HOHHOF - Early Era - Round 3 Thread

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
I'm keeping the three other guys I voted for (Cleghorn, Benedict, Bowie).

My other vote is "available", and quite frankly, it will take very good arguments for two or three specific guys in order to make me change that vote.

I expected Round 3 to be the round where I'd start to push for Hobey Baker, but I'd thought there would be 5 inductees instead of 3...


Baker doesn't make my version of the Hall for players for reasons listed below.

I pushed for Dan Bain last round, not based on a statistical analysis but what his stellar play did for the game of hockey, popularizing it west of Ontario. What is a hall of fame? A Hall of fame is a museum and I believe a hall of fame should consider subjective arguments based on historical significance; otherwise, how is this any different from the all time draft, or the top-100 players list? I understand that historical significance is a slippery slope, but in this era specifically I believe it’s important. If not, what you will see is pre-WWI and nineteenth century players as left over’s to decide between at the end of the early era of voting.

Yes, best remaining player(s) is usually the correct decision, but there needs to be some leeway.

Bain, Benedict, Bowie, and Cleghorn is probably my vote unless I can be persuaded.

I'm using the criteria for players on what they actually did on the ice and saving some of the "he did this to help spread the game" and other similar arguments for a builders category.

With this criteria Bain still makes it because of his impact on Stanley Cup play and the limited number of seasons won't hold players back on m,my list until players started doing it more regularly.

That being said I'm not sure how long it will take Bain to get in with the way things are going here maybe round 42?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Researching Charlie Gardiner, I found this from one of his obituaries (after he shockingly died at the height of his career in 1934):

Hockey last night lost one of its most colorful figures with the death of Charles "Chuck" Gardiner, brilliant Chicago Blackhawks goalie. He died of a brain hemorrhage after a brief illness. Gardiner, who last season reached the peak of a lengthy and brilliant career as the Hawks carried off the Stanley Cup, was ranked along with the immortal Georges Vezina as one of the greatest goal-tenders of all time.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&pg=5697,4538902&dq=gardiner+charlie&hl=en

I'm posting it here because I want thoughts on why the article would mention Vezina by name, and not Benedict.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
Researching Charlie Gardiner, I found this from one of his obituaries (after he shockingly died at the height of his career in 1934):



http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&pg=5697,4538902&dq=gardiner+charlie&hl=en

I'm posting it here because I want thoughts on why the article would mention Vezina by name, and not Benedict.

That's interesting...

But one has to remember that Gardiner's career ended up in a quite similar fashion than Vezina's. Which might explain the comparison.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
As I said, it's still just 4 seasons. He was very good in the play-offs, but his regular season scoring is unimpressive.



Why would we vote a guy in when we don't know if he was a dominant player?

Right now, he's got historical significance on his side. Untill all the guys who were both known to be great players and historically significant, can't justify voting for an unknown.

Otherwise, why aren't we voting James Creighton? He played and he was very significant. Was he good? Who knows.... but he was significant!

Bain was the best player on a team that won the Stanley Cup. Is this not sufficient proof that he was a dominant player?

I love that there's a Bain v. Grant argument in progress though!

I ended up voting for Bain in the last round, and he'll have my vote again this round, as will Benedict.

I'm not simply going to order my ballot based on who I had in the previous round that didn't get in though. I think representation of eras is important. The first three candidates we've elected are all post-WWI players, so I'm definitely going to have at least two pre-war players on my ballot in this round.

Grant, McGee, Pulford, Bowie, and the aforementioned Bain...good cases can be made for all. Shamrocks star and captain Harry Trihey belongs in the conversation as well.
 

EagleBelfour

Registered User
Jun 7, 2005
7,467
62
ehsl.proboards32.com
I'm extremely surprise at how few support Tommy Phillips is receiving. I understand the merit of inducting players like Dan Bain, I hope they will get in eventually, but Tom Phillips was just THAT much better to a Dan Bain that it's kind of mind-boggling to induct a much worst hockey player, because he had a sensible better impact on the game.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I'm extremely surprise at how few support Tommy Phillips is receiving. I understand the merit of inducting players like Dan Bain, I hope they will get in eventually, but Tom Phillips was just THAT much better to a Dan Bain that it's kind of mind-boggling to induct a much worst hockey player, because he had a sensible better impact on the game.

Honestly, I think it's because most of the people posting here really don't know much about pre-WW1 players, myself included. Edit: Not saying anything about Dan Bain; I'm more talking about how certain worthy candidates like Phillips haven't even been discussed yet. The guys really pushing for the Early Era Committee have been MIA from discussion for the most part.

