HOHHOF - Early Era - Round 2 thread

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lady Byng apparently loved Nighbor's clean but dominating style of play in an era, where most players had to resort to violence to dominate. She created the award specifically to reward his style of play.

As for Bowie and Malone, I think a lot of us know that once the Taylor/Lalone/Nighbor/Malone generation came of age, the previous generation just couldn't compete. Kids on the main board talk about how the game has evolved too much for the previous generation, and we rightfully laugh at them.

But back in hockey's development era, one generation did supplant the other, which makes perfect sense when the game was in its infancy. So, I do think Malone was "better," but for the purpose of the Hall of Fame, that doesn't really matter, since we should honor the importance of the dominant players from the developmental era.

 

[BM67]

Clint Benedict played on stacked Ottawa teams - defense inc. King Clancy, George Boucher, Lionel Hitchman, Eddie Gerard plus excellent defensive forwards - Frank Nighbor, Cy Dennenny, and scorers - Punch Broadbent amongst others.Given the stature that Boucher,Clancy, Nighbor and Dennenny have on this board then either they are significantly overrated - possible since Clancy was also part of Leaf teams that regularly lost SC finals or the goaltending - Benedict was the weak link.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

The Senators never won two consecutive SCs. Upthread reference to some weak games. Also Benedict"s 1915 performance against Vancouver was the worst in SC final history - 8.67 GAA for a starting or regular goalie.

Charles Coleman in Vol. I of The Trail of the Stanley Cup does not go into great detail about the 1915 finals BUT ranks Benedict higher than others had ranked him up until that time. Benedict was 23 that year so he was older than goalies who won SCs

The collusion position is not supported. This seems to be a popular fall back position amongst posters but ignores certain facts. The goaltenders elected in 1945 did not have strong supporting teammates throughout their career. Likewise those elected before Benedict. Nor was Clint Benedict the first Senator elected - far from.

Anecdotal evidence. Listening to "old boys" or reading articles about hockey in the 1950's and 1960's, the only time Clint Benedict was mentioned was when Jacques Plante started wearing the mask. Usually Connell was mentioned as the best Ottawa goalie.

The Senators won back-to-back SCs in 1920 and 1921, and won 3 in 4 years (1923) with Benedict as their starter.

The Senators faced a front line of Cyclone Taylor, Frank Nighbor, Mickey Mackay and Barney Stanley in the 1915 Cup Final. Quite possibly the best foward line ever assembled, certainly the best of the era. Hardly surprising that Benedict had a poor GAA, and it's made worse by the fact that Ottawa was swept.

I believe Vezina has the second worst Finals GAA in 1917.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/v/vezinge01.html

The fact that Connell never won a NHL playoff game outside of his 2 Cup wins is not held against him.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/conneal01.html

I would have to think his style of dropping to the ice was what held him out of the HHoF. His nickname of Praying Benny was not a compliment.

The preference for stand up lasted well beyond Benedict's HHoF induction.

"I stayed for another couple of weeks but didn't play again. We took a trip west and I was always practising with the team. I wasn't even a rookie. I was just replacing Steve Penney, but I was trying very hard to stop every shot. I was on the ice on this side, on the ice on that side. Lemaire sent his assistant, Jean Perron, to talk to me and he said, "Lemaire asked if you want a bed." I didn't understand, but what he meant was I was on the ice too much, lying down too much. It was his way of saying, get a bed or a pillow if you're going to lie down so much in the crease." - Patrick Roy in In the Crease by Dick Irvin

 

[nik jr]

Sounds like the original "How good is the goalie on the great team" argument.

Plante, Dryden & Brodeur have all had their value evaluated, but I don't recall any of them ever being regarded as a weak link. I wasn't sure if I would vote for Benedict this round. This insight makes it easier for me to decide.

i have read probably hundreds of ottawa game reports from that period and probably a couple of dozen from benedict's time with the maroons, and he was mentioned often as a great goalie.
i think benedict was also very important in the maroons' '26 cup.

i have read game reports of the 1915 finals, and i do not remember benedict being criticized.
ottawa could not handle vancouver's stars, and especially not cyclone taylor, who absolutely dominated.

