How well-known are Frank Boucher and Bill Cook among NYR fans?

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,237
6,472
South Korea
The Bread Line should be a statue at MSG.
cook-boucher-cook.jpg

How cool would that look.
 

CTRanger

N9Y4R
Jun 20, 2006
1,285
211
The Gold Coast
These should have been the first two jerseys that the Rangers ever retired! It should have been done a half century ago and is an absolute shame that they have not been honored to this day. These two players where the foundation of the Rangers for the first 20 yrs of the franchise. Boucher was an integral part of 3 Stanley Cups including head coach of the ‘40 team. I still hope they get put in the rafters they both deserve to be remembered for generations.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,997
10,633
Charlotte, NC
The thing I also always consider is that there were only 120(give or take) NHL jobs until 1967. Half the players in the league today couldn't get on the ice with with the 3rd liners in 1940. The talent level in the special players from that time really has to be off the charts.

I think this kind of thinking is completely misguided. I think there was some effect of having such a limited number of teams, but... and this is just throwing out a number for illustrative purposes... it's more likely that 100% of the talent spread in the original 6 era represents something like 80% of the talent spread in the current NHL. In other words, guy number 120 out of 120 in the original 6 had about the same talent level as guy number 500 of 620 in the current NHL. Frankly, I think 80% is conservative. The available talent pool has really expanded that much because of expansion and the opening of the league to international players. We are, of course, talking about natural talent and ignoring training and scouting improvements or style of play.

There was definitely a lag where expansion and the WHA really did dilute the talent level. Tripling the size of the league in the span of 6 years is one major reason why suddenly you had guys putting up 100+ regularly. The gap between the top and the bottom was really wide. Adding 3 more at the end of the decade (technically subtracting 1 and adding 4) didn't slow the dilution down either. Theoretically, it makes sense that it would take 20-25 years for the talent level to catch up. You need a generation of players who grew up with the game in their backyards. 25 years after first expansion is when you started to finally have scoring levels come back to normal. Then you add 9 more teams in the 90s and it prolongs the lag back a bit, but not as much as the first expansion. I don't think adding 2 more teams on top of 30 already existing tangibly dilutes the talent level. There's a reason Vegas was able to be competitive right off the bat. Enough talent exists to spread to two more rosters without really harming other teams while providing good players to the new teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gloaming

NCRanger

Bettman's Enemy
Feb 4, 2007
5,438
2,118
Charlotte, NC
I think this kind of thinking is completely misguided. I think there was some effect of having such a limited number of teams, but... and this is just throwing out a number for illustrative purposes... it's more likely that 100% of the talent spread in the original 6 era represents something like 80% of the talent spread in the current NHL. In other words, guy number 120 out of 120 in the original 6 had about the same talent level as guy number 500 of 620 in the current NHL. Frankly, I think 80% is conservative. The available talent pool has really expanded that much because of expansion and the opening of the league to international players. We are, of course, talking about natural talent and ignoring training and scouting improvements or style of play.

There was definitely a lag where expansion and the WHA really did dilute the talent level. Tripling the size of the league in the span of 6 years is one major reason why suddenly you had guys putting up 100+ regularly. The gap between the top and the bottom was really wide. Adding 3 more at the end of the decade (technically subtracting 1 and adding 4) didn't slow the dilution down either. Theoretically, it makes sense that it would take 20-25 years for the talent level to catch up. You need a generation of players who grew up with the game in their backyards. 25 years after first expansion is when you started to finally have scoring levels come back to normal. Then you add 9 more teams in the 90s and it prolongs the lag back a bit, but not as much as the first expansion. I don't think adding 2 more teams on top of 30 already existing tangibly dilutes the talent level. There's a reason Vegas was able to be competitive right off the bat. Enough talent exists to spread to two more rosters without really harming other teams while providing good players to the new teams.

Agree and disagree.

Using your argument that the reason the 70's and 80's had so many 100 point scorers, it would also stand to reason that the 90's and early 2000's should have had the same time of wild offense due to the crazy expansion.

Exactly the opposite happened.

The talent level in the NHL at the "turn of the century" was pretty awful, and it was awful because of the style of play.

Starting then, and moving forward, speed and skating has become more important than shooting, passing, and hockey IQ. Unless a player is a outright stud scorer, it seems like teams would rather take the guy who can skate and disrupt, more than the slower guy who has more actual ability with the puck or is what used to be called a "natural goal scorer". There's no doubt the game is faster, more athletic, and there is no room for marginal skaters, but I don't think the actual "talent" level is all that great.

