Leading Defensive Centers

[Canadiens1958]

Sure................

That's a red herring; my not having made those comments about another player do not make my comments on Bell less true. I certainly didn't argue the opposite with Burns, did I?

Besides that, the O6 is not my area of expertise. I generally leave it to others to comment on those players. As much as possible, I try to restrict myself to commenting on players I'm very familiar with, to avoid looking a fool by saying something silly.

Pre-1927 hockey is my particular area of expertise. Ask me about pretty much any player from that era and I'll have something to say.


He did play for the Senators. He played about half of regular-season games, and then didn't play at all in the playoffs. Are we going to attribute the Sens success to Bell on that basis?


He would've barely played for the Canadiens in the Stanley Cup year. He was a third-string RW at that point, when teams still used starter-sub setups rather than rolling lines.

In his last two NHL seasons (which includes the above), Bell played 36 games for Montreal and recorded zero points and a single penalty. He clearly was playing a very small number of minutes, so did not contribute meaningfully to the Stanley Cup effort.

Point is that you regularly step beyond your self-proclaimed area of expertise only to retreat when the questioning gets tough. In this thread alone you commented on the 1930's Leafs.

Sure.............the context of the thread runs thru 1967.

No one has attributed the 1914-15 Senators success to Billy Bell nor should anyone attribute the lack of success of the NHA Wanderers to him either. People should recognized that within the context of the above coaches and GMs retained an appreciation of his defensive skills and his ability to play various forward positions and roles. Just from this thread it is obvious that he played all three forward positions, filling a variety of roles, similar to Charlie Burns.

Billy Bell was traded to Ottawa for Sprague Cleghorn. Granted Cleghorn had worn out his welcome but Bell was still a useful depth player which he continued to be upon returning to Montreal.

Previously in another thread you raised an analogy the produced a response where Bobby Orr was substituted for Bob Turner on the dynasty Canadiens. Along the same lines you have failed to show that there were better players than Billy Bell available fot the role he played on each team AND that they could actually fill the role.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Point is that you regularly step beyond your self-proclaimed area of expertise only to retreat when the questioning gets tough. In this thread alone you commented on the 1930's Leafs.

Sigh. 1930s is not O6 era of course, and indeed I'm not ignorant about any era of hockey history, and Joe Primeau is hardly an obscure name. But if you want someone to comment on whether Billy Reay was a better defensive player than Rudy Migay (to pick two names from this thread at random), I'm not your guy.

No one has attributed the 1914-15 Senators success to Billy Bell

You've got to be kidding me. You said specifically that I was underselling Bell's ability, then immediately raised the fact that he played for the 1914/15 Senators. If you did not mean that to show his ability, why did you mention it at all?

nor should anyone attribute the lack of success of the NHA Wanderers to him either.

Why not? Unlike his time with the Senators or any other team, Bell was a starter with the Wanderers, the only two seasons he was actually a starter. The lack of success of that team must be attributed to its players, and Bell was one of their regular players. He must bear some (clearly not all) the responsibility for their results.

Also, not that it matters but your claim that Bell was a wartime replacement for the Wanderers is demonstrably false. Bell joined the team in 1915/16. Only two players from the previous season were no longer available to the Wanderers: Goldie Prodger who was with the Habs, and goaler Charlie McCarthy who did actually enter military service. No other Wanderers player was unavailable due to military service. Bert Lindsay was brought in to replace McCarthy, and Walter Smaill to replace Prodger. Bell basically took the place of Brownie Baker (at RW) in the lineup. Baker was better offensively than Bell, but I'll bet that Bell was a better checker.

People should recognized that within the context of the above coaches and GMs retained an appreciation of his defensive skills and his ability to play various forward positions and roles.

No one's questioning that. Clearly he must have had some defensive ability because he hung around quite a while and was clearly not a gifted scorer.

But if you read my posts, as I stated quite explicitly he does not belong in the discussion of leading defensive centres, which is the topic of this thread. He was both more a winger than a centre, and clearly not one of the best defensive forwards of his time. Good, but not great. Not a leading player.

Billy Bell was traded to Ottawa for Sprague Cleghorn.

