HOHHOF -- Early Era -- Round 4

Dreakmur

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

From 1920 to 1923, Eddie Gerard was definately better defensively that Boucher, and I'd say he was better overall.

Cleghorn may have been at the end of his career, but he was still a top end defenseman.

Even if you think Boucher was the best defenseman for a couple years, but it has as much to do with a lack of good defenseman than it does with his ability.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
From 1920 to 1923, Eddie Gerard was definately better defensively that Boucher, and I'd say he was better overall.

.

Boucher was awarded more Norris retro awards than Gerard during that timespan(2-1), along with two more later on, so, considering that, I think it's safer to say that Boucher was better overall, if that is a valuable source.

As for the lack of good D's, well, there was one in the league who got inducted and who wasn't exactly bad at that time. As well as a few HOHHOF'ers, and using the competition argument against Boucher is a borderline travesty if he's being compared to Hod Stuart.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Boucher was awarded more Norris retro awards than Gerard during that timespan(2-1), along with two more later on, so, considering that, I think it's safer to say that Boucher was better overall, if that is a valuable source.

As for the lack of good D's, well, there was one in the league who got inducted and who wasn't exactly bad at that time. As well as a few HOHHOF'ers, and using the competition argument against Boucher is a borderline travesty if he's being compared to Hod Stuart.

Both of Boucher's retro Norris' were given to him in seasons when another defenseman was the Hart runner-up. I'd say they are not that reliable.


Hod Stuart had stiff competition in Harvey Pulford. There were also a few other pretty solid defensemen - Art Ross, Dickie Boon, and Cyclone Taylor.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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?

For one thing, George Boucher shouldn't be inducted before Eddie Gerard or Moose Johnson, contemporaries who were considered better by people who watched them.

For another thing, yes, playing earlier does matter. So far "the early era committee" has only inducted one player who played in the 2 decades before WW1 vs. 5 who played in the 1 decade afterwards, and that ain't right.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Boucher was awarded more Norris retro awards than Gerard during that timespan(2-1), along with two more later on, so, considering that, I think it's safer to say that Boucher was better overall, if that is a valuable source.

As for the lack of good D's, well, there was one in the league who got inducted and who wasn't exactly bad at that time. As well as a few HOHHOF'ers, and using the competition argument against Boucher is a borderline travesty if he's being compared to Hod Stuart.

At this point, I think Ultimate Hockey's retro awards are almost completely discredited. They are based on nothing more than educated guesses from the age before the internet put primary sources at the hands of the masses. So many times after the All-Star Teams came out does the "retro Norris winner" have zero correlation with who actually led the All-Star voting.

Gerard was considered better than Boucher by people who saw him. Gerard's profile has some information about this: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=29355922&postcount=111 and of course, there is the fact that he was inducted into the actual HHOF before Boucher.
 
Last edited:

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
For one thing, George Boucher shouldn't be inducted before Eddie Gerard or Moose Johnson, contemporaries who were considered better by people who watched them.

For another thing, yes, playing earlier does matter. So far "the early era committee" has only inducted one player who played in the 2 decades before WW1 vs. 5 who played in the 1 decade afterwards, and that ain't right.

Strongly agrees on Moose. (Quite close guys, but I'd give Moose the advantage)
Strongly disgarees on Gerard.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Both of Boucher's retro Norris' were given to him in seasons when another defenseman was the Hart runner-up. I'd say they are not that reliable.


Hod Stuart had stiff competition in Harvey Pulford. There were also a few other pretty solid defensemen - Art Ross, Dickie Boon, and Cyclone Taylor.

Both?!?!

Discredited or not, the Hart voting patterns aren't perfect either. When the most productive player is a D-Men... he should win the Hart, unless he's Mike Green (which Boucher is not).
 

Dreakmur

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

You said Boucher had more Retro Norris than Garard with 2 vs. 1. I thought you meant that was over the whole 20s. Since I knew he got them in 1924 and 1926, when Cleghorn was the Hart runner-up, I assumed those were the two.

Either way, retro norrises are almost meaningless.

Discredited or not, the Hart voting patterns aren't perfect either. When the most productive player is a D-Men... he should win the Hart, unless he's Mike Green (which Boucher is not).

Either way, Boucher might have been the best, but he certainly wasn't dominant in all areas. He was dominant offensively. He was not even the best defensively, and he sure as heck wasn't the toughest.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
You said Boucher had more Retro Norris than Garard with 2 vs. 1. I thought you meant that was over the whole 20s. Since I knew he got them in 1924 and 1926, when Cleghorn was the Hart runner-up, I assumed those were the two.
.

