Leading Defensive Centers

[Iain Fyffe]

Re Pro / Semi Pro. Criteria would include teams and players being Allan Cup and Olympic eligible.

The Can-Pro league teams were certainly not eligible to play for the Allan Cup.

 

[Killion]

I would have a problem if anyone called Primeau a defensive "specialist" too. Who called him that? I'm also not sure how the league could be "riddled" with "among the best" at anything, but ok.

The NHL had better be "riddled" with "among the best". Otherwise, weve' all been gypped & ripped off since 1917. No one's claimed Primeau was a "defensive specialist", Pelletier wrote that he was the "defensive conscience" of the fabled Kid Line, a "Gilmour type" to put his style into context which you included in one of your posts. Perfectly sane & sound analogies Im sure. Next?.

 

[Killion]

The Can-Pro league teams were certainly not eligible to play for the Allan Cup.

I dug up some inf. on the Can-Pro having never heard of it before now; seems it was a collection of former OHA Sr.A Teams. Ran from 1926-29 with teams in Windsor, Hamilton (Tigers), Toronto Ravinas/Falcons, Kitchener, Detroit Olympics' & so on, the majority in SW Ontario with quite a few teams coming & going in its short history. Joe Primeau wouldve played in the last year of its existence as such, 1928-29, for the London Panthers. The following year some of the teams left to form the IHL. A newly formed Can-Pro was created running with 4 teams which was supposed to have become a farm system for the IHL however it folded at the end of 29-30 season. The teams in this league would not have been eligible to play for the Allan Cup,

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The NHL had better be "riddled" with "among the best". Otherwise, weve' all been gypped & ripped off since 1917. No one's claimed Primeau was a "defensive specialist", Pelletier wrote that he was the "defensive conscience" of the fabled Kid Line, a "Gilmour type" to put his style into context which you included in one of your posts. Perfectly sane & sound analogies Im sure. Next?.

The quote (which I've seen substantiated in multiple other places) obviously meant that Primeau was among the best defensive centers in the NHL at the time...

 

[Killion]

The quote (which I've seen substantiated in multiple other places) obviously meant that Primeau was among the best defensive centers in the NHL at the time...

Of his time & era, absolutely. No argument from me on that one TDMM. This threads' about specialists. Was Primeau a center who was actually a defensive specialist?. No. If you'd like to include him on your list of centers who were defensive specialists then I would suggest that you have an overly generous criteria for players who'd fit that bill. Looking at him as a player, was he inducted into the HHOF based solely on his playing career?. IMO, no, he was not. He was inducted in part because of it, but equally so for his contributions as a Coach & Scout with the Marlies & Leafs.

 

[seventieslord]

Killion, I'm wondering where you got this term "specialist" from in this thread. It certainly isn't the thread's stated purpose. Primeau wasn't a specialist, neither was Clarke and neither was Richard. The title is "leading defensive centers". Was Primeau a leading defensive center in his time? The evidence I have access to points to yes.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I did consider him Rabbins, and do remember his play with the Leafs, who I always think of playing alongside Frank Mahovlich, some pretty decent offensive seasons, the latters 48 goal season included. He was steady & dependable defensively as a Center and ya, I think your right, he deserves to be included in the 2nd tier of good ones. Interesting really, given his All Star Defence background, that Imlach didnt assign him that function almost exclusively. His primary role was to feed the Big 'M'. An interesting aside on Red Kelley; he never swore, was a former Golden Gloves Champion Boxer but never mixed it up much on the ice.

Apparently Kelly was pretty feisty as a young man, but was mentored by the underrated and consummate gentleman Bill Quackenbush.

But when he did get into an altercation it ended quickly (golden gloves is nothing to sneeze at).

I imagine the broken ankle which Kelly played with in his final year affected his skating with Toronto - the ability to pivot and turn, which would have limited him playing defense.

 

[seventieslord]

Primeau was definitely known as the "least talented" member of the Kid Line. But you're way overstating how unimportant and interchangeable he was.

It's safe to say that Conacher and Jackson were both among the top-8 offensive threats in the league. there are actually many examples of players who played with two top-8 offensive threats and it was certainly no guarantee that they would score at a level anywhere near them.