Here's an interesting quote from Phillips profile (via Dreakmur):


“Virtually overnight, he was the talk of the hockey world. Stories were told of a speed demon from out west, a hockeyist “game” to the core. This man had a vast repertoire of skills, each of them polished to a glimmer. He controlled the puck exceptionally well, possessed a deadly shot, and had a knack for defensive pursuits, most notably the backcheck… He had a devastating shot. His blasts were often referred to as “cross fires”. At a tme when hockey fans argued on behalf of the Russell Bowies, Frank McGees, and Hod Stuarts as hockey’s top player, “Nibs” was easily the all-around pick of the litter.” – Ultimate Hockey

So in the first decade of the 20th century, it appears there were 4 players who had a case for "best in the world:" Tommy Phillips, Russell Bowie, Frank McGee, and Hod Stuart. And perhaps, not surprisingly, all 4 players were inducted into the very first class of the real HHOF.

These are the players who made it into the inaugural class of the original HHOF:

Donald H. (Dan) Bain
Hobart Amery Hare (Hobey) Baker
Russell (Dubbie) Bowie
Charles Robert (Chuck) Gardiner
Edward George (Eddie) Gerard
Francis (Frank) McGee
Howard William (Howie) Morenz
Thomas N. (Tommy) Phillips
Harvey Pulford
Arthur Howey (Art) Ross
William H. (Hod) Stuart
Georges Vezina

Baker, Gardiner, Morenz, Stuart, and Vezina all died quite young (am I missing anyone)? Art Ross was a great player but I'm sure it didn't hurt being a player/builder.

While I'm not saying that we need to follow the path of the real HHOF, their inaugural class does provide good evidence as to which really early players were highly thought of. It's basically all pre-WW1 players, with a couple of later guys (Gardiner, Morenz, Vezina) who died young.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Only Bowie played a full career. That's why the other 3 aren't getting mentioned yet.

I agree that Bowie should be inducted before the others. I've been voting for him since the first round!

But I wouldn't say Tommy Phillips didn't play a full career. He played top level hockey from 1901–1912, which was a very solid career length for that era.

Frank McGee's career was super short, but he was so dominant during that time, he has to be inducted sooner rather than later. (But I'm not likely to vote for him quite yet).
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Amen! Do it!
I'm looking forward to some real discussion.

All you voters giving votes to minority guys at this point will have a much better shot of making a legitimate case for them if you vote in the majority guys now and get them out of the way early.

Leaning heavily towards agreeing with you right now and just voting the "obvious" choices of Bowie, Benedict, Cleghorn, and Malone, just so we can have an actual interesting discussion of pre-WW1 players who definitely deserve to be inducted.

Here's some collusion for you, I'll vote for those 4 guys until they get in, if you promise to use 3 of your next 4 votes on the most deserving pre-WW1 guys. :handclap:
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
I agree that Bowie should be inducted before the others. I've been voting for him since the first round!

But I wouldn't say Tommy Phillips didn't play a full career. He played top level hockey from 1901–1912, which was a very solid career length for that era.

Frank McGee's career was super short, but he was so dominant during that time, he has to be inducted sooner rather than later. (But I'm not likely to vote for him quite yet).

There are many guys I'd vote in before Tommy Phillips. And that's not really a slight to Phillips. Out of the names that were on the ballots last round, there's really only one player I'd get in after Phillips. And there are also a few ones that weren't on the ballots either.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
There are many guys I'd vote in before Tommy Phillips. And that's not really a slight to Phillips. Out of the names that were on the ballots last round, there's really only one player I'd get in after Phillips. And there are also a few ones that weren't on the ballots either.

As of now, I'd vote in Phillips over at least 2 of the guys who got votes last time, but he's not in my top 4 right now and wouldn't be even without collusion.

Just pointing out that his career was of a very respectable length for his era.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
I agree that Bowie should be inducted before the others. I've been voting for him since the first round!

But I wouldn't say Tommy Phillips didn't play a full career. He played top level hockey from 1901–1912, which was a very solid career length for that era.

Frank McGee's career was super short, but he was so dominant during that time, he has to be inducted sooner rather than later. (But I'm not likely to vote for him quite yet).

Phillips played from 1901/02 to 1907/08, the retired and came bac for the 1911/12 season. That's 7 seasons, and most of that time was spent in 2nd tier leagues.

His best season by far was 1908, where was was 3rd in the ECAHA scoring. That's not very impressive.
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,707
1,847
Phillips played from 1901/02 to 1907/08, the retired and came bac for the 1911/12 season. That's 7 seasons, and most of that time was spent in 2nd tier leagues.