2.vs1, from 1920 to 1923, plus two others.(24-26)

There has been cases of somewhat bad Hart award voting, and I don't exactly know why those ones aren't questionned. Only one other D-Men led the NHL in "productivity", and it's Bobby Orr. Statistically and comparatively speaking, Boucher's 24 is the best offensive season from a D-Men not named Bobby Orr.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
2.vs1, from 1920 to 1923, plus two others.(24-26)

There has been cases of somewhat bad Hart award voting, and I don't exactly know why those ones aren't questionned. Only one other D-Men led the NHL in "productivity", and it's Bobby Orr. Statistically and comparatively speaking, Boucher's 24 is the best offensive season from a D-Men not named Bobby Orr.

Hart voting tells us Cleghorn was the most valuable defenseman in the league that year. Ultimate Hockey tells us Boucher was the best. Who should we believe? Hmmm.....
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Hart voting tells us Cleghorn was the most valuable defenseman in the league that year. Ultimate Hockey tells us Boucher was the best. Who should we believe? Hmmm.....

Common sense would indeed say the Hart voting.
BUT
There were of case of Hart voting not being the most representative way to evaluate and a player, and frankly, and I can't see why this possibility wasn't raised for Cleghorn/Boucher (especially considering Cleghorn played on teams that were, on paper actually, worst than the Sens -- and especially the Bruins).

(The worst is -- I probably won't vote for Boucher in this round)
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Are we 100% sure Boucher didn't play any forward in 1924? I know sturm/70s looked at this in the recent ATD, but I forget what was concluded.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Are we 100% sure Boucher didn't play any forward in 1924? I know sturm/70s looked at this in the recent ATD, but I forget what was concluded.

How many defensemen played regularly. It looks like King Clancy and Lionel Hitchman played very regularly.

It's plausible that Boucher played with Denneny and Nighbor, but I think Broadbent was there....
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Common sense would indeed say the Hart voting.
BUT
There were of case of Hart voting not being the most representative way to evaluate and a player, and frankly, and I can't see why this possibility wasn't raised for Cleghorn/Boucher (especially considering Cleghorn played on teams that were, on paper actually, worst than the Sens -- and especially the Bruins).

(The worst is -- I probably won't vote for Boucher in this round)

Yes, it's entirely possible that Boucher was "truly" better than Cleghorn in those seasons. My point is that the Ultimate Hockey retro awards have nothing to do with putting together a case for it.

Are we 100% sure Boucher didn't play any forward in 1924? I know sturm/70s looked at this in the recent ATD, but I forget what was concluded.

My info tells me he was a forward/utility player through the 1919 season and then was a full-time defenseman.

Sturm didn't disagree.

How many defensemen played regularly. It looks like King Clancy and Lionel Hitchman played very regularly.

It's plausible that Boucher played with Denneny and Nighbor, but I think Broadbent was there....

Clancy was a utility player for two seasons but my info says after that he became a full-time defenseman.

I haven't heard anything about Hitchman, and frankly, he's a brutal offensive player if he spent any time on the forward lines.

As for Boucher, when he was a forward he was usually a center, as I understand it, filling in for Nighbor. Sturm knows more about this, though.
 

Prophecy35

Registered User
Dec 9, 2009
244
0
I'm 100% sure one of my votes is going to Malone, but as for the others, I am just left confused, as I am not the most educated on the "early era" players.

Should a vote go to Bain, or even Baker, which would likely have something to do with impact on hockey, and not just their abilities as players?

Stuart, Boucher, Pulford, Phillips, Gerard, and McGee all have good arguments for them, which leaves me with more questions.

What about Vezina? I know we are trying to focus on players from the first two decades, as Bowie is our only representative so far, but what makes him less deserving that the aformentioned players?

I really don't know what to do here. It really is "wide open".

There aren't many "standouts" as far as I can tell, that deserve it any more than any of the other guys that we are debating about.
 

finchster

Registered User
Jul 12, 2006
10,632
2,121
Antalya
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.

Since I came up with this I guess I have to defend it ;). What I have read suggests that the Stanley Cup match between the Winnipeg and Montreal Victoria’s were hyped immensely by the media in Winnipeg. In this era the mass dailies were the popular form of media and they promoted the games with certain style.

