won't get into the Hall unless he buys a ticket.

Well I can safely say one thing, it wasn't easy in the original 6. You played each other 14 times. There weren't a lot of tricks up your sleeve that the other team didn't know. The checking was tight, and there weren't lazy players for fear of being demoted to the minors. Now has hockey blossomed since then? Of course. This helps bring in more new talent, more competition. But with expansion also comes a bunch of guys who shouldn't be in the NHL in the first place. It's a two way street.

Bottom line is this: a star in the original 6 is a star in 2010 and vice versa.

 

[overpass]

So in the end his resume comes down to playing a long time and being a captain in a strong league and I really wonder how strong it was compared to today, it's debatable.

Maybe his leadership and strong 3 playoffs would be good icing but where is the cake?

To me a HHOF player has a statistical competent to his case than a intangible component the cake and icing if you will. different people will put more or less emphasis on the two but the "cake" part should be 70-90% IMO.

IMO he is really a support player and has no business in the Hall as there are at least 10 guys who had more impact and have better resumes than this guy but it might just be a matter of Cup counting and longevity here.

I know what you are saying, Armstrong probably has more "icing" than "cake".

It's hard to say how good he was as a player from this distance. Statistically, he doesn't separate himself from some non-HHOFers of his day (like, say, Provost or Dean Prentice). But:

1. It's hard to compare scoring stats from the Original 6 to post-expansion stats, especially once you get past the star players. Armstrong, Provost, Prentice, and guys like Dick Duff and Bob Pulford were supporting offensive players at most, not star scorers. In a 21 team league, maybe they continue to play a supporting role, or maybe they have the talent to take on a bigger scoring role. Similarly, some star scorers from a 21 team league might not have made it in a 6 team league, or at least not without changing their games.

2. The case for all of these guys obviously depends on a lot more than just the stats - defensive play matters. Armstrong was among the key defensive players on a great defensive team.

In any case, I've never heard anyone who watched hockey back then suggest that he didn't belong or wasn't HHOF calibre as player. I'd rather see more evidence before going against the historical consensus.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I know what you are saying, Armstrong probably has more "icing" than "cake".

It's hard to say how good he was as a player from this distance. Statistically, he doesn't separate himself from some non-HHOFers of his day (like, say, Provost or Dean Prentice). But:

1. It's hard to compare scoring stats from the Original 6 to post-expansion stats, especially once you get past the star players. Armstrong, Provost, Prentice, and guys like Dick Duff and Bob Pulford were supporting offensive players at most, not star scorers. In a 21 team league, maybe they continue to play a supporting role, or maybe they have the talent to take on a bigger scoring role. Similarly, some star scorers from a 21 team league might not have made it in a 6 team league, or at least not without changing their games.

2. The case for all of these guys obviously depends on a lot more than just the stats - defensive play matters. Armstrong was among the key defensive players on a great defensive team.

In any case, I've never heard anyone who watched hockey back then suggest that he didn't belong or wasn't HHOF calibre as player. I'd rather see more evidence before going against the historical consensus.

To your last point, I was reading the politcs of glory (a fine baseball book by Bill James) waiting for an appointment today and he ran off a huge lsit of quotes from former players who all said, in one way or another, how the game was better back when they played and this was over the course of more than 100 years.

I'm pretty sure that this happeens alot in hockey and I strongly believe that players from every era have a real ahrd time judging and viewing players that they played with and against in any subjective way.

Even if Armstrong was the best defensive forward, or leader in the league for any period of time (which is impossible to measure and is very subjective) his general lack of offense historically probably should have kept him out but by playing for a team that won some Stanley Cups and being the captain should not be enough as it would, and has flooded the HHOF with some not very great players.

 

[pnep]

Another time when I have more of it, I will do a breakdown of players by the decades played and show why the original 6 is over represented in HHOF players and it's my belief that this has led many to believe falsely that the level and competition and quality of player was better back then when it wasn't by any measurable variable.

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5043/hhof.jpg

 

[overpass]

To your last point, I was reading the politcs of glory (a fine baseball book by Bill James) waiting for an appointment today and he ran off a huge lsit of quotes from former players who all said, in one way or another, how the game was better back when they played and this was over the course of more than 100 years.

I'm pretty sure that this happeens alot in hockey and I strongly believe that players from every era have a real ahrd time judging and viewing players that they played with and against in any subjective way.

Even if Armstrong was the best defensive forward, or leader in the league for any period of time (which is impossible to measure and is very subjective) his general lack of offense historically probably should have kept him out but by playing for a team that won some Stanley Cups and being the captain should not be enough as it would, and has flooded the HHOF with some not very great players.

I'm not someone who wants to induct every good player from the 1960s, so I sympathize with your general point.

But Armstrong was not a marginal HHOF induction. He was named to the Hall in 1975, 4 years after he retired. Andy Bathgate and Marcel Pronovost were both eligible, yet were passed over in favor of Armstrong. Contemporaries Bert Olmstead, Allan Stanley, Fern Flaman, and Leo Boivin were all passed over for years before being inducted in the 80s and 90s.

Looking at players a few years younger than Armstrong, Bob Pulford and Dick Duff had to wait decades to get into the Hall. From players a few years older, Bill Quackenbush, Edgar Laprade, Woody Dumart, Bobby Bauer, and Roy Conacher all had to wait until after Armstrong was selected.

I just don't think Armstrong was a borderline selection at all. If you don't think Armstrong belongs, it would follow that quite a few honoured members from the 50s and 60s shouldn't be in the Hall (assuming the selection committee could reasonably assess Armstrong as a player in 1975).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Theory vs Reality

To your last point how and why is the talent in 06 better, I hear this all the time but without any factual backup except for the amount of HHOF players from the era and I see the mistake I made with my opening assertion.

In 06 years there is only 1 # 1 line and PP minutes per team and in a 21 or 30 team league there is 4-5 times great opportunity for the skilled players to shine, read Hank Sedin and there should be HHOF inductions % wise about the same as %wise during the era played if everything else is equal, which it isn't but it's a baseline or starting point IMO.

Extrapolating the numbers for league size produces a theoretical opportunity for 4-5 times more players shining but in reality this does not happen. You still have « core of 10-12 players who can dominate year in, year out.Others have their moments but lack consistency. This tends to be true regardless of position.

As for better, a debate that cannot be properly presented unless there is head to head competition.Better should be replaced by a phrase ``having more diversified skills``.This would cover various attributes from being able to play offense and defense, short or long shifts, varied passing and shooting skills, the ability or willingness to play a finesse or physical game, etc.

Finally the usuall argument or whining about certain players from the O6 not deserving HHOF recognition. These players earned recognition the hard way by producing game after game. At the time great value was attributed to consistency as opposed to the singular hilite reel play once a week. Their enshrinement reflects a different era and different athletic values. Carrying the debate backwards works from a false assumption that players, HHOF voters, media and others concerned in the O6 era had crystal balls and the ability to see how hockey would be played many generations down the road.