Also, wondering about Hobey Baker. From the little I've read it seems he was a spectacular skater who was worth the price of admission as well as the prototype for the Lady Byng Award.

And speaking of the Lady Byng, was there any criteria at all for the original award?
Frank Nighbor won it but had 16 PIM the first year of the award and 18 the next. His linemate, Cy Denneny, had 10 and 16 those 2 years. Perhaps the Lady herself had a little crush on Mr. Nighbor?

lady byng was a big big fan of nighbor, but looking at PIM is not particularly relevant.

nighbor was the key player in their systematic style of play, which is probably why he appears in hart voting even though he scored little (nighbor was past his prime when the hart was created). nighbor was their top defensive player, and often played as a de facto d-man when boucher or gerard or clancy, etc rushed up ice, and was often the playmaker in combined attacks.

 

[seventieslord]

Having read both sides of it, the smearing of Benedict seems rather unwarranted.

Alex Connell? Gimme a break. Connell was not once recognized as one of the top-2 goalies in the game or one of the league's five most valuable players.

 

[Jarick]

I've gotta say I'm really enjoying reading all this. I know nothing about these players and it's nice to get all this knowledge!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clint Benedict

Nobody is smearing Clint Benedict. The fact remains that at least 10 goalies that were his contemporaries were named to the HHOF before he was including three who played for Ottawa teams that won SCS - Connell, LeSueur, Hutton.

The collusionists obviously cannot show an anti Ottawa bias especially given the strong representation of Ottawa skaters from the teams that Benedict played on.

Factor in that the NHL had to accommodate the rules to allow Benedict's flopping while others remained upright and played by the rules.The pro Benedict camp will have to explain why his only SC wins came after flopping was permitted in 1919. In 1915 in the SC Finals against Vancouver when flopping was not allowed he was badly burned to the tune of an 8.67GAA.

Basically there is a fine line between being an innovator - and a habitual cheat which is what Benedict was until the NHL reached a point where it was easier to allow all the goalies to flop then to police one.

Benedict's 1965 entrance into the HHOF was a function of the aforementioned. Traditionally Connell and LeSeuer were viewed as the better Ottawa goalies. To suddenly disregard history and tradition and hold him to be the best of his era is a farce.

 

[seventieslord]

Nobody is smearing Clint Benedict. The fact remains that at least 10 goalies that were his contemporaries were named to the HHOF before he was including three who played for Ottawa teams that won SCS - Connell, LeSueur, Westwick.

Westwick is not a goalie.

And there hasn't really shown to be any connection between greatness and timing of HHOF inductions in the first 25 years of the hall.

Factor in that the NHL had to accommodate the rules to allow Benedict's flopping while others remained upright and played by the rules.The pro Benedict camp will have to explain why his only SC wins came after flopping was permitted in 1919. In 1915 in the SC Finals against Vancouver when flopping was not allowed he was badly burned to the tune of an 8.67GAA.

He was getting away with it well before 1919, so he would have been getting away with it in 1915 as well. I'm sure he had a very bad series in 1915, and I'm sure his whole team did too. That Vancouver team was epic, and they probably took Ottawa by surprise. You seem to want that series to define a player's career, but it doesn't work that way.

Basically there is a fine line between being an innovator - and a habitual cheat which is what Benedict was until the NHL reached a point where it was easier to allow all the goalies to flop then to police one.

There was some innovator and some cheat in Benedict, no doubt, but I'm not sure why the 1919 rule change makes your position any stronger. Once every goalie had this "advantage" that Benedict was enjoying all along, he won 4 cups in 6 years. One year he was the only goalie to post a shutout at all - and he had five.

Benedict's 1965 entrance into the HHOF was a function of the aforementioned. Traditionally Connell and LeSeuer were viewed as the better Ottawa goalies. To suddenly disregard history and tradition and hold him to be the best of his era is a farce.

LeSueur never won a cup with Ottawa against top level competition, instead they got to beat up on the champs of the weaker OPHL. Trust that I don't need to laundry list the names of the stars Benedict stymied en route to 4 cups in the 20s.