They spun the stories as; West vs East, Central Canada vs the Prairies, our community and lifestyle vs theirs etc. Obviously the media realized that people wanted to read about sports and something the news papers could make money from. The Stanley cup meant a lot to Winnipeg; they had a telegraph in Montreal and received play by play via Morris Code which was played (or decoded? haha) to a large audience in a downtown hotel. When Winnipeg won, the players were treated to a hero’s welcome with the first Stanley Cup parade.

Again back to the media, I wish I could find a direct quote, but it suggested that the win, promoted by the media, was an important factor in drawing more interest and players to the game of hockey in Winnipeg and the prairies. Dan Bain did not personally promote the game, but winning is important and he was the best player on that winning team. Hockey would have become popular in my opinion, but you don’t know for sure, and the winning is important to every sport. All one needs to do is see the Orr effect and all the great players that came out of New England after Orr, the Gretzky effect in California, and the most successful Sun Belt teams won the Stanley Cup and the ones that haven’t are in financial dire straits. Winnipeg winning the Stanley cup in my opinion moved hockey from a central Canadian pursuit to a more across Canada sport, even though people played it in Winnipeg and the prairies before, winning obviously made it more popular.

Again we need to err on the side of historical significance when it comes to these early era players, otherwise we are just going to elect most pre-ww1 guys as left over’s at the end. You stated in an earlier round that Mike Grant might be more "historically significant", perhaps you are correct and I think it is important for people to weigh historical significance in the early era and debate it. Many nineteenth century players are at a disadvantage because they never played many games and there is little statistical evidence to support them. Dan Bain and Mike Grant in my opinion are more important historically over players who some consider “better†due to more statistical evidence. I agree the way we judge players is generally correct, but any HOF is a museum meant to recognize important historical aspects of the sport. If you ignore historical significance, (at least in the early era section, after this it is far less important), this project is just the top 100 or the all time draft in a different format and isn’t particularly unique.

I would have replied earlier but I have been looking for some of my hockey history stuff with little success. There is a minor mention of this in the book Lord of the Rinks (something along the lines of "the win promoted more interest in senior hockey"), but I thought I had a journal article about this somewhere, I know I was in a lecture about it.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
I'm 100% sure one of my votes is going to Malone, but as for the others, I am just left confused, as I am not the most educated on the "early era" players.

Should a vote go to Bain, or even Baker, which would likely have something to do with impact on hockey, and not just their abilities as players?

Stuart, Boucher, Pulford, Phillips, Gerard, and McGee all have good arguments for them, which leaves me with more questions.

What about Vezina? I know we are trying to focus on players from the first two decades, as Bowie is our only representative so far, but what makes him less deserving that the aformentioned players?

I really don't know what to do here. It really is "wide open".

There aren't many "standouts" as far as I can tell, that deserve it any more than any of the other guys that we are debating about.

I think Georges Vezina is the best goalie remaining, but I am not going to vote for him until (Bain/Grant/Phillips/McGee/Stuart/Pulford) are all in (or on their way in as we can vote for 4 guys at once). And yes, it's because I think the HHOF really should value the historical significance of the earlier players.

So you could say there are some standout, the only problem is that there are 6 of them pre-WW1 and then a handful of standouts still from the post-war era.

At this point, I expect Joe Malone to be the only one to get in this round. But at least opinion seems to have coalesced around those 6 men I mentioned as the most important pre-WW1 guys to induct.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Pretty much echoing the sentiments of TDMM and finchster. Historical importance comes in to play, and the vote so far has been heavily tilted to NHA-era and beyond players.

Dan Bain will top my list for reasons explained in previous threads by myself and others. A significant, and arguably the greatest, 19th century player is due induction by this point.

The Phantom is the one NHL-era player I will vote for in this round. It would look a little silly to have fellow NHL stars Lalonde, Nighbor, and Cleghorn all inducted early, and then have Malone sitting on the outside for multiple rounds afterwards. I'm confident he will get in this round though.

I'm definitely going with a defenseman, but which one remains to be seen. Good cases have been put forth for Pulford, Grant, and Stuart. All three can claim historical importance as well as ability.

Grant was the first star to emerge from a working-class background. (I'm too lazy to go back and check who pointed this out, but it's outlined in one of the previous discussions. Grant was also one of the pioneers as far as rushing defensemen go. According to The Trail, his end-to-end rushes were a feature of his game as early as 1895. Captain of one of the game's earliest (maybe THE earliest) dynasty.