Recently, there was Mike Knuble with Backstrom and Ovechkin.
Prior to that, there was Brendan Morrison with Bertuzzi and Naslund (I am referring to the two-year period where they actually were top-8 threats)
Prior to that, there was steve Rucchin with Kariya and Selanne
Semenko spent a lot of time with Gretzky and Kurri, correct?
Clark Gillies played with Bossy and Trottier. (I think Tonelli did too for a while) - neither approached their point totals
Cashman played with Esposito, and Orr was of course on the ice for at least 2/3 of that time
There was Olmstead with Richard and Beliveau.
There was Bun Cook with his brother Bill and Frank Boucher.
and then we have the Kid Line.

If you look at the offensive production of these "lesser linemates" over the years when they played with these top stars, you can see that they always lagged behind them in points, meaning there was much more likely to be a goal scored without them touching it, than the opposite. One other thing you notice is that these guys were always the defensive/physical presence or "glue guy" of the line, so they had a critical role in making the line work in real life hockey situations and not just on paper (which answers your question of "Why would you put a work horse in between 2 thoroughbreds when you could have 3 running full guns ablazing?")

Anyway, there is no need to do the math to show just how far Knuble, Morrison, Rucchin, Semenko, Gillies/Tonelli, Cashman, and Olmstead lagged behind their top-noth linemates offensively. Most of us know it offhand by now. But let me just point out the last two examples. First, Bun Cook. From 1927 to 1935, the Bread Line was a dominant line and Cook was its "utility player", working the corners and providing defensive responsibility. An interesting fact about him is that he scored more goals than Boucher and had more assists than Bill, but what no one denies is that as an overall offensive force, he was not on their level. In that 9-season period, they outscored him 349-345-284 (he is of course the last number). He is also a widely accepted and never criticized HHOFer.

Joe Primeau, during the four full seasons that the Kid Line was together and healthy, scored 169 points in 177 games. Busher Jackson also played 177 games, and scored 166 points. Charlie Conacher scored 176 points in 163 games. Doesn't really look like Primeau lagged behind at all! That is before you consider that assists were underreported in those days. Primeau, as a guy who was a poor goalscorer but sublime playmaker, is underrepresented by points totals, compared to today's players. You can say the game has changed and all, and it has, but, if assists were recorded like they are today, it's undeniable that Primeau would be the one with the higher point totals. I'm not trying to rewrite history and say he was better or more valuable than them, but he scored as many points as they did despite the assist disadvantage.

Here are some things that contemporary(ish) sources had to say about Primeau, I posted these elsewhere about a year ago:

From "The Gashouse Gang of Hockey", written in approximately 1950 by Ed Fitkin:

Primeau is one of hockey's outstanding men of distinction...

the playmaking ace of the kid line, the brains behind the brawn and breathtaking brilliance of...

tackweight but artistic...

Smythe envisioned Primeau as the ideal center for the junior boys. He was older and level-headed. He had been "bloodied" in the tough minor pro competition and knew how to handle himself. He also knew how to handle a puck. When it came to ladling out a pass, Primeau was one of the best.

There is no doubt that the introduction of the forward pass contributed greatly to the success of the kid line. Primeau, a brainy puck manipulator, could ladle out passes as though he had the puck on a string.

Conacher, in his first pro season, had scored 20 goals but was glossed over in criticism of seemingly lacksadaisical efforts. Primeau had played steady, clever, and hard hockey all season, so good in fact that thet New York Rangers tried to reclaim him.

Primeau would handcuff his opponents by luring them to him. then his passes to teh open wing, either right or left, would let Jackson or Conacher streak through unmolested. (Selke said almost the same thing, but I'm not going to go look for it)

the kidliners were free-thinkers, willing to try anything that would lead to success. They weren't content with hoary hockey format. (and Primeau was the brains of the line, hmmmmm)

the artistry of Primeau, the least-publicized of the trio, was admired even by rival fans. In New York one night, with the Leafs two men short and a goal up on the Rangers, he ragged the puck for two solid minutes with Ranger players chasing him all over the ice. It was such a dauntless display that everybody in the arena cheered him as he staggered wearily to the bench, almost in a state of collapse, when his penalty-killing chore ended.

Of the three, Primeau was accorded the least amount of glory in his playing days, even though he was an integral part in the success of Conacher and jackson...



From Selke's memoirs:

Defensively, he worked like a trojan for the Leafs. His expert playmaking was the dominant factor in the success of Toronto's famous kid line... Joe could not match them in speed or actual goalscoring. but he was the workhorse of the line. When he quit to devote himself to business, the other two never scaled the same heights without him.