That's how you interpret this?

Transferred to Ottawa by Montreal for the remainder of the 1921-22 season as compensation for Montreal acquiring the rights to Sprague Cleghorn (November 26, 1921), January 6, 1922.

That's not a trade.

Granted Cleghorn had worn out his welcome but Bell was still a useful depth player which he continued to be upon returning to Montreal.

Abosolutely. And if this thread were called "Useful Depth Players" rather than "Leading Defensive Centres" then you'd really be on to something.

Along the same lines you have failed to show that there were better players than Billy Bell available fot the role he played on each team AND that they could actually fill the role.

Another red herring. That's not what's being discussed. Bell was obviously a good depth player, or else he wouldn't have played that role for as long as he did. But that's not what this thread is about, and that's not what I'm arguing against.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Going Further

Sigh. 1930s is not O6 era of course, and indeed I'm not ignorant about any era of hockey history, and Joe Primeau is hardly an obscure name. But if you want someone to comment on whether Billy Reay was a better defensive player than Rudy Migay (to pick two names from this thread at random), I'm not your guy.


You've got to be kidding me. You said specifically that I was underselling Bell's ability, then immediately raised the fact that he played for the 1914/15 Senators. If you did not mean that to show his ability, why did you mention it at all?


Why not? Unlike his time with the Senators or any other team, Bell was a starter with the Wanderers, the only two seasons he was actually a starter. The lack of success of that team must be attributed to its players, and Bell was one of their regular players. He must bear some (clearly not all) the responsibility for their results.

Also, not that it matters but your claim that Bell was a wartime replacement for the Wanderers is demonstrably false. Bell joined the team in 1915/16. Only two players from the previous season were no longer available to the Wanderers: Goldie Prodger who was with the Habs, and goaler Charlie McCarthy who did actually enter military service. No other Wanderers player was unavailable due to military service. Bert Lindsay was brought in to replace McCarthy, and Walter Smaill to replace Prodger. Bell basically took the place of Brownie Baker (at RW) in the lineup. Baker was better offensively than Bell, but I'll bet that Bell was a better checker.


No one's questioning that. Clearly he must have had some defensive ability because he hung around quite a while and was clearly not a gifted scorer.

But if you read my posts, as I stated quite explicitly he does not belong in the discussion of leading defensive centres, which is the topic of this thread. He was both more a winger than a centre, and clearly not one of the best defensive forwards of his time. Good, but not great. Not a leading player.


That's how you interpret this?

Transferred to Ottawa by Montreal for the remainder of the 1921-22 season as compensation for Montreal acquiring the rights to Sprague Cleghorn (November 26, 1921), January 6, 1922.

That's not a trade.


Abosolutely. And if this thread were called "Useful Depth Players" rather than "Leading Defensive Centres" then you'd really be on to something.


Another red herring. That's not what's being discussed. Bell was obviously a good depth player, or else he wouldn't have played that role for as long as he did. But that's not what this thread is about, and that's not what I'm arguing against.

Your quote:

.....he was primarily a winger, and not really much of a player, and that the teams he played a lot for allowed boatloads of goals, again I'll object to his being included in a discussion of "leading defensive centres."
_______________________________________________________
1914-15 Ottawa Senators with Bell playing a minor role made the SC finals against Vancouver. Billy Bell did not play beyond the regular season yet in the SC finals against Vancouver the Senators without Bell allowed a boatload of goals .

Now you did not mention that Bell played for the 1914-15 Senators nor did you mention the SCF performance of the Senators.

Then you admit that he did not play center for the Wanderers. So in terms of the thread his non-center days with the Wanderers are irrelevant. His NHL days are rather interesting. From 1918 until the arrival of Boucher and Morenz the NHL featured RHS centers - Lalonde, Nighbor, Adams, C. Denneny with support from O.Cleghorn. Malone was the exception and even he played a lot of LW. Starting centers played most if not all the minutes so depth or substitute players must be viewed in context.

Within this context Billy Bell, a RHS and big for the era 5"10", 180 lbs brought continuity and defensive value when he played center or the other positions. If he could not play a defensive center role, he was back in the MCHL.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Your quote:

.....he was primarily a winger, and not really much of a player, and that the teams he played a lot for allowed boatloads of goals, again I'll object to his being included in a discussion of "leading defensive centres."