Anyone who would consider Connell a better goalie is guilty of disregarding and revising history. they would have to do a very good job explaining why Connell was never considered a top-2 goalie in the league or top-5 in Hart voting. It certainly doesn't look like they thought he was the best in the 1930s, why would they think so in the 40s, 50s, and beyond?

With the poor statistics that were kept, for decades, no one really realized all along that he was the goalie allowing the fewest goals, year in, year out. Were it not for Coleman compiling all of the old game records, it may not have been until the 80s when Benedict got his due.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Evidence suggestst that Clint Benedict was not a product of his team.

As we all know, Benedict played on the Senators dynasty. He played his last season in Ottawa in 1923-24; the Sens finished 1st in the NHL and allowed the 2nd fewest goals against.

The next year, he played for the Montreal Maroons. Without Benedict, the Ottawa Senators dropped to 4th in the NHL in the standards, and allowed the 4th fewest goals against. Keep in mind that this is a six-team league, with two expansion teams.

Ottawa's two best defensemen (King Clancy and Georges Boucher) and best defensive forward (Frank Nighbor) all played full seasons in both 1923-24 and 1924-25. So it's not like the Senators experienced a lot of roster turnover. The biggest changes (aside from losing Benedict) were trading away Punch Broadbent and signing Hooley Smith - surely a net gain to the Sens.

Benedict fared well without the Senators. He played on the Montreal Maroons in their first NHL season in 1924-25. They were brutal offensively (dead last in goals scored) but they allowed fewer goals against than the dynasty Ottawa Senators! The top defensemen on the team were George Carroll, Francis Cain and the Munro brothers - none are close to being HOF calibre players. The team also featured Reg Noble (a good player who split his team between forward and defense) and Louis Berlinquette (though at age 37 was almost surely well passed his prime). In any case, Benedict's Maroons did not have a good defensive team on paper - and Benedict still allowed them to have a good season defensively, better than the Senators.

The following year (1925-26), Benedict helped the Maroons win a Stanley Cup in just their second year of existence. The team's defense core was decimated by illness, and the notoriously slow-footed Nels Stewart had to play defense. Benedict actually helped defeat the Senators in the playoffs en route to the Stanley Cup victory.

In short, Benedict played very well on an expansion team and the Ottawa Senators were noticeably worse the next two years without him, despite otherwise having a similar roster. (In fairness, the Sens did win the Cup in 1926-27). This indicates that Benedict was far more than a product of his team.

 

[BM67]

Nobody is smearing Clint Benedict. The fact remains that at least 10 goalies that were his contemporaries were named to the HHOF before he was including three who played for Ottawa teams that won SCS - Connell, LeSueur, Westwick.

The collusionists obviously cannot show an anti Ottawa bias especially given the strong representation of Ottawa skaters from the teams that Benedict played on.

Factor in that the NHL had to accommodate the rules to allow Benedict's flopping while others remained upright and played by the rules.The pro Benedict camp will have to explain why his only SC wins came after flopping was permitted in 1919. In 1915 in the SC Finals against Vancouver when flopping was not allowed he was badly burned to the tune of an 8.67GAA.

Basically there is a fine line between being an innovator - and a habitual cheat which is what Benedict was until the NHL reached a point where it was easier to allow all the goalies to flop then to police one.

Benedict's 1965 entrance into the HHOF was a function of the aforementioned. Traditionally Connell and LeSeuer were viewed as the better Ottawa goalies. To suddenly disregard history and tradition and hold him to be the best of his era is a farce.

Westwick?

The simple fact is that Ottawa didn't play for the Cup between 1915 and 1920, so Benedict couldn't win a Cup before he did. They did lose a couple of playoffs to Montreal in 1917 and 1919, but other wise they stood as the second best team in the league most years with no playoffs.

Ottawa and Benedict did seem to have an off year in 1917-18, the year they made the rule change with regard to goalies falling to the ice.

 

[Dangler99*]

And speaking of the Lady Byng, was there any criteria at all for the original award?
Frank Nighbor won it but had 16 PIM the first year of the award and 18 the next. His linemate, Cy Denneny, had 10 and 16 those 2 years. Perhaps the Lady herself had a little crush on Mr. Nighbor?