To that end, I'll go to a Charlotte Checkers game, and watch marginally talented AHLers skate rings around each other, but the actual hockey is pretty terrible. I can remember first moving here in the late 90's and going to ECHL games, where the skating was bad, the game slow, but played like actual hockey.
 

Tawnos

A guy with a bass
Sep 10, 2004
28,997
10,633
Charlotte, NC
Agree and disagree.

Using your argument that the reason the 70's and 80's had so many 100 point scorers, it would also stand to reason that the 90's and early 2000's should have had the same time of wild offense due to the crazy expansion.

Exactly the opposite happened.

The talent level in the NHL at the "turn of the century" was pretty awful, and it was awful because of the style of play.

Starting then, and moving forward, speed and skating has become more important than shooting, passing, and hockey IQ. Unless a player is a outright stud scorer, it seems like teams would rather take the guy who can skate and disrupt, more than the slower guy who has more actual ability with the puck or is what used to be called a "natural goal scorer". There's no doubt the game is faster, more athletic, and there is no room for marginal skaters, but I don't think the actual "talent" level is all that great.

I did address that, though. There’s a big difference between the 40% increase in the number of teams that we saw in the 9 years of the 90s and the 250% increase we saw in the 12 years of the first expansion era. In the latter, you went from 120 players to 420 players. In the former, you went from 420 players to 600. You still get a lag, but not as much of one.

The difference between the first expansion era and the dead puck era is two-fold. First, coach’s attitude. The 70s and 80s coaches were all about offense, but 1995 saw the increased success of the neutral zone trap and it’s many emulators. Second, and this ties into the effectiveness of the first, a wider pool of people playing the game ultimately results in just as much new defensive talent as offensive talent. You didn’t have it during the first wave, but that first wave created not just offensively talented players, but defensively talented ones too, including goalies. By the time we got to the mid-90s, the combination of those two factors changed the game. I don’t agree with your statement that the talent at the turn of the century was awful.

One other thing. You’re never going to increase the top level of talent. There can be players as talented as Orr, Esposito, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc... but there never will be players with more talent. Shrinking the gap between the top players and the middle players doesn’t lead to more offense, but rather controls how much offense is possible.

There are plenty of mediocre skaters with offensive talent in the league.
 

GENESISPuck94

Registered User
Sponsor
May 2, 2022
3,339
6,271
NJ
Hello there. I'm a hockey history enthousiast and I was wondering how well-known Frank Boucher and Bill Cook were among NYR fans.

I know NY belongs to the Yankees, and Boucher's and Cook's career overlaped with Babe Ruth's which makes them hard to research because the NY newspapers seemed to focus more on Baseball, but still these two guys formed one of the greatest duos in hockey history.

Over a 9 years period—between the 1926-27 and 1934-35 seasons—Boucher and Cook finished 2nd and 3rd in points respectively, behind the legendary Howie Morenz. They brought two Stanley Cup championships to New York in that timeframe (1928, 1933).

See here for the stats: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Frank Boucher was a Top 5 playmaker of all-time IMO (click the "A" column on the above link), excellent defensively and a massive playoff performer.

Bill Cook was a great powerforward; Gordie Howe before Gordie Howe, a great goalscorer (click the "G" column on the above link) and captain of the Rangers.

Boucher and Cook were Yzerman-level players. Maybe better.

Yet I rarely hear about them, but now I'm coming here to test the water. Do you know them? Ever heard their name? Anything that can help me get a feel for how well-known they are in NY would be appreciated.

Thanks.
I've made it clear that I feel it's insane their jerseys are not in the rafters. Rangers don't recognize their early years for whatever reason, maybe because their early years represent success and the Rangers since then have been immune and downright against success.
 

cwede

Registered User
Sep 1, 2010
9,788
7,647
I've got his book "When the Rangers were Young" in pretty good shape too.

I recommend it. It's a good read.

Was gonna mention
I still have it
Amazon has 1 copy, for !! ~$200 !!

My dad was a fan, had great memories of these guys, Colevilles, Shibicky, Ching Johnson, Kerr, Rainer ...
Took my mom to NYR games when dating in '40's
 
Last edited:

TheWrongWay

Registered User
May 7, 2023
41
91
New York
I think their names would be instantly recognized by most at the Garden, but if you then asked for details on their career you'd get some blank looks.