And from Ron mcAllister's series, circa 1952:

set a pattern of unselfishness in organizing plays for his fine wingmen to finish off... his story is one of persistence. He became a hockey star because of his great heart, and because of his willingness to take the bad breaks with the good... he seldom complained... never the sensational, headline-hunting type of player... a team-man first and foremost and it was his destiny to play at a time when individual stars were the order of the day. hard-working, unselfish... his style of play has been carried forward by such stalwarts as Syl Apps and Ted Kennedy.

They kinda shatter your myth about him lacking talent and creativity.

 

[Killion]

Killion, I'm wondering where you got this term "specialist" from in this thread.

Nowhere. Im just pushing the envelope. Being a purist. Demanding.

 

[Killion]

They kinda shatter your myth about him lacking talent and creativity.

Well just hold your thoroughbred horses there for a minute. I never said he was a pathetic pedestrian player, obviously he was a "good un" however, I tend to read superlatives such as "sublime playmaker" as being of the time & era, taken with a grain of salt; writers back then lived in the quaint world of Pollyanna, of hyperbole, often fueled by the cases' of whiskey the teams they were covering would send over to their offices, like weekly. And that includes the opinions of people like Smythe, Selke, Adams & all of the rest of them, both contemporaneously & revisionary in terms of their self penned, authorized or unauthorized biographical accounts etc. Just not buying into the Myth & Legend of Gentleman Joe Primeau.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well just hold your thoroughbred horses there for a minute. I never said he was a pathetic pedestrian player, obviously he was a "good un" however, I tend to read superlatives such as "sublime playmaker" as being of the time & era, taken with a grain of salt; writers back then lived in the quaint world of Pollyanna, of hyperbole, often fueled by the cases' of whiskey the teams they were covering would send over to their offices, like weekly. And that includes the opinions of people like Smythe, Selke, Adams & all of the rest of them, both contemporaneously & revisionary in terms of their self penned, authorized or unauthorized biographical accounts etc. Just not buying into the Myth & Legend of Gentleman Joe Primeau.

Joe Primeau led the league in assists 3 times, so there are numbers to back up the quotes about his playmaking (I realize that's not what this thread is about).

 

[seventieslord]

you know how crazy this all sounds? This would have to be a conspiracy of epic proportions and reach. I can see it being possible that Smythe and his cronies would conspire to make a player historically appear better than he actually was. But this would have had to extend to all of the official scorers around the NHL to have actually been successful.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Back on Track

Getting this thread back on track - none of the latest contributes to our understanding of defensive centers in the 1930's, the required skills, techniques and other factors.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

you know how crazy this all sounds? This would have to be a conspiracy of epic proportions and reach. I can see it being possible that Smythe and his cronies would conspire to make a player historically appear better than he actually was. But this would have had to extend to all of the official scorers around the NHL to have actually been successful.

Everyone knows that only applies to Messier

 

[Canadiens1958]

Underachievers

you know how crazy this all sounds? This would have to be a conspiracy of epic proportions and reach. I can see it being possible that Smythe and his cronies would conspire to make a player historically appear better than he actually was. But this would have had to extend to all of the official scorers around the NHL to have actually been successful.

No conspiracy just asking or stating the obvious about the 1930's Leafs.

Briefly from the time the forward pass rules were introduced at the start of the 1929-30 season thru the 1939-40 season the Leafs made the Stanley Cup Finals 7 times but won only once despite having a plethora of HOF players at all key positions.

So what went wrong? One of the key questions revolves around the center position and the offensive and defensive contributions from the various Maple Leaf centers.

During the thirties and beyond promoting the Leafs from Foster Hewitt on down was a distinct industry, touching every level of the Toronto media filtering throughout most of Canada. That the accuracy of these portrayals is being questioned today is understandable given the results produced by the underachievers.

 

[seventieslord]

No conspiracy just asking or stating the obvious about the 1930's Leafs.

Briefly from the time the forward pass rules were introduced at the start of the 1929-30 season thru the 1939-40 season the Leafs made the Stanley Cup Finals 7 times but won only once despite having a plethora of HOF players at all key positions.

So what went wrong? One of the key questions revolves around the center position and the offensive and defensive contributions from the various Maple Leaf centers.

During the thirties and beyond promoting the Leafs from Foster Hewitt on down was a distinct industry, touching every level of the Toronto media filtering throughout most of Canada. That the accuracy of these portrayals is being questioned today is understandable given the results produced by the underachievers.