I'm curious about this too. The second guy to win the award (Billy Burch) had 40 PIMs, still a record for a Byng winner. And in a 44-game season no less. I don't think it was ever about penalty minutes. Seems petty to be counting penalty minutes in an time when attempted murder was part of the game.

Just a theory, but I think the award was originally supposed to emphasize the skill aspect rather than the "gentlemanly conduct" aspect...a "most skilled player" award to complement the Hart "most valuable player" award.

It may even have been an early version of the Messier award; "gentlemanly conduct" being a euphemism for leadership. Not fair to assume the Byng is a softie award just because it was donated by a chick. The Lady came from a family with a military background so I wouldn't assume she'd be naive about the aggressive side of human nature. She may well have enjoyed a good scrap if honour was at stake.

Unfortunately Lady Byng's autobiography doesn't mention the award at all.

 

[Dangler99*]

Benedict was even passed over by the Hall's class of '62, the year they inducted en masse every noteworthy player from the era that hadn't been recognized already. That's embarrasing.

Benedict might say it was political, but it wasn't unusual for players to have issues with owners. It was a seller's market and players were in a good position to ask for more. Even Lalonde was fined for indifferent play during a contract dispute.

I agree it was probably his Praying Benny act that cost him respect. Essentially he was a dive artist.

If anyone's getting smeared here it's Georges Vezina. Do people really believe he's in the Hall because he died young?

First, he wasn't young. He was 39 when TB took him down. Younger than me, but in the 1920s that'd be considered middle-aged. He had a 16 year career in which he fleshed out the nuances of the position and raised the art of goaltending from the least demanding position to the first to have a dedicated trophy.

Of the Hall's year-one inductees, Morenz and Gardiner may have been fast-tracked because thay had passed away recently. Vezina had been six feet under for close to two decades by then. He and the other year-one inductees were the architects of the game. Took a winter pastime and turned it into a major-league sport. He owns Benedict.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Further..............

Westwick is not a goalie.

And there hasn't really shown to be any connection between greatness and timing of HHOF inductions in the first 25 years of the hall.



He was getting away with it well before 1919, so he would have been getting away with it in 1915 as well. I'm sure he had a very bad series in 1915, and I'm sure his whole team did too. That Vancouver team was epic, and they probably took Ottawa by surprise. You seem to want that series to define a player's career, but it doesn't work that way.



There was some innovator and some cheat in Benedict, no doubt, but I'm not sure why the 1919 rule change makes your position any stronger. Once every goalie had this "advantage" that Benedict was enjoying all along, he won 4 cups in 6 years. One year he was the only goalie to post a shutout at all - and he had five.



LeSueur never won a cup with Ottawa against top level competition, instead they got to beat up on the champs of the weaker OPHL. Trust that I don't need to laundry list the names of the stars Benedict stymied en route to 4 cups in the 20s.

Anyone who would consider Connell a better goalie is guilty of disregarding and revising history. they would have to do a very good job explaining why Connell was never considered a top-2 goalie in the league or top-5 in Hart voting. It certainly doesn't look like they thought he was the best in the 1930s, why would they think so in the 40s, 50s, and beyond?

With the poor statistics that were kept, for decades, no one really realized all along that he was the goalie allowing the fewest goals, year in, year out. Were it not for Coleman compiling all of the old game records, it may not have been until the 80s when Benedict got his due.

Hutton - mental block.

Point is that the rule allowing flopping did not help the other goalies.The others would have to re-learn playing their position. It just helped the Senators and Benedict since flopping would no longer be penalized.

Look at the difference in the Senators GAA and record for the second half of the 1918-19 season once the flopping rule is introduced. Second half with flopping allowed Benedict became a much better goalie and the Sens a much better team 7-1 vs 5-5 pre flopping.Last games pre flopping he was lit up by a solid Canadiens team just like in 1915 by Vancouver in the SC finals.First 10 games Benedict allowed 39 goals, last 8 games he allowed 14. Blatant advantage to Benedict due to the rule change not a sudden reversal of talent.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1919_games.html

You fail to explain why all his SCs came after flopping was allowed.As for the 1919-20 season with his five shutouts a few facts have to be considered. First full season where flopping was allowed. Net advantage to the Senators and Benedict since they were able to do what they did best while everyone else had to adapt.Note the last complete pre flopping season the Senators despite a large number of future HHOF were a sub .500 team with Benedict posting a GAA>5.00

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

The Connell reference was in respect to Ottawa goalies. not NHL or across the board in any sense.