We did an "all time top Rangers" project about 5-6 years ago on this board (which seems to have been deleted unfortunately) and Boucher was voted in at #1 for all time NYR centers, I think Cook was #2 for wingers
I think those past posts we did were deleted because the board had a different URL back then. It might've been hockeysfuture.com at that point if my memory is correct. I still have the results we ended with — screen captures of the actual tables Crease posted back then:

C.PNG

D.PNG

W.PNG
 

alkurtz

Registered User
Nov 26, 2006
1,440
1,014
Charlotte, NC
Well, my Ranger memories date to 1958 and I date my hardcore fan years to the early 1960s. I was a season ticket holder in the blue seats through the heart of the Francis era.

My Dad saw the Rangers play during the 1930s and that's how I first heard of them.

But I can say that in, for example 1972, when I was surrounded by fans of all ages at MSG, many who would have remembered the early days of the Rangers, that there was almost no discussion of these guys.

Most "older fans" (I was 25 in 1972) talked more of the 1950s teams when they talked about the "old days.

Time for the Rangers to honor these guys, perhaps in a group banner that could be raised to the rafters.
 

alkurtz

Registered User
Nov 26, 2006
1,440
1,014
Charlotte, NC
It's impossible, in any sport, to compare players in eras separated by decades.

Certainly, if you look at the non-NHL leagues in the last years of the Original Six (AHL, WHL) where there were many independent teams, almost all those guys would have been in the NHL if it had 32 teams. Check out, for example, the stats put up by Guyle Fielder or Art Jones).

But also remember that the NHL was 99% Canadian. I remember when there was exactly one American player (Tommy Williams who mostly played for the Bruins) and zero Europeans. The talent level today is simply staggering. The pool of players available today is incredibly large.

I sometimes go back and watch games from the early 1970s. I always thought that the game was super fast but when I watch those games now, I can't believe how slow and deliberate it was.

But, I have always believed that the high end talent in one era would be high end talent in any era.

Expansion opened the gates, Bobby Orr single-handedly changed how the game is played, the WHA opened up the game, the entry of Europeans radically changed the game. The growth of hockey in the US continues to amaze.

Can you just imagine going back to say, 1963, and being able to say to someone that in 60 years there would be a Stanley Cup final between a team in Florida and a team in Nevada? They would look at you in disbelief.
 

bobbop

Henrik & Pop
Sponsor
May 27, 2004
14,284
20,320
Now, Suburban Phoenix. Then, Long Island
I heard stories about Boucher and Cook from my father and grandfather, but that was many years ago and details were slim. Of course there was no video or film. Their legacy is the foundation of why my family is fifth generation Ranger fans.

Interesting story...when they retired #7 for Rod Gilbert in 1979, the Rangers brought back Red Sullivan and one or two other #7’s as part of the retirement ceremony. Frank Boucher had died a few years earlier and was mentioned during the ceremony.
Pretty good memory for an old man. Found this clipping from the day of Gilbert’s jersey retirement. Pretty low key compared to the more recent jersey retirements. Newspapers the following day had even less.

1685050313739.jpeg
 

Trotsnj

Registered User
Aug 26, 2020
61
59
I interviewed the Cook brothers back in the mid 1980s - they were both still sharp and funny. Great memory for me. I was about 26 at the time; they were in their 80s.
I played in a roller hockey league in New Jersey until I was 40 (against teenagers and 20 year olds) and always wore number 5 because of Bill Cook.
People have heard of them, true, but not enough.
 

GENESISPuck94

Registered User
Sponsor
May 2, 2022
3,339
6,271
NJ
Personally, I love the early years history of the Rangers. The Rangers most successful time period. 3 Cups in the span of 12 years.

Boucher had a hand in all three of them. 28 and 33 as a player. 40 as coach. Arguably the greatest Ranger of all time. Leetch is. But I rank Boucher a close 2nd.

It's a travesty that the Rangers refuse to acknowledge the founding generation that was exponentially more successful than any that followed it.
 

CasusBelli

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 6, 2017
12,867
11,771
Hello there. I'm a hockey history enthousiast and I was wondering how well-known Frank Boucher and Bill Cook were among NYR fans.

I know NY belongs to the Yankees, and Boucher's and Cook's career overlaped with Babe Ruth's which makes them hard to research because the NY newspapers seemed to focus more on Baseball, but still these two guys formed one of the greatest duos in hockey history.

Over a 9 years period—between the 1926-27 and 1934-35 seasons—Boucher and Cook finished 2nd and 3rd in points respectively, behind the legendary Howie Morenz. They brought two Stanley Cup championships to New York in that timeframe (1928, 1933).