7 Stanley Cup Finals? I'd take that result. You should be asking, "what went right"? Not everyone can win every year, not everyone who wins is a hero and not everyone who doesn't is a bum.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Briefly from the time the forward pass rules were introduced at the start of the 1929-30 season thru the 1939-40 season the Leafs made the Stanley Cup Finals 7 times but won only once despite having a plethora of HOF players at all key positions.

So what went wrong?

I'd bet any amount of money it had something to do with the handedness of their centres.

But seriously, there's not a whole lot to explain. Reaching the Cup Final does not mean you have a 50/50 shot at winning the Cup. Sometimes you're facing a better team.

In 1932, the Leafs beat a better team (in terms of regular-season record) in the Finals. In 1933, they lost to a team that had exactly the same winning percentage; it was a toss-up, and somebody had to lose.

In 1935 and 1938, they lost to teams that had worse records.

In 1936, 1939 and 1940, they lost to teams that had better records than they did. They should not have been expected to win these Cups.

So, they were -1 in terms of expected Cups: they lost twice to teams they had better records than (-2), and once beat a team they had a worse record than (+1). Or -1.5, if you count the 1933 series as should-have-been-a-tie.

Being -1.5 in seven Cup finals is hardly an indication of some systematic problem. They performed somewhat below expectation, but not nearly enough to be outside the realm of chance.

 

[Killion]

you know how crazy this all sounds? This would have to be a conspiracy of epic proportions and reach.

Yes, yes I certainly do. Conn Smythe bought & paid for those reviews with Whiskey & Tobacco.

During the thirties and beyond promoting the Leafs from Foster Hewitt on down was a distinct industry, touching every level of the Toronto media filtering throughout most of Canada. That the accuracy of these portrayals is being questioned today is understandable given the results produced by the underachievers.

Precisely. As a born & bred Torontonian, I was fed these falsehoods about the God Like Warrior Chiefs called the Toronto Maple Leafs like candy flavored pablum since early childhood. When I finally learned how to read at 17, much to my horror, I discovered that a goodly portion of the teams history had been polished away, removing the mistakes & rough patches. The actual quality of the individual players skill sets greatly if not grossly exaggerated. If you were a sports reporter in Toronto from the 20's-50's, you dared not cross Swords with the Major over the Marlies, the Weston Dukes, the Markham Waxers & especially, never ever, the Toronto Maple Leafs. You would wake up to find yourself with a black eye from one of Smythes left hooks, assigned to the bi-weekly Cobalt Miner with a one way train ticket in your hand to Kenora.....

 

[seventieslord]

Conn Smythe bought & paid for those reviews with Whiskey & Tobacco.

which he wouldn't touch, himself, of course.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shorter List

7 Stanley Cup Finals? I'd take that result. You should be asking, "what went right"? Not everyone can win every year, not everyone who wins is a hero and not everyone who doesn't is a bum.

What went wrong is a much shorter list but much more revealing. Often one weakness that gets exploited over the length of a series negates the various strengths.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Winning

I'd bet any amount of money it had something to do with the handedness of their centres.

But seriously, there's not a whole lot to explain. Reaching the Cup Final does not mean you have a 50/50 shot at winning the Cup. Sometimes you're facing a better team.

In 1932, the Leafs beat a better team (in terms of regular-season record) in the Finals. In 1933, they lost to a team that had exactly the same winning percentage; it was a toss-up, and somebody had to lose.

In 1935 and 1938, they lost to teams that had worse records.

In 1936, 1939 and 1940, they lost to teams that had better records than they did. They should not have been expected to win these Cups.

So, they were -1 in terms of expected Cups: they lost twice to teams they had better records than (-2), and once beat a team they had a worse record than (+1). Or -1.5, if you count the 1933 series as should-have-been-a-tie.

Being -1.5 in seven Cup finals is hardly an indication of some systematic problem. They performed somewhat below expectation, but not nearly enough to be outside the realm of chance.

Seriously, yet in the post Dick Irvin years when the Leafs were relatively weaker teams, rarely finishing first they won multiple SCs and were considered dynasties - 10 SC wins in 12 final appearances but only 2 first place finishes, doing most of the heavy lifting in the process beating teams ahead of them.

 

[VanIslander]

Checking line center Rudy Migay was the offensive star of two Memorial Cups in 1947 and 1948 and an AHL co-MVP all-star in 1959, but inbetween he found himself playing 418 NHL games on a defensive-oriented line with Ron Murphy on his wing. Known most for his penalty killing at the NHL level, he did score 20+ points per season for five consecutive seasons between 1953-54 and 1957-58, including back-to-back seasons 4th in Leafs scoring.