Keeping of stats was not poor - the oldtimers who did the HHOF voting realized the impact of the rule changes - flopping, forward pass, red line, etc. What is poor is the lack of attention to detail. Posters just look at this big picture without looking at the game by game details that produced the big picture.

 

[seventieslord]

Benedict was even passed over by the Hall's class of '62, the year they inducted en masse every noteworthy player from the era that hadn't been recognized already. That's embarrasing. Tommy Dunderdale, who was virtually a career PCHAer, was the only other oversight.

Benedict might say it was political, but it wasn't unusual for players to have issues with owners. It was a seller's market and players were in a good position to ask for more. Even Lalonde was fined for indifferent play during a contract dispute.

I agree it was probably his Praying Benny act that cost him respect. Essentially he was a dive artist.

If anyone's getting smeared here it's Georges Vezina. Do people really believe he's in the Hall because he died young?

First, he wasn't young. He was 39 when TB took him down. Younger than me, but in the 1920s that'd be considered middle-aged. He had a 16 year career in which he fleshed out the nuances of the position and raised the art of goaltending from the least demanding position to the first to have a dedicated trophy.

Of the Hall's year-one inductees, Morenz and Gardiner may have been fast-tracked because thay had passed away recently. Vezina had been six feet under for close to two decades by then. He and the other year-one inductees were the architects of the game. Took a winter pastime and turned it into a major-league sport. He owns Benedict.

Not sure how Vezina owns Benedict. Provide some evidence because that's a pretty strong statement.

Vezina is certainly not in the hall because he died young. But that is most likely why he was in the charter class, and it is the reason the award for top goalie is named after him. And it's why people like you and I grew up believing he was the best goalie ever until Plante and Sawchuk came around. And the prestige associated with the name and the award has actually led to the pre-1982 Vezina being massively overrated on a goaltender's resume. Nobody brags about Jennings trophies today, but when someone cites Hainsworth's three Vezinas, that's exactly what they're doing. And the guy still makes some uninformed people's top-10s.

The numbers just don't support Vezina being better than Benedict, at all. Even though he was great and I will fully campaign for his induction soon.

 

[seventieslord]

Hutton - mental block.

Point is that the rule allowing flopping did not help the other goalies.The others would have to re-learn playing their position. It just helped the Senators and Benedict since flopping would no longer be penalized.

Look at the difference in the Senators GAA and record for the second half of the 1918-19 season once the flopping rule is introduced. Second half with flopping allowed Benedict became a much better goalie and the Sens a much better team 7-1 vs 5-5 pre flopping.Last games pre flopping he was lit up by a solid Canadiens team just like in 1915 by Vancouver in the SC finals.First 9 games Benedict allowed 37 goals, last 9 games he allowed 16. Blatant advantage to Benedict due to the rule change not a sudden reversal of talent.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1919_games.html

You fail to explain why all his SCs came after flopping was allowed.As for the 1919-20 season with his five shutouts a few facts have to be considered. First full season where flopping was allowed. Net advantage to the Senators and Benedict since they were able to do what they did best while everyone else had to adapt.Note the last complete pre flopping season the Senators despite a large number of future HHOF were a sub .500 team with Benedict posting a GAA>5.00

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

The Connell reference was in respect to Ottawa goalies. not NHL or across the board in any sense.

Keeping of stats was not poor - the oldtimers who did the HHOF voting realized the impact of the rule changes - flopping, forward pass, red line, etc. What is poor is the lack of attention to detail. Posters just look at this big picture without looking at the game by game details that produced the big picture.