Okay, so this says exactly what I said I did: that Bell does not belong in a discussion of leading defensive centres.

Now, you've backtracked from defending that he should be considered a "leading defensive centre" to his being a "useful depth player", which is a defensible position but not what I was discussing in the first place.

1914-15 Ottawa Senators with Bell playing a minor role made the SC finals against Vancouver.

You're right, Bell didn't play in the NHL playoffs or the Stanley Cup finals, so I don't see how he played any role in them making the SC finals.

Billy Bell did not play beyond the regular season yet in the SC finals against Vancouver the Senators without Bell allowed a boatload of goals .

You're trying to imply that they missed his defence against Vancouver. You failed to mention, of course, that the Sens beat the Wanderers in the league playoffs before meeting Vancouver.

The Wanderers that season had scored 127 goals in 20 games; Quebec had the second-best offence with 85 goals. To say the Wanderers were an offensive juggernaut is an understatement. But against the Sens in the playoffs, they scored exactly one goal in two games, one twelfth of their per-game rate from the regular season.

So if you want to count Vancouver's performance (when Vancouver was also an offensive powerhouse) to Bell's credit, you have to count the Wanderers' performance against him. Vancouver had a forward unit including Cyclone Taylor, Mickey MacKay and Frank Nighbor at the heights of their offensive powers, so it shouldn't surprise anyone they scored goals in large bunches.

Then you admit that he did not play center for the Wanderers. So in terms of the thread his non-center days with the Wanderers are irrelevant. His NHL days are rather interesting.

According to my records, Bell still played RW primarily in the NHL. Just because Hockey Reference lists his position as "C/RW" doesn't mean that's what he actually played, and it certainly doesn't tell you when he played each position.

From 1918 until the arrival of Boucher and Morenz the NHL featured RHS centers - Lalonde, Nighbor, Adams, C. Denneny with support from O.Cleghorn. Malone was the exception and even he played a lot of LW.

If most centres were RHS, wouldn't Bell have had more value as a checker if he were a LHS?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I largely agree - I personally devalue 20s/30s-early 40s players as I really feel the NHL did not reach a maturation point until the late 40s. I feel the depth of competition and number of elite talents started to really take off in the 50s.

For instance, most agree the Top players of the first half century (Morenz and Shore) are not on a similar level as the top players of the 2nd half of the century.

So Bobby Orr is the standard for Hall of Famers now? I mean, the other extreme of a short career guy to get in is Cam Neely. Joe Primeau is somewhere in the middle of those two.

And the 2nd Team All Star thing is largely because competition at center in the early 30s was really strong.



I have read media reports on players from before World War 2. They are quite open to criticizing players.



By the time Primeau played, the best players were all in the NHL.



What do crazed Leafs fans and Sid and AO have to do with anything? Joe Primeau is arguably in the top half of HHOFers...

Neely at least has the injury, Joe entered a weak league late and hardly dominated, how is he one of the top half HHOFers?

I used the Orr example as he had 8 extraordinary years where he was the man, Joe had 7 and was arguably the 3rd most important member of his own line in a weak NHL period.

There is a quote later in this thread where Joe ragged the puck for 2 straight minutes which either verifies what you state above as true or maybe is slightly exaggerated or maybe indicates how weak the league actually was back then.

Sure there might have been some negative reporting for some players in the 30's but for the most part it was of the cheerleader type and reporting in sports was hardly objective compared to todays standard and to take it at face value or even comparable to today once again evaluates old time players with incomplete data and information IMO.

It will be interesting where he shows up on the all time centers list. good thing for him we are ranking more than 25.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Neely at least has the injury, Joe entered a weak league late and hardly dominated, how is he one of the top half HHOFers?

I said arguably the top half. I believe there are now 251 players in the HHOF. In 1998, the THN panel listed Joe Primeau as the 92nd best player of all time. Now, I think that's a bit too high and I wouldn't have him in my top 100 myself. But when you're talking about a guy who can realistically be ranked between 90 and 150, and there are 251 players in the Hall... no, he's not controversial. Or at least he isn't controversial anywhere I have ever seen but this thread.

