HOHHOF -- Early Era -- Round 4

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
The fourth round for the Early Era HOHHOF begans now. Each voter will have 4 votes at his disposal, that he MUST cast, and the deadline will be Sunday, March 6h.
If a player gets 80% of the total possible votes, he'll get induced in the HOHHOF. The votes are to be cast at

[email protected]

The eligible players can be found on this thread : http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=847482

Click on the link beside the player for additionnal info.


In round 1, the following players were inducted

Rover/D Frederick "Cyclone" Taylor
Rover/C Édouard "Newsy" Lalonde

In round 2, the following player was inducted

C Frank Nighbor

In round 3, the following players were inducted

Rover/F Russel "Dubbie" Bowie
G Clint Benedict
D Sprague Cleghorn



This is the discussion thread for Round 4. Feel free to advocate for the players that you deem worthy. Here are the result of first rounds :

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30438600&postcount=1 : Round 1

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30765956&postcount=1 : Round 2

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=31125594&postcount=1 : Round 3

Here's a few "mandatory" rules :

- At all time, and in every round you can cast a write-in vote. This said, if you cast a vote for a non-eligible player (ex.: Josef Malecek in this one) in any round, your vote will be voided.
- Every guy getting a write-in vote will be added to the ballot for the whole Early Era Rounds.
- The players will remain on the Early Era ballots until the end of the rounds, or until when they're inducted.
- As of now, there will be TEN (10) rounds. That number MIGHT be "reviewed" for a few more rounds (not less).
- The Early Era guys will be eligible for write-ins in the "Chronological" rounds. It's a bit useless to bother about write-in rules at this point (since this is basically an open ballot with 80+ names), but if a guy is written in, he'll remain on the ballot for the reminder of the Early Era Rounds.
- When you send your E-Mail, use the following format for the title
HOHHOF ROUND x (in this case, 4), "hfboards usename" ballot

So, for me, (AND ONLY FOR ME :naughty:) it would look like : HOHHOF Round 4, MXD ballot.

The idea is to make the job easier for us when we count the votes.

- Keep it civil and polite.

Here's a suggestion :

- Try to vote for the more "deserving guys", the players you think are the really best in that crop. Example : I really think Hod Stuart is worthy of the HOHHOF, and I sorta like his personnal story. This said -- I recognize there are AT LEAST four more "worthy" guys than him at this point. In this said, I'll restrain from voting for Hod Stuart in the 2nd round. The idea is to get is to not get stuck with a few players that we all think are worthy, but that we disagree on the order of their induction. (I can keep the Stuart example... for now)



And a few others messages that aren't related to the Early Era voting rounds

- Still looking for another trustee.
- We need to start the "research" for the "Post-merger and Depression era" Keep in mind that the voting will start in 1940, with a 3 year "waiving" period (well, 3 seasons actually). So every player retiring in 1936-1937 or earlier will be eligible for the first round, and the other will be eligible in subsequent rounds.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
From the results thread, JustOneofTheGuys :
I have no time fro research at the moment but in the ATDs I have posted and linked before:

- a newspaper article profiling his defensive exploits as the defensive hero of the game, the very first stanley cup playoff game, as he turned away attack after attack only for Ottawa to concede to Montreal on goals in the last period (1994?)

- He has played the 2nd or 3rd most games played of all in the 1890s (there's a chart someone assembled here at HB's.)

- the role of defensive defenseman was active because of no forward pass he could literally end up checking the entire squad trying to make a rush (according to Farley - ah heck, don't recall anything spsific at the kpomenmt)

- Harvey Pulford and and Al Smith are the core of the identity Silver Seven of the earliest twentiest century stanley cup successes and while there there are cases to Smith's meanness without Pulford, there aren't any of toughness with out Pulford that I have ecever found. He was the captain. The true first defensive defensemen hockey star whose career is long, enveloping the emerging 90s and formulatibe 00s.

All things I considered, I think Harvey Pulford the first defenseman worthy of induction. I've just been too busy with other thinag to make a case for it.

glwhatever
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
For me... Malone is a sure vote (voted for him, after all) -- otherwise, this is still a crapshot. As things stands now, my ballot will probably contain 3 D-Mens (and if Malone would have been voted in, it would contain 4). However, I do have an internal dilemna about the appropriateness of voting for a guy who had a really late peak at this point, even if I fully expected the guys that are in to be "in" at this time, and roughly in that order as well.

I'll be pondering this. There might be only one Forward that I might give a long look at.
 

finchster

Registered User
Jul 12, 2006
10,632
2,121
Antalya
Malone and Bain are my only sure votes and I am also leaning towards Mike Grant but I haven’t decided. I would like to be swayed by a good argument for the last two votes as it is wide open, and I would like to at least vote in two guys every round.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Summary of my long rant from the last thread:

I think we really need to make sure we induct the best players in the world at any given point in time.

In the 1900-1909 decade, Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Russell Bowie, and Hod Stuart all had more or less equal cases for the best player in the world for an extended period of time.
Bowie was already inducted. The other three should be inducted sooner rather than later.