- Benedict was getting away with it regularly already. The rule change simply made it official.
- the differences in their record in the first and second half of the season represent very small sample sizes and statistically can't be counted on with very much confidence.
- BM67 explained just fine why all his stanley cups came after 1919. I don't need to.
- The statskeeping was poor and stats were not mainstream either. No one knew Benedict led his league in goals against average 8 times. Of course, if the Jennings, I mean, Vezina trophy existed back then he would have 8 of them, and then people would have stood up and taken notice.

 

[BM67]

Hutton - mental block.

Point is that the rule allowing flopping did not help the other goalies.The others would have to re-learn playing their position. It just helped the Senators and Benedict since flopping would no longer be penalized.

Look at the difference in the Senators GAA and record for the second half of the 1918-19 season once the flopping rule is introduced. Second half with flopping allowed Benedict became a much better goalie and the Sens a much better team 7-1 vs 5-5 pre flopping.Last games pre flopping he was lit up by a solid Canadiens team just like in 1915 by Vancouver in the SC finals.First 10 games Benedict allowed 39 goals, last 8 games he allowed 14. Blatant advantage to Benedict due to the rule change not a sudden reversal of talent.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1919_games.html

You fail to explain why all his SCs came after flopping was allowed.As for the 1919-20 season with his five shutouts a few facts have to be considered. First full season where flopping was allowed. Net advantage to the Senators and Benedict since they were able to do what they did best while everyone else had to adapt.Note the last complete pre flopping season the Senators despite a large number of future HHOF were a sub .500 team with Benedict posting a GAA>5.00

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

The Connell reference was in respect to Ottawa goalies. not NHL or across the board in any sense.

Keeping of stats was not poor - the oldtimers who did the HHOF voting realized the impact of the rule changes - flopping, forward pass, red line, etc. What is poor is the lack of attention to detail. Posters just look at this big picture without looking at the game by game details that produced the big picture.

The rule was changed during the 1917-18 season, so you're going to have to look elsewhere for a reason why Ottawa had such a large difference in their defense for the two halves of the 1918-19 season.

 

[Dangler99*]

Not sure how Vezina owns Benedict. Provide some evidence because that's a pretty strong statement.

Vezina is certainly not in the hall because he died young. But that is most likely why he was in the charter class, and it is the reason the award for top goalie is named after him. And it's why people like you and I grew up believing he was the best goalie ever until Plante and Sawchuk came around. And the prestige associated with the name and the award has actually led to the pre-1982 Vezina being massively overrated on a goaltender's resume. Nobody brags about Jennings trophies today, but when someone cites Hainsworth's three Vezinas, that's exactly what they're doing. And the guy still makes some uninformed people's top-10s.

The numbers just don't support Vezina being better than Benedict, at all. Even though he was great and I will fully campaign for his induction soon.

I just don't believe that the Hall loved Vezina for sentimental reasons. 19 years between his death and his induction. And even if he does inspire that kind of emotion that long after his death...what does that tell you? He was the first goalie in the Hall because he basically invented the position, or at least refined it. All his contemporaries are in his shadow.

Of course it all depends on how you define greatness. I'm big on contribution to team success. But Vezina's in the class whose greatness can be measured in terms of contribution to the sport. As I said, an architect of the game.

My perception is that goaltending prior to Vezina was primitive. I'm probably oversimplifying here, but a team needed a warm body to stick between the pipes to guard against the opposing team simply firing at will whenever they got the puck. As anyone who plays pickup pond hockey knows, the kid who can't skate usually gets stuck in net. Vezina turned goaltending into a skill position. I see him as the Hasek of his day.

 

[seventieslord]

I just don't believe that the Hall loved Vezina for sentimental reasons. 19 years between his death and his induction. And even if he does inspire that kind of emotion that long after his death...what does that tell you? He was the first goalie in the Hall because he basically invented the position, or at least refined it. All his contemporaries are in his shadow.

Of course it all depends on how you define greatness. I'm big on contribution to team success. But Vezina's in the class whose greatness can be measured in terms of contribution to the sport. As I said, an architect of the game.