Stuart was the most prominent player to head to the States when the professional league formed down there. His return to Canada was a much-balleyhooed event. Considered the best player in the world by some contemporaries.

Pulford was the archetypal stay-at-home rock defenseman. He seems to be seen as the "original Senator". Given the rich history of the sport in Ottawa in the pre-depression era, being viewed as a "founding father" carries merit.

TDMM pretty much made the case for Tommy Phillips. Unless somebody presents a better one for Frank McGee, I'm going with "Nibs".
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Regarding this:

- 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.

Is there a database where we can search for players based on the year they retired?

Otherwise, putting together the list per year would be a major PITA.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Regarding this:



Is there a database where we can search for players based on the year they retired?

Otherwise, putting together the list per year would be a major PITA.

Well, it can be done from hockey-reference, with the necessary adjustments for minor league play.

As for the PITA point... We won't have to look for EVERY player either. No point to look for the retirement date of Ty Arbour and Leroy Goldsworthy (examples), and most of the candidates will actually have rather well-defined retirement dates.

In other words, because the ballots will have more Howie Morenz and Aurele Joliat (or, to take a less obvious example, Harry Oliver), than fringe players who wandered from one league to another (which is exactly the kind of guys that should't get in the HOHHOF...), it probably won't be that bad.

This said, there are a few specific guys for whom it would be a little harder; amateurs, some europeans.

As a sidenote, EB was kind enough to send me a PM mentionning that he drafted Bert Corbeau in the ATD (which, in itself, is of no interest for the HOHHOF!), but he also written quite a bio about Corbeau as well. Thus, the Corbeau bio has been updated on the Bio page.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
I would have replied earlier but I have been looking for some of my hockey history stuff with little success. There is a minor mention of this in the book Lord of the Rinks (something along the lines of "the win promoted more interest in senior hockey"), but I thought I had a journal article about this somewhere, I know I was in a lecture about it.

Wow, someone else who has read LOTR ! :thumbu:

TDMM pretty much made the case for Tommy Phillips. Unless somebody presents a better one for Frank McGee, I'm going with "Nibs".

Make that three for Phillips over McGee!
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,708
1,848
Regarding this:



Is there a database where we can search for players based on the year they retired?

Otherwise, putting together the list per year would be a major PITA.

Wikipedia articles for NHL seasons has most notable players season debuts and last seasons (Ex. 1936–37 season debuts [Bauer, Schmidt, Apps, Broda, etc] and last games,, thus the first class of eligible players [Cook brothers, Morenz, Hainsworth, Connell, Chabot, Worters, Clancy])
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
Wikipedia articles for NHL seasons has most notable players season debuts and last seasons (Ex. 1936–37 season debuts [Bauer, Schmidt, Apps, Broda, etc] and last games,, thus the first class of eligible players [Cook brothers, Morenz, Hainsworth, Connell, Chabot, Worters, Clancy])

The Cook brothers played in the IAHL past that season, and Bun played a few games in the AHL when it... Hummm... Basically, became the AHL?
 

kaiser matias

Registered User
Mar 22, 2004
4,708
1,848
The Cook brothers played in the IAHL past that season, and Bun played a few games in the AHL when it... Hummm... Basically, became the AHL?

Like I said, it only has NHL debuts/last games. And for a great majority of players that was their final games. Even in cases where it isn't, it gives an idea of when they retired.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
I'm 100% sure one of my votes is going to Malone, but as for the others, I am just left confused, as I am not the most educated on the "early era" players.

Should a vote go to Bain, or even Baker, which would likely have something to do with impact on hockey, and not just their abilities as players?

Stuart, Boucher, Pulford, Phillips, Gerard, and McGee all have good arguments for them, which leaves me with more questions.

What about Vezina? I know we are trying to focus on players from the first two decades, as Bowie is our only representative so far, but what makes him less deserving that the aformentioned players?

I really don't know what to do here. It really is "wide open".

There aren't many "standouts" as far as I can tell, that deserve it any more than any of the other guys that we are debating about.

For me , it's rather simple there is a list of guys that are in my hall as players (I'll leave the debatable impact on hockey guys like Baker for a builders category) and I don;t care waht order tehy get in on.

So far i see a push for Malone and some others, I will vote for any guy that is in my Hall and seems to be in other voters minds for each particular block of voting.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->