Rudy Migay was a defensive player with the Toronto Maple Leafs and known as an elite penalty killer. He was nicknamed “Toy Terrier†because of puny size – 5′6″ , 150 lbs and that he played the game with a ubiquitous and tenacious style of play.

http://awinninghabit.com/2010/11/22/toronto-maple-leafs-hockeys-rudy/

Rudy Migay was a spectacular player at the minor league level, but primarily a defensive player with the Toronto Maple Leafs. He was best known as a penalty killer along with usual partner Ron Stewart.

The Fort William, Ontario native made quite a name for himself at the junior and AHL levels as a playmaking center. He was adoringly nicknamed "Toy Terrier" because of puny size (he stood just 5'6" and 150 pounds) combined with his tenacious style of play.

However the Leafs were a powerful team in the late 1940s, especially at center ice. Names like Max Bentley and Teeder Kennedy made it next to impossible to get much ice time. Migay was resigned to play with the Pittsburgh Hornets for 4 years before finally cracking the Leafs lineup.

Needless to say, Migay was definitely excited to join the Leafs, although he had to reinvent his game. It took him nearly three years to score as many points as he did in his last year of junior. Migay was content to play in a checking role for nearly 6 complete seasons with the Maple Leafs.

By the end of the 1957-58 season Migay's days in Toronto were coming to a close. He had finished the year in the minor leagues, and aside from the 20 more big league games, he wound up his career in the minor leagues both as player and as a playing coach.

It was a bitter ending for Migay, who felt he could have played at the NHL level over those final years of his career.

"I thought I might have a chance at coming back. I was hoping for a trade," said Migay, who along with Stan Mikita and Elmer Vasko was one of the few players of Slovak descent in the NHL's younger years.

The trade never materialized, of course. It was a different time back in the 1950s and 1960s. Teams could easily bury a player in the minor leagues and hope that the exiled players would tear up the minor leagues and possibly command more from in a trade. Migay held up his part of the deal - he went down without complaint and worked his butt off - scoring 82 points in just 51 games and shared the AHL's Most Valuable Player award (along with Bill Hicke)

http://mapleleafslegends.blogspot.com/2009/06/rudy-migay.html

 

[seventieslord]

Does Migay belong here? What evidence is there that he was even in the top-25 defensive forwards of his generation? he lasted in the NHL a very short time and while there he didn't contribute to a team that won anything.

 

[VanIslander]

Edgar Laprade

Known as "Beaver" because of his hustle and work ethic on the ice, Laprade was known as a aggressive but very clean player. Twice he went the entire season without recording a single penalty minute, and only had 42 PIM in in his 500 NHL game career. He was also known as a play making center with great speed and athleticism. He was a tremendous defensive player as well, making him one of the greatest two way centers in NHL history. A strong back checker and prolific penalty killer, Laprade perfected the "poke check" as an effective strategy.

http://nyrangerslegends.blogspot.com/2009/10/edgar-laprade.html

 

[VanIslander]

Ken Mosdell

One of the NHL's top defensive specialists in the 1940s and 1950s was Montreal born Ken Mosdell.

Kenny Mosdell, a four time Stanley Cup champion with the Canadiens, saw big ice time as the Habs #1 shutdown guy. Mosdell would get the call every time the opposing team sent its No. 1 line into action. If it was Boston, he'd be out there against Milt Schmidt; if it was Detroit, he'd be checking Sid Abel of the Production Line, which had Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay as the wingers; if it was Toronto, No. 18 Mosdell would be all over the Leafs' Syl Apps.

And he'd be on every penalty kill, which back in those days did not end when the opposition scored a goal. On a two-minute penalty, the specialty team units were out there for the duration and the opposition could score as many times as possible before the penalty ended.

Though he was a scorer in the junior ranks, Mosdell's tireless skating, along with his poke- checking and stick-handling abilities, convinced coach Dick Irvin he was more valuable as a puck-control defender.

http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2008/07/ken-mosdell.html

The rangy, 6-foot-1, 170-pound center brought both speed and toughness to the rink every day. On a team where the Punch Line regularly topped the NHL scoring lists, Mosdell’s talents were put to use in a defensive role.

A determined backchecker and more than capable of using his body, Mosdell was an important cog in the Habs’ machine of the late 1940s and early 1950s.

http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Ken-Mosdell