And what do you mean "at least Neely has the injury?" Is that supposed to make him a better induction than someone was who runner up to the Art Ross twice while playing an important part in the development of the game?

I used the Orr example as he had 8 extraordinary years where he was the man, Joe had 7 and was arguably the 3rd most important member of his own line in a weak NHL period.

You saying the 1930s was a "weak NHL period" doesn't make it so. Several of us have actually looked at the talent level over time and most of us agree that the 20s-early 30s were quite strong.

Seriously, the HHOF was founded in 1945. What were they supposed to do? Realize that everything they had ever seen was week and therefore, they shouldn't induct anyone into the Hall they just created because in 60 years, the league would be much stronger? Does that make sense to anyone?

There is a quote later in this thread where Joe ragged the puck for 2 straight minutes which either verifies what you state above as true or maybe is slightly exaggerated or maybe indicates how weak the league actually was back then.

Back then shifts were longer. Bobby Orr and Peter Forsberg just to name two examples had times where they ragged the puck for basically an entire shift. It just means they were good....

Sure there might have been some negative reporting for some players in the 30's but for the most part it was of the cheerleader type and reporting in sports was hardly objective compared to todays standard and to take it at face value or even comparable to today once again evaluates old time players with incomplete data and information IMO.

Given the fact that you call the 30s a weak period in league history, I'm going to assume that you haven't taken the time to read actual news reports from the era. I have read quite a few - and they are quite critical of players. Nels Stewart, a contemporary of Joe Primeau, has his defense criticized in practically every article I've seen about him.

It will be interesting where he shows up on the all time centers list. good thing for him we are ranking more than 25.

I don't think Joe Primeau should be in the Top 25 centers either, but there are currently 72 male centers inducted into the Hockey Hall of fame.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not at All

Okay, so this says exactly what I said I did: that Bell does not belong in a discussion of leading defensive centres.

Now, you've backtracked from defending that he should be considered a "leading defensive centre" to his being a "useful depth player", which is a defensible position but not what I was discussing in the first place.


You're right, Bell didn't play in the NHL playoffs or the Stanley Cup finals, so I don't see how he played any role in them making the SC finals.


You're trying to imply that they missed his defence against Vancouver. You failed to mention, of course, that the Sens beat the Wanderers in the league playoffs before meeting Vancouver.

The Wanderers that season had scored 127 goals in 20 games; Quebec had the second-best offence with 85 goals. To say the Wanderers were an offensive juggernaut is an understatement. But against the Sens in the playoffs, they scored exactly one goal in two games, one twelfth of their per-game rate from the regular season.

So if you want to count Vancouver's performance (when Vancouver was also an offensive powerhouse) to Bell's credit, you have to count the Wanderers' performance against him. Vancouver had a forward unit including Cyclone Taylor, Mickey MacKay and Frank Nighbor at the heights of their offensive powers, so it shouldn't surprise anyone they scored goals in large bunches.


According to my records, Bell still played RW primarily in the NHL. Just because Hockey Reference lists his position as "C/RW" doesn't mean that's what he actually played, and it certainly doesn't tell you when he played each position.


If most centres were RHS, wouldn't Bell have had more value as a checker if he were a LHS?

Not at all.Separate NHA from NHL. NHA teams that Bell played for gave up a boatload of goals regardless of his participation. Just as they played well defensively regardless of his participation. In other words whether he played or not the teams depending on their overall ability to handle the opposition would produce a result.

NHL - which is the frame of reference. Billy Bell found his niche. Frank Nighbor was a RHS who had defensive success. Coaches and GMs tend to replicate success so why suggest that a LHS would have more value? NHL teams he played for - Ottawa favoured RHS from Nighbor to Hooley Smith so he complimented the starters. The Canadiens favoured some variety at center so he filled that profile later with the LHS Morenz.If he was not producing the desired results he would have been long gone.