My perception is that goaltending prior to Vezina was primitive. I'm probably oversimplifying here, but a team needed a warm body to stick between the pipes to guard against the opposing team simply firing at will whenever they got the puck. As anyone who plays pickup pond hockey knows, the kid who can't skate usually gets stuck in net. Vezina turned goaltending into a skill position. I see him as the Hasek of his day.

This is still not clear.

First of all, Vezina was getting in no matter what. And hockey was late in starting a HHOF. But when they did, there was a clear pattern in their inductions, it was mainly great players who died young. This had an influence on their decision. Ignoring this is putting blingers on. And it didn't matter how long it had been since the players' deaths either. Second, there is really no connection between greatness as recognized today, and the length of time a player had to wait after 1945 to get inducted. None.

Next, why is Vezina's contribution to the sport so great compared to Benedict? Seems to me that Benedict ultimately had a lot more to do with how modern goalies play than Vezina did.

What about their styles of play in particular tells you that Vezina did anything more than Benedict to refine the position and turn it into an art? Quotes are welcome.

Last, considering Benedict and Vezina were contemporaries, the statement "goaltending prior to Vezina was primitive" is equally true about Benedict, and therefore is irrelevant to a comparison of the two.

 

[Dangler99*]

This is still not clear.

First of all, Vezina was getting in no matter what. And hockey was late in starting a HHOF. But when they did, there was a clear pattern in their inductions, it was mainly great players who died young. This had an influence on their decision. Ignoring this is putting blingers on. And it didn't matter how long it had been since the players' deaths either. Second, there is really no connection between greatness as recognized today, and the length of time a player had to wait after 1945 to get inducted. None.

Next, why is Vezina's contribution to the sport so great compared to Benedict? Seems to me that Benedict ultimately had a lot more to do with how modern goalies play than Vezina did.

What about their styles of play in particular tells you that Vezina did anything more than Benedict to refine the position and turn it into an art? Quotes are welcome.

Last, considering Benedict and Vezina were contemporaries, the statement "goaltending prior to Vezina was primitive" is equally true about Benedict, and therefore is irrelevant to a comparison of the two.

The common denominator among the Hall's first class wasn't their age of death. Throwing Gardiner and Morenz into the mix does skew it that way; but otherwise I see ten guys from major league hockey's first generation who were the prototypes for subsequent generations. Pulford, the big bonecrushing stay at home D. Ross, the speedy puck rushing small D. Bowie, the finesse finisher. And so on. And Vezina is part of this group. That's the best evidence I have right now...deferring to the expertise of the selection committee.

Benedict did have a huge impact on the game, no doubt. So did Dave Schultz. There's a difference between fame and infamy. Was it all a big mistake that he was passed over for so long?

 

[Dangler99*]

Okay, here's a quote for Vezina. Jeez, I'm supposed to be working from home today. I knew I should have stayed away from this place!

Don't laugh, but I'm calling on Stan Fischler as an expert witness.

Vezina was discovered by the Canadiens in an exhibition game with an amateur team from Chicoutimi. Fischler's account:

"February 23, 1910. The match between the awesome professionals from Montreal and the patchwork amateur outfit figured to be so one-sided that only a handful of fans turned out. [Thank God Stan was there.] Once the overpowering Canadiens sliced through the fragile Chicoutimi defence, Vezina responded with a peripatetic style that dumfounded the pros. Chicoutimi won 2-0. That was all the Canadiens high command had to know."

Says to me that his style hadn't been seen at a major-league level before.

 

[BM67]

The common denominator among the Hall's first class wasn't their age of death. Throwing Gardiner and Morenz into the mix does skew it that way; but otherwise I see ten guys from major league hockey's first generation who were the prototypes for subsequent generations. Pulford, the big bonecrushing stay at home D. Ross, the speedy puck rushing small D. Bowie, the finesse finisher. And so on. And Vezina is part of this group. That's the best evidence I have right now...deferring to the expertise of the selection committee.

Benedict did have a huge impact on the game, no doubt. So did Dave Schultz. There's a difference between fame and infamy. Was it all a big mistake that he was passed over for so long?

Only Bain, Bowie and Ross were alive at the time of the 1945 inductions. They are outnumbered by the players that died while still playing, Gardiner, Morenz, Stuart and Vezina. Pulford was the only one of the deceased that lived to the age of 50. Gerard was the next oldest at the age of 47 when he died. Vezina at 39 is middle of the pack for age at death of the original 12 inductees.