His best season by far was 1908, where was was 3rd in the ECAHA scoring. That's not very impressive.

Phillips also gained a reputation by being one of the first two-way forwards, and he apparently did it quite well. This in an era when forwards had little to do with defence.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Phillips also gained a reputation by being one of the first two-way forwards, and he apparently did it quite well. This in an era when forwards had little to do with defence.

There were lots of good two-way and defensive forwards before Phillips. He was probably one of the best before guys like Jack Walker and Frank Nighbor, but it's not like he invented two-way hockey.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Phillips played from 1901/02 to 1907/08, the retired and came bac for the 1911/12 season. That's 7 seasons, and most of that time was spent in 2nd tier leagues.

His best season by far was 1908, where was was 3rd in the ECAHA scoring. That's not very impressive.

Wasn't Phillips top 3 in scoring in his league 3 times? Is there a good free site that lists stats from that era, or do I finally bite the bullet and have to join SIHR? Though as I've said before, I don't exactly trust pre-WW1 stats.

I forgot he retired for those few seasons. Even so, 7 seasons was pretty normal in that era, when guys really couldn't make a decent living playing hockey.

Regardless, there is a lot of evidence that he and Frank McGee were considered the two best players in the world during the time period. I think McGee was a little better when he played, but the difference between them is 4 vs. 7 seasons.

There were lots of good two-way and defensive forwards before Phillips. He was probably one of the best before guys like Jack Walker and Frank Nighbor, but it's not like he invented two-way hockey.

Maybe I haven't read enough about other players,but I have seen more quotes from more sources raving about Phillips complete game than any other player in the era by a good margin.

Again, the guy was inducted into the HHOF in the inaugural class without a good "sob story" and without being part of a dynasty (Phillips was kind of a mercenary).

This round appears to be rapping up and Bowie is the only pre-WW1 player with a chance to get in (and I really hope he does).

Next round, it would be great if some of us could come up with pros and cons of all the pre-WW1 players who were inducted into the actual HHOF in the 1945 and 1947 classes.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Joe Malone sounds like the ovechkin of his era, i'm surprisedd he's always underrated.

Malone had no defensive game and no physical game to speak of. He was a fast, one-dimensional goal scorer, basically. On the other hand, he was captain and face of the Quebec Bulldogs for pretty much their entire existence.

At this point, I'm definitely voting for Bowie, Cleghorn, and Benedict (if for no other reason than to "get them out of the way"). Malone is the only one of the no-brainers that I'm waivering on, though he obviously deserves induction sooner, rather than later.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
I'm extremely surprise at how few support Tommy Phillips is receiving. I understand the merit of inducting players like Dan Bain, I hope they will get in eventually, but Tom Phillips was just THAT much better to a Dan Bain that it's kind of mind-boggling to induct a much worst hockey player, because he had a sensible better impact on the game.

Why is Bain "much worse"? Both Bain and Phillips could claim to be amongst the pre-eminent stars of their era.

And now that you mention Phillips, I do agree that he was probably a little better than Bain. I've read before where Phillips was considered the top player in the world for a time (I'm thinking around 1906, 1907-ish). That's enough for me to slot him ahead of Bain on an all-time list.

But in any case, I don't think the gap between these two was very large at all. I'd like to see the 1890's reresented sooner rather than later, and a good case has been made for Bain being the first famous player of the west. (I'd stop short at saying he spread the game in the west, however). That's enough for me to vote him in before Phillips at this point, though of course I could be convinced otherwise.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
Malone had no defensive game and no physical game to speak of. He was a fast, one-dimensional goal scorer, basically. On the other hand, he was captain and face of the Quebec Bulldogs for pretty much their entire existence.

At this point, I'm definitely voting for Bowie, Cleghorn, and Benedict (if for no other reason than to "get them out of the way"). Malone is the only one of the no-brainers that I'm waivering on, though he obviously deserves induction sooner, rather than later.

Not sure he was fast. Quite elusive, but not fast. I see him as a... slim version of Brett Hull, if anything.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Not sure he was fast. Quite elusive, but not fast. I see him as a... slim version of Brett Hull, if anything.

I realize legends of hockey isn't always right, but this is from his legends of hockey profile:

While known for his unique upright skating style and revered for his excellent conduct on the ice, what set "Phantom" Joe Malone apart from the rest was an ability to find openings and weave his way through the defensive alignments of the opposition. Deceptively quick, Malone was the fastest player in the pros and possessed a lethal instinct around the net.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->