 

[Killion]

In 1998, the THN panel listed Joe Primeau as the 92nd best player of all time. Now, I think that's a bit too high and I wouldn't have him in my top 100 myself. But when you're talking about a guy who can realistically be ranked between 90 and 150, and there are 251 players in the Hall... no, he's not controversial. Or at least he isn't controversial anywhere I have ever seen but this thread...... Back then shifts were longer. Bobby Orr and Peter Forsberg just to name two examples had times where they ragged the puck for basically an entire shift. It just means they were good....

You called?....

The HHOF was founded (in Kingston, Ontario) in 1943, its first Inductions coming in 1945 however, it wasnt until (yer gonna love where Im going with this post) Conn Smythe turned his gaze & attention upon it that things really started to take-off & IMO get a bit dicey in terms of who got inducted during his reign as Chairman from the late 50's until 1971. In 1958, the NHL withdrew its support of the HHOF in Kingston citing there inability to provide a new facility. I believe Clarence Campbell withdrew the NHL's support after intense lobbying efforts & at the insistence of Conn Smythe who had designs to usurp the HHOF's autonomous nature. Yep, thats right, another one of my Conspiracy Theories....

Smythe was stepping away from the Leafs in the late 50's & wanted to create, in Toronto, a permanent shrine to the greats of the game, including quite subjectively & vain gloriously those who had supported him throughout his career. He over-saw the temporary home for the HHOF in the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame on the CNE grounds from 58 onward and oversaw the construction of the new HHOF situated right next door that opened in 1961; he then acted as Chairman of the Board, before resigning in disgust over "Busher" Jacksons induction in 1971; his former best friend & business partner Frank Selke' defending the selection saying "he was inducted for being the player he was, not for all of the beer he drank".

Joe Primeau, who was a good but not "great" player, was inducted as a player in 1963. Joe the Players' bio didnt really need to be dolled up & polished to justify the selection by that time, the Ra-Ra Press, in Smythes backpocket had seen to that while he was playing...... The reality of his induction however is this; Joe Primeau was rewarded for his career with the Leafs (only in small part as a player for a mere 9 seasons) & Marlies (he'd Coached Smythes Sr. Marlies to an Allan Cup, the Jr.'s to the Memorial Cup, the Leafs to a Stanley Cup) and 20+ years with the organization. Im OK with that. Like you however, I dont think Joe Primeau is a top 100 player, I dont even put him in the top 200. As we know, people got nominated & voted in for seemingly border-line reasons, and it was no more apparent than during Conn Smythes tenure as Chairman. He "owned" the HHOF for over a decade. It is what it is.

Note; Today "Ragging the Puck" is absolutely discouraged, frowned down upon as a "selfish showboating act" in game situations. It wasnt always the case, and was used to great effect in the games early days when players played the full 60 minutes or long shifts; a way to give your line & team mates a breather when defending. Virtually any & all players of the early era's were more than capable of doing it for several minutes at a time. It was a part of every players arsenal, learned early playing shinny. As the game evolved it was considered a bad habit picked up by most kids who ever played freely on frozen backyard or outdoor rinks, ponds or lakes from about the late 30's onward that many coaches bemoaned in having to break. Colloquially called "Takeaway". Same dealeo with freestyle Basketball or Soccer. Today youve pretty much gotta be an Orr or Datsyuk to get away with it, but you go back through the decades & you'll see more & more & more of it the deeper you get.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

\
Joe Primeau, who was a good but not "great" player

As seventieslord pointed out, his point production was right up there with Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson when they played together. Those two were better goal scorers, so they were better, but stop pretending the gap was that big.

Again, if Primeau wasn't great, the neither were half the players in the HHOF.

Does anyone seriously believe the guy was that good?. As we know, people got nominated & voted in for seemingly border-line reasons, and it was no more apparent than during Conn Smythes tenure as Chairman. He "owned" the HHOF for over a decade.

Yes, he was that good. How many players have finished top 2 in scoring aren't in the HHOF?

 

[Killion]

As seventieslord pointed out, his point production was right up there with Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson when they played together.

Did I forget to mention that I have a problem with Conacher & Jacksons' inductions as well?.

 

[pappyline]

Did I forget to mention that I have a problem with Conacher & Jacksons' inductions as well?.