 

[seventieslord]

Benedict did have a huge impact on the game, no doubt. So did Dave Schultz. There's a difference between fame and infamy. Was it all a big mistake that he was passed over for so long?

Yes - absolutely it was!

Okay, here's a quote for Vezina. Jeez, I'm supposed to be working from home today. I knew I should have stayed away from this place!

Don't laugh, but I'm calling on Stan Fischler as an expert witness.

Vezina was discovered by the Canadiens in an exhibition game with an amateur team from Chicoutimi. Fischler's account:

"February 23, 1910. The match between the awesome professionals from Montreal and the patchwork amateur outfit figured to be so one-sided that only a handful of fans turned out. [Thank God Stan was there.] Once the overpowering Canadiens sliced through the fragile Chicoutimi defence, Vezina responded with a peripatetic style that dumfounded the pros. Chicoutimi won 2-0. That was all the Canadiens high command had to know."

Says to me that his style hadn't been seen at a major-league level before.

that's funny actually, the SIHR mailing list just discussed the accounts of this game last week and from what I remember, there are three different accounts of what the score was, and one of them was 10-5 or something.

So I just don't know how seriously I can take this one.

Also, single game accounts are good seasoning, but the main course of any old player bio should be the general description of them. In other words, "he was a very fast skater" easily trumps a newspaper account saying "he skated like the wind tonight".

Here is a well-seasoned meal for you;

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=821911

 

[Dangler99*]

So Vezina gets the nod over, say, another innovator like Lehman, because he's been called up to higher league?

Interesting, and I gotta admit I never looked at it this way.

Are we speculating, or have any selection committee members confirmed that this was their approach?

 

[seventieslord]

So Vezina gets the nod over, say, another innovator like Lehman, because he's been called up to higher league?

Interesting, and I gotta admit I never looked at it this way.

Are we speculating, or have any selection committee members confirmed that this was their approach?

I actually don't think the NHA was much "higher" than the PCHA - 10% better, at most. They won more series from the PCHA but the games differential was much closer, and the PCHA actually outscored the NHA in total.

Obviously the level of competition that one achieves their success at should be a major consideration. Lehman and Vezina are pretty close according to most people but I prefer Vezina.

 

[MXD]

My two cents...

Being inducted in the Toronto Hockey Hall of Fame doesn't mean a player that isn't "famous", or undeserving of another Hall of Fame.

We have the advantage of being "out of the compact", or so to speak. Whatever Benedict might have done or been that could be relevant for us (allegedly, choking) or completely irrelevant (going on a "political" feud) must be considered according to its "relevance" weight.

I think Benedict is fully deserving of getting in ASAP -- he was one of the guys I voted for in the 1st round -- mainly because he was the best goalie of the era covered by the Early Era Rounds (Canadiens1958, I understand where you're going with the Connell comparisons, but the guy isn't eligible for the Early Era Rounds, so the closer "opponents" would be Vezina, Holmes). I understand why somebody would dislike getting Benedict in so soon (that's basically why I kept being somewhat vague on the criteria -- we're adults, and we can have our own criteria of the players who deserve to get in).

As for Vezina, I just think it's a little early for him. Career-wise, he might be considered better than, let's say, Hainsworth, or he might not -- but nobody would be thinking to get Hainsworth in at this point if he was eligible.

On the other hand -- Baker will PROBABLY get one of my votes next round, depending on how much guys gets in.

 

[MXD]

"February 23, 1910. The match between the awesome professionals from Montreal and the patchwork amateur outfit figured to be so one-sided that only a handful of fans turned out. [Thank God Stan was there.] Once the overpowering Canadiens sliced through the fragile Chicoutimi defence, Vezina responded with a peripatetic style that dumfounded the pros. Chicoutimi won 2-0. That was all the Canadiens high command had to know."

Says to me that his style hadn't been seen at a major-league level before.

Errrgghhh...

What?

He got on its knees?
Sorry. That was the un-serious moment.