HOHHOF -- Early Era -- Round 4

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by MXD, Feb 22, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    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.
     
  2. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    From the results thread, JustOneofTheGuys :
     
  3. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    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.
     
  4. finchster

    finchster Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    9,599
    Likes Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    154
    Location:
    Moscow
    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.
     
  5. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    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.

    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.
     
  6. DaveG

    DaveG Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Messages:
    41,260
    Likes Received:
    12,334
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer/Medical Software
    Location:
    Winston-Salem NC
    Awards:
    definitely going with Malone and Pulford here, wide open on the other two options though.
     
  7. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    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: Feb 23, 2011
  8. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,175
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    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".
     
  9. MadArcand

    MadArcand Whaletarded

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,459
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Seat of the Empire
    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:
     
  10. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,175
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    The fact that Dan Bain was a good horseback rider doesn't make him a better hockey player.....
     
  11. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    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.

    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.
     
  12. MadArcand

    MadArcand Whaletarded

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,459
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    Seat of the Empire
    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).

    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.
     
  13. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,277
    Likes Received:
    1,220
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    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.

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

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

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    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?
     
  15. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,175
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Stuart dominated all aspects of the game.

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

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,175
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    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.
     
  17. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    What?

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

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,175
    Likes Received:
    209
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    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.
     
  19. JFA87-66-99

    JFA87-66-99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    2,795
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    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?
     
  20. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    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.
     
  21. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    Hummm...
    Did we REALLY forgot Weldy Young?

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

    Dennis Bonvie Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    13,763
    Likes Received:
    809
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Unknown
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Can a case be made for Georges Vezina?

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

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    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.
     
  24. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    31,890
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    Yeah, sure, the best defenseman that's not yet inducted.

    The 1924 and 1926 Hart runner-up says hi.

    Yes.

    None.
     
  25. MXD

    MXD Original #4

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    37,468
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Occupation:
    Dead
    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).
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"