Sure like to see your logic behind that statement. The resume of Conacher & Jackson scream out HOF to me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did I forget to mention that I have a problem with Conacher & Jacksons' inductions as well?.

Curious to know if your problem extends to all the Maple Leafs of the era, or just the Kid Line.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1929-30 to 1935-36 Centers

As seventieslord pointed out, his point production was right up there with Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson when they played together. Those two were better goal scorers, so they were better, but stop pretending the gap was that big.

Again, if Primeau wasn't great, the neither were half the players in the HHOF.



Yes, he was that good. How many players have finished top 2 in scoring aren't in the HHOF?

Link to the leading scorers 1929-30 to 1935-36 shows that Primeau was 11th and 7th amongst centers. If we throw in the few games he played pre 1929-30 the comparison hurts Joe Primeau.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

That Primeau was 2nd twice is not surprising given the stats generated by Jackson and Conacher the leading scorers at RW and LW respectively. Context matters.

 

[Killion]

Sure like to see your logic behind that statement. The resume of Conacher & Jackson scream out HOF to me.

Teh Leafs are teh sux!

Yep.

And of course they do pappy, I was just messin around!.

 

[Hardyvan123]

As seventieslord pointed out, his point production was right up there with Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson when they played together. Those two were better goal scorers, so they were better, but stop pretending the gap was that big.

Again, if Primeau wasn't great, the neither were half the players in the HHOF.



Yes, he was that good. How many players have finished top 2 in scoring aren't in the HHOF?

How many players played in a 8-10 team league that experienced a dramatic rule change like the forward pass and played with 2 players the caliber that Joe did? The answer to both your question and mine is one.

i have read news reports from the time period, albeit probably not as many as you have, but I've also read reports on how beat writers had to tow the line to remain beat writers as well and with Conn Smythe do you think that the writers would not self censor themselves?

also you have clarified where he stands in your opinion which sounds more reasonable but being a career guy it's hard for me to rank Joe that high given the context of his league and the brevity of his career.

Also he wasn't the driving force very often on his playoff teams, a bit like Dionne, but happened to play with more HHOF guys who hide that aspect of his career.

The Hall doesn't have the benefit of knowing what's going to happen in the future that's true but we do and given that knowledge Joe doesn't make my list of top 250 guys to have ever played hockey.

A longer NHL career, better playoff record, something else is needed IMO for him to be there.

We regularly see the argument that player X in a 21-30 team league only has so many cups or was so good in the playoffs, Jagr for example, and Joe only has 1 cup on a pretty stacked team in a 8-10 team league as well, I just aim for consistency in these matters.

Defensive play is also much more objective than offensive play and the farther we go back the less information and less certainty we have with determining how good, or not so good certain players were compared to guys we have more information on and actually saw play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Link to the leading scorers 1929-30 to 1935-36 shows that Primeau was 11th and 7th amongst centers. If we throw in the few games he played pre 1929-30 the comparison hurts Joe Primeau.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

That Primeau was 2nd twice is not surprising given the stats generated by Jackson and Conacher the leading scorers at RW and LW respectively. Context matters.

Context does matter

Primeau played between Conacher and Jackson = minus points for him.

Secondary assists effectively weren't given out during Primeau's career, something that would hurt a playmaker like him = bonus points for him.

Remove the outlier 29-30 season (when for example Dit Clapper and Cooney Weiland put up approximately 1/3 of their points during the time frame), and Primeau ranks 6th among all players and 3rd among centers between 1930-31 and 1935-36.

Edit: C1958, for someone who likes to talk about the rule changes of hockey, this was really sloppy of you. 1929-30 was the season where they allowed the forward pass but didn't have offsides at first, so all kinds of offensive records were broken. It was so bad that they actually added the offsides rule halfway through the season. But either way, players who did well during the half season of gym-class style cherrypicking hockey put up ridiculous stats in 1929-30 to the point where any range of seasons that includes that one will be full of players who put up loads of points in that one season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How many players played in a 8-10 team league that experienced a dramatic rule change like the forward pass and played with 2 players the caliber that Joe did? The answer to both your question and mine is one..

And that exact situation is what helped Primeau become a prototype for the center position in modern hockey.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

nevermind

 

[Killion]

Curious to know if your problem extends to all the Maple Leafs of the era, or just the Kid Line.

My "problem"?. Well. I never......

Not to any specific line or team. Like HardyVan I'm skeptical about a lot of these early players being deified, spoken about almost reverentially, many of whom were IMHO inappropriately inducted into the HHOF. Whose "Legends" are just that. Works of hyperbolic reporters who towed the teams lines or suffered the consequences. Stats just arent enough. Their are all kinds of factors to consider and as C58 points out, "Context" is everything. Were dealing with some rather dubiously placed buoys' & channel markers in reflecting upon many a mans contributions, importance, actual star power. Primeau to me is but one case, there are many others, and Im sure you could name several yourself that I might, might mind ye', decide to agree with you on......

 

[Canadiens1958]

Matters for All

Context does matter

Primeau played between Conacher and Jackson = minus points for him.

Secondary assists effectively weren't given out during Primeau's career, something that would hurt a playmaker like him = bonus points for him.

Remove the outlier 29-30 season (when for example Dit Clapper and Cooney Weiland put up approximately 1/3 of their points during the time frame), and Primeau ranks 6th among all players and 3rd among centers between 1930-31 and 1935-36.

Edit: C1958, for someone who likes to talk about the rule changes of hockey, this was really sloppy of you. 1929-30 was the season where they allowed the forward pass but didn't have offsides at first, so all kinds of offensive records were broken. It was so bad that they actually added the offsides rule halfway through the season. But either way, players who did well during the half season of gym-class style cherrypicking hockey put up ridiculous stats in 1929-30 to the point where any range of seasons that includes that one will be full of players who put up loads of points in that one season.

The rule changes before the 1929-30 season impacted all. The statistical differences were a function of how teams adapted to the rule changes. The offside rule was added in December. Given that the season started mid November the number of games each team played before the off side rule introduction was maybe 1/4 to a 1/3 of their schedule. Breaking down the Bruins 179 goals by segments 15, 15, 14 games of the 44 game regular season yields.63, 54, 62 goals per segment. So the introduction of the "offside rule" in December did not change the scoring as you allege. In fact the Bruins had their highest scoring segment with the offside rule if the segments are viewed 15,14,15.Yields 63,51,65. Function of who they played not the rule change.

Removing the 1929-30 season is rather quaint historically since it basically defined hockey until the "Red Line" was introduced at the start of the 1943-44 season. The results of the 1929-30 season dictated the resulting offensive and defensive changes, player selection and roles,strategies and results. Sorry it stays for very good reasons - outlined.

Playmakers tend to get primary assists so the secondary assist factor is marginal when it comes to Primeau. On the other hand yo neglect the effect of rebound assists that were not awarded until later and then sparsely. This would impact scorers - both centers and wingers, so the gap between Primeau and the scorers would have been greater.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The rule changes before the 1929-30 season impacted all. The statistical differences were a function of how teams adapted to the rule changes. The offside rule was added in December. Given that the season started mid November the number of games each team played before the off side rule introduction was maybe 1/4 to a 1/3 of their schedule. Breaking down the Bruins 179 goals by segments 15, 15, 14 games of the 44 game regular season yields.63, 54, 62 goals per segment. So the introduction of the "offside rule" in December did not change the scoring as you allege. In fact the Bruins had their highest scoring segment with the offside rule if the segments are viewed 15,14,15.Yields 63,51,65. Function of who they played not the rule change.

Removing the 1929-30 season is rather quaint historically since it basically defined hockey until the "Red Line" was introduced at the start of the 1943-44 season. The results of the 1929-30 season dictated the resulting offensive and defensive changes, player selection and roles,strategies and results. Sorry it stays for very good reasons - outlined.

Removing the 29-30 outlier season is mathematically correct, however.

First place in 1929-30 had 73 points. 6th place had 55 points. 7th place had 50 points.

First place in 1930-31 had 51 points. 6th place (Primeau) had 41 points.

Was Primeau's 41 points less impressive than Ne's Stewart's 55 in 29-30? I don't see how you can argue that.

When you give a range that encompasses 29-30, you are overrating guys who happened to have their good seasons in 29-30, when totals were inflated. Primeau was a rookie in 29-30, by the way.

Playmakers tend to get primary assists so the secondary assist factor is marginal when it comes to Primeau. On the other hand yo neglect the effect of rebound assists that were not awarded until later and then sparsely. This would impact scorers - both centers and wingers, so the gap between Primeau and the scorers would have been greater.

Playmakers get both primary and secondary assists.

I shouldn't have been specific before. It's simple math - when everyone who played in the 1930s had their assists totals artificially low by today's standards, the players who got the most assists would be expected to have their totals artificially lowers the most.

Look at the list of Art Ross winners in the 1930s - it's dominated by goal scorers, while after World War 2 (when secondary assists started to be awarded at rates similar to today) - the list becomes dominated by playmakers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Issues

My "problem"?. Well. I never......

Not to any specific line or team. Like HardyVan I'm skeptical about a lot of these early players being deified, spoken about almost reverentially, many of whom were IMHO inappropriately inducted into the HHOF. Whose "Legends" are just that. Works of hyperbolic reporters who towed the teams lines or suffered the consequences. Stats just arent enough. Their are all kinds of factors to consider and as C58 points out, "Context" is everything. Were dealing with some rather dubiously placed buoys' & channel markers in reflecting upon many a mans contributions, importance, actual star power. Primeau to me is but one case, there are many others, and Im sure you could name several yourself that I might, might mind ye', decide to agree with you on......

The era starting with the 1929-30 season and ending with the 1942-43 season, changed the way the game was played - forward pass, offside,roster increases, icing, face-off, penalty shot, regular season overtime etc right up to the Red Line introduction for the start of the 1943-44 season. Then you factor in contraction and how the game was scored - secondary assists, rebound assists and it is easy to see why evaluations and perceptions of players changed accordingly and very quickly.

The icing rule alone had a huge impact on team and individual defense. So prototypes and innovative strategies had very short life spans within this period. Focusing on single elements does not do justice to the era. The era featured many intricacies beyond the Toronto interpretation of the era.

Which is what some of us are raising.

 

[Killion]

Look at the list of Art Ross winners in the 1930s...

Er, what am I missing here?. The Art Ross wasnt awarded until 1947-48... or are you simply including Goals/Assts pre-47 under an "Art Ross" nominculture?....

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

or are you simply including Goals/Assts pre-47 under an "Art Ross" nominculture?....

Yes. I meant the points leader.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Quite

Removing the 29-30 outlier season is mathematically correct, however.

First place in 1929-30 had 73 points. 6th place had 55 points. 7th place had 50 points.

First place in 1930-31 had 51 points. 6th place (Primeau) had 41 points.

Was Primeau's 41 points less impressive than Ne's Stewart's 55 in 29-30? I don't see how you can argue that.

When you give a range that encompasses 29-30, you are overrating guys who happened to have their good seasons in 29-30, when totals were inflated. Primeau was a rookie in 29-30, by the way.



Playmakers get both primary and secondary assists.

I shouldn't have been specific before. It's simple math - when everyone who played in the 1930s had their assists totals artificially low by today's standards, the players who got the most assists would be expected to have their totals artificially lowers the most.

Look at the list of Art Ross winners in the 1930s - it's dominated by goal scorers, while after World War 2 (when secondary assists started to be awarded at rates similar to today) - the list becomes dominated by playmakers.

So would creating an artificial simulation of the 2004-05 NHL season that was never played be mathematically correct, everything would balance, you could even have a SCF winner with all the by product awards and honours yet it would all be TOTAL NONSENSE historically.

Scoring leaders. Art Ross first awarded in 1947 - 48. Regardless your comment about who dominated scoring and when is inaccurate.

Basically the following happened.

1929-30 thru 1934-35 goal scorers, more goals than assists, led the scoring. 1935-36 thru 1949-50 goal scorers, more goals than assists led two times - one even. 1950-51 thru 1966-67 goal scorers led seven times - one even, out of 17 seasons, not exactly domination.