THN's First Century of Hockey said:
Here are the best of the pre-and non-NHLers.
THN’s First Team
G: Hugh Lehman
D: Hod Stuart
D: Lester Patrick
R: Cyclone Taylor
LW: Tommy Phillips
C: Frank McGee
RW: Didier Pitre

Joe Pelletier said:
In a 1925 article (Lester) Patrick was asked to select his all-time all-star team. Here's what he said:

"My opinion is based on consistency of players over a period of years, and the fact that men selected possessed nearly all the fundamentals of an ideal player - physique, stamina, courage, speed, stick-handling, goal-getting ability, skill in passing, proper temperament and, above all, hockey brains."

Patrick selected Hughie Lehman in goal, Sprague Cleghorn and Hod Stuart on defence, and up front he chose Tom Phillips, Arthur Farrell and Fred "Cyclone" Taylor.

Notice the position of Phillips and Stuart on both lists. Lehman is on both lists too, but the quality goalies who never played in the NHL is limited.

Frank McGee: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=31073111&postcount=65

Tommy Phillips: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=31105485&postcount=72

Hod Stuart: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30991681&postcount=61

"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 (Note: Nibs is Tommy Phillips nickname)

"Who is the best hockey player in Canada? Nine out of ten people will tell you it is either Frank McGee or him. " - THe Montreal Gazette, 1906. (Note: Hod Stuart didn't play in Canada)

"Out west, (Phillips) was often called the greatest player in the game, much like Frank McGee in the East" - "Honoured Members"

More on Phillips in particular:

Lester Patrick considered Phillips the best player in the world as late as 1909 and Art Ross said he was the best player he had ever seen (does anybody know the date of that quote from Ross?)

As late as 1922, Phillips was still considered "the perfect hockey player" to whom others were compared out west.

At this point, I have 3 locks: Joe Malone, Hod Stuart and Tommy Phillips. I rank McGee just slightly below Stuart and Phillips because he had such a short career. I do want to vote for Frank McGee, but I might change the vote for Bain because he also deserves induction and seems to be getting more support.

I will not vote for another post-World War 1 player until more earlier guys get in, lest this because the "Committee for the decade after World War 1, plus Bowie as a token earlier guy." Sorry Cy Denneny.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Can someone please educate me on why Pulford gets support over Stuart? It seems most sources (contemporary and otherwise) considered Stuart a better player. Thanks!

Edit: I guess lots of value on championships won and games played, basically?
 
Last edited:

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Can someone please educate me on why Pulford gets support over Stuart? It seems most sources (contemporary and otherwise) considered Stuart a better player. Thanks!

Edit: I guess lots of value on championships won and games played, basically?

You'd have to really give a lot of value to longevity and Stanley Cups to have Pulford ahead of Stuart.

Harvey Pulford was a relatively one-dimensional player. He has very definitive strengths and weaknesses. Hod Stuart, on the other had, has no weakneses. Even if you compare them based on Pulford's stongest areas, Stuart stacks up fine.

Obviously, Stuart was by far the better offensive player, but what people need to understand is that he may have been better defnsively as well.

Stuart won a single Cup because he played a lot of his career in the United States, where he was actually temporarily banned form the league because the other teams complained that he won too many titles and played too rough.

Of course, one of Harvey Pulford's own teammates called Hod Stuart "undoubtedly the greatest hockey player who ever donned skates".
 

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,872
411
Seat of the Empire

In the 1900-1909 decade, Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Russell Bowie, and Hod Stuart all had more or less equal cases for the best player in the world for an extended period of time.
Bowie was already inducted. The other three should be inducted sooner rather than later.
Yet Dan Bain being considered the greatest athlete (athlete, not just hockey player!) of the whole second half of 19th century doesn't even faze you?

Do you pimp Phillips so because you just drafted him? :sarcasm:
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Yet Dan Bain being considered the greatest athlete (athlete, not just hockey player!) of the whole second half of 19th century doesn't even faze you?

Do you pimp Phillips so because you just drafted him? :sarcasm:

I "pimp" Phillips because people who watched him play considered him the best western player they had ever seen, and still considered him the best western player more than a decade after he retired.

Lester Patrick's opinion of Phillips matters more to me than who owns him in the ATD. Though I do wish this project wasn't happening at the same time as the ATD to remove the perception of bias.

The fact that Dan Bain was a good horseback rider doesn't make him a better hockey player.....

Agreed.

I'm leaning towards voting for Bain this time anyway due to his contributions to hockey out west, but being the "best all round athlete in Canada" isn't very relevant to me for a Hockey Hall of Fame.
 

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,872
411
Seat of the Empire
I "pimp" Phillips because people who watched him play considered him the best western player they had ever seen, and still considered him the best western player more than a decade after he retired.

Lester Patrick's opinion of Phillips matters more to me than who owns him in the ATD. Though I do wish this project wasn't happening at the same time as the ATD to remove the perception of bias.
I was being sarcastic...

I think Phillips is worthy, hell he's currently the frontrunner for my 4th vote (Bain, Malone and McGee being the first 3).

Agreed.

I'm leaning towards voting for Bain this time anyway due to his contributions to hockey out west, but being the "best all round athlete in Canada" isn't very relevant to me for a Hockey Hall of Fame.
Hockey Hall of Fame. And if it ain't relevant, how about him pioneering the use of mask in hockey? All that in addition to his contributions to hockey out west should get him in sooner rather than later.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I was being sarcastic...

Heh, sorry about that. I got about 6 hours of sleep last two nights combined, traveled a lot... and am hungover. So the internet sarcasm detector is not really working.

I think Phillips is worthy, hell he's currently the frontrunner for my 4th vote (Bain, Malone and McGee being the first 3).

All worthy choices. I wish I could vote for 6 people this time around!

Hockey Hall of Fame. And if it ain't relevant, how about him pioneering the use of mask in hockey? All that in addition to his contributions to hockey out west should get him in sooner rather than later.

Good points. Bain is definitely in contention for my 4th vote.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Question :

Aside from playing way earlier - and thus pioneering somewhat the game - what makes Hod Stuart a better pick than George Boucher at this point?
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Question :

Aside from playing way earlier - and thus pioneering somewhat the game - what makes Hod Stuart a better pick than George Boucher at this point?

Stuart dominated all aspects of the game.

George Boucher very good, but never dominant, in many areas, but not all areas.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Hockey Hall of Fame. And if it ain't relevant, how about him pioneering the use of mask in hockey? All that in addition to his contributions to hockey out west should get him in sooner rather than later.

Again, him wearing a mask is meaningless.


What did he actually do to grow the game out west? That keeps coming up, but nothing to back it up.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Stuart dominated all aspects of the game.

George Boucher very good, but never dominant, in many areas, but not all areas.

What?

Boucher was the best D-Men in the league, from 1920 to Eddie Shore.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
What?

Boucher was the best D-Men in the league, from 1920 to Eddie Shore.

That's pretty debatable. He was certainly among the best, but I wouldn't say he was the best. Eddie Gerard and Sprague Cleghorn would give him a run for his money, especially in the early 20s.

Asside from that, there were other leagues with defenseman who would give Boucher a run.


Even if you beleive he was the best overall defenseman in the league, he wasn't dominant in all aspects of the game.
 

JFA87-66-99

Registered User
Jun 12, 2007
2,872
16
USA
Hey guys I've been so tied up in the all-time draft that I completely forgot about this project. If its not too late I'd still like to get involved. Also you guys have every significant player from the early era except for a few names. Lorne Campbell, Harry Smith, Weldy Young and Allan Cameron should definately be there if Jack Campbell is. Just curious are these players considered not worthy?
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
That's pretty debatable. He was certainly among the best, but I wouldn't say he was the best. Eddie Gerard and Sprague Cleghorn would give him a run for his money, especially in the early 20s.

Asside from that, there were other leagues with defenseman who would give Boucher a run.


Even if you beleive he was the best overall defenseman in the league, he wasn't dominant in all aspects of the game.

Certainly not Gerard, and not Cleghorn on a constant basis. Besides, Cleghorn was at the twilight of his career at this point, even if he was still a pretty good D-Men.

Not dominant? Boucher was one point away from being the lone NHL D-Men to lead the league in scoring, and the only one the lead the league in PPG (Before Orr came along)*

Take this, add a good defensive game (mainly built around toughness), and the fact he was the no.1 D-Men on the first dynasty, and you have a guy who has quite a claim at getting votes at this point.

* This claim is somewhat unverified at this point : still, I can't think of another D-Men who has such a claim -- even Boucher's contemporary Harry Cameron.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Hey guys I've been so tied up in the all-time draft that I completely forgot about this project. If its not too late I'd still like to get involved. Also you guys have every significant player from the early era except for a few names. Lorne Campbell, Harry Smith, Weldy Young and Allan Cameron should definately be there if Jack Campbell is. Just curious are these players considered not worthy?

Hummm...
Did we REALLY forgot Weldy Young?

Every guy is technically eligible (we might have missed a few guys in the exploratory period...).
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Can a case be made for Georges Vezina?

If not, who are the pre-WWI goalies that should be considered better choices?

A case can be made for him, and I can't make a case for any other Pre-WW1 guys over him. I wouldn't make a case for Lehman over Vezina. I guess one could SORTA make such a case for Hap Holmes, but it's not something I'd do, and it's not like he's a pure pre-WWI goalie either.

Vezina is one of the guys I'm considering this round. Unlikely that I end up voting for him, though.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,667
16,392
Yeah, sure, the best defenseman that's not yet inducted.

The 1924 and 1926 Hart runner-up says hi.

.

Constantly?
Besides... Cleghorn is already in, and it's somewhat easier to get Hart votes when the top cogs on your team are Carson Cooper and Billy Boucher... (Morenz wasn't Morenz yet).
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->