See here for the stats: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Frank Boucher was a Top 5 playmaker of all-time IMO (click the "A" column on the above link), excellent defensively and a massive playoff performer.

Bill Cook was a great powerforward; Gordie Howe before Gordie Howe, a great goalscorer (click the "G" column on the above link) and captain of the Rangers.

Boucher and Cook were Yzerman-level players. Maybe better.

Yet I rarely hear about them, but now I'm coming here to test the water. Do you know them? Ever heard their name? Anything that can help me get a feel for how well-known they are in NY would be appreciated.

Thanks.
You would love Franchise Hockey Manager's Historical Mode, if you don't play it already. I love learning about the history of the game as well. Thought you might appreciate my inaugural season roster (after some extensive trades):

1685054090502.png


It turns out I'm also good at picking coaches and trading, so if we fast-forward a few years, my 1942-1944 NYR roster is:

1685054198738.png


Forgive the deluge of screenshots. I just rarely come across NHL history aficionados.
 
Last edited:

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,056
12,355
Elmira NY
I've got his book "When the Rangers were Young" in pretty good shape too.

I recommend it. It's a good read.


I got that book when it was first published but there really aren't many copies of that around. Checking abebooks there are maybe 10 copies and only two of them are under $40 with shipping. After that it jumps to $150. So if anyone is interested now is the time. It is a really interesting read.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,056
12,355
Elmira NY
It's impossible, in any sport, to compare players in eras separated by decades.

Certainly, if you look at the non-NHL leagues in the last years of the Original Six (AHL, WHL) where there were many independent teams, almost all those guys would have been in the NHL if it had 32 teams. Check out, for example, the stats put up by Guyle Fielder or Art Jones).

But also remember that the NHL was 99% Canadian. I remember when there was exactly one American player (Tommy Williams who mostly played for the Bruins) and zero Europeans. The talent level today is simply staggering. The pool of players available today is incredibly large.

I sometimes go back and watch games from the early 1970s. I always thought that the game was super fast but when I watch those games now, I can't believe how slow and deliberate it was.

But, I have always believed that the high end talent in one era would be high end talent in any era.

Expansion opened the gates, Bobby Orr single-handedly changed how the game is played, the WHA opened up the game, the entry of Europeans radically changed the game. The growth of hockey in the US continues to amaze.

Can you just imagine going back to say, 1963, and being able to say to someone that in 60 years there would be a Stanley Cup final between a team in Florida and a team in Nevada? They would look at you in disbelief.

Also the equipment which has constantly evolved over the last 30/40 years and is so much better now. In my younger days it was wooden sticks. Most players didn't wear helmets--NHL or anywhere else (at least in North America). Some goalies still didn't wear masks into the early 70's. Ed Giacomin was one of the last to wear a mask.

It just was a lot different back then. Training was another thing. A lot of players got back into shape during the early parts of regular seasons. Lots of NHL players didn't make enough $'s during the season and worked jobs over the summer. It was way more blue collar. Phil Esposito for a few years anyway drove a tractor trailer in the offseason. Giacomin was working in a mine when the Rangers came calling after his brother who not being available they took Eddie instead.
 

eco's bones

Registered User
Jul 21, 2005
26,056
12,355
Elmira NY
I interviewed the Cook brothers back in the mid 1980s - they were both still sharp and funny. Great memory for me. I was about 26 at the time; they were in their 80s.
I played in a roller hockey league in New Jersey until I was 40 (against teenagers and 20 year olds) and always wore number 5 because of Bill Cook.
People have heard of them, true, but not enough.

Interesting I worked with a guy at the Post Office who married a niece of Bill/Bun Cook and he and his family went to Bun's 1995 HOF induction in Toronto.
 

Salsa Shark

Registered User
Sep 1, 2009
929
460
Jersey
Well, my Ranger memories date to 1958 and I date my hardcore fan years to the early 1960s. I was a season ticket holder in the blue seats through the heart of the Francis era.

My Dad saw the Rangers play during the 1930s and that's how I first heard of them.

But I can say that in, for example 1972, when I was surrounded by fans of all ages at MSG, many who would have remembered the early days of the Rangers, that there was almost no discussion of these guys.

Most "older fans" (I was 25 in 1972) talked more of the 1950s teams when they talked about the "old days.

Time for the Rangers to honor these guys, perhaps in a group banner that could be raised to the rafters.
What was the atmosphere like in the old garden? im curious to know the general thoughts of fans when the ‘68 version opened, we’re they excited about a modern building, or did the lament the renovation?

thanks for sharing your insights, I’ve enjoyed this thread a lot!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad