Leading Defensive Centers

[Hardyvan123]

1930-31
Team G AST "AST per G"
BOS 143 109 0,76
CHI 108 114 1,06
DET 102 88 0,86
MTL 129 100 0,78
MTM 105 74 0,70
NYA 76 85 1,12
NYR 106 106 1,00
OTT1 91 87 0,96
PTP 76 69 0,91
TOR 118 142 1,20
Total 1054 974 0,92

I found this in another post and wonder if it was a one off for that season or if Toronto consistently got more assists per goal than other teams in that time period.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1930-31
Team G AST "AST per G"
BOS 143 109 0,76
CHI 108 114 1,06
DET 102 88 0,86
MTL 129 100 0,78
MTM 105 74 0,70
NYA 76 85 1,12
NYR 106 106 1,00
OTT1 91 87 0,96
PTP 76 69 0,91
TOR 118 142 1,20
Total 1054 974 0,92

I found this in another post and wonder if it was a one off for that season or if Toronto consistently got more assists per goal than other teams in that time period.

Where did you find that?

It's interesting. If it speaks to a trend, it would go a long way in explaining why Primeau was considered the third best member of his line, despite his point totals being consistent with his linemates.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Not at all.Separate NHA from NHL.

So to properly evaluate Billy Bell, you're suggesting we need to ignore half of his career? That's rather selective of you.

And of all my points, you chose to only respond to the LHS/RHS issue, which was a throwaway comment from my perspective, nothing substantive? Can I assume this means you have nothing further to contribute?

So my position, which is as follows, stands.

Billy Bell was not a leading defensive centre. One reason is because he was not a centre. He was primarily a RW and didn't play that much centre. Another reason is that while he was probably solid defensively, there's no evidence that he was among the best defensively (which is surely a requirement to be a leading defensive player), and there are significant arguments against it. He may have been a solid depth player, but he was not a leading defensive centre.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

No, that's not what I did. I was correcting a metric that would have 6th in scoring in 1929-30 as worth significantly more than 6th in scoring in 30-31 because the raw point totals in 29-30 were significantly higher due to rules that were in effect for half of 29-30 alone.

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.

I was defining "goal scorer" as someone who ranked higher among his peers in goals than assists.

Points leaders

1935-36: Sweeney Shriner - 4th in goals, 2nd in assists
1936-37: Sweeney Shriner - 4th in goals, 3rd in assists
1937-38: Gordie Drillon - 1st in goals, 3rd in assists
1938-39: Toe Blake - 2nd in goals, 7th in assists
1939-40: Milt Schmidt - 2nd in goals, 1st in assists
1940-41: Bill Cowley - 10th in goals, 1st in assists
1941-42: Brian Hextall - 2nd in goals, 2nd in assists
1942-43: Bill Cowley - 5th in goals, 1st in assists

Looks like we are both incorrect here. In the early 30s, points definitely favored goal scorers as you said. From the mid 30s to World War 2, they seem to be more split.

After World War 2, points favored playmakers.

This is consistent with the fact that the number of assists per goal rose until World War 2, when it reached more or less what it is today. (I don't have the numbers for that in front of me).

Of course, all this is irrelevant to Joe Primeau, who was basically an early 30s guy.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Where did you find that?

It's interesting. If it speaks to a trend, it would go a long way in explaining why Primeau was considered the third best member of his line, despite his point totals being consistent with his linemates.

I found it here, not sure where PNEP originally posted it

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=969063

 

[Hardyvan123]

here is the original posting post 25 in the thread
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=9203538#post9203538

 

[Canadiens1958]

Basic Problem

So to properly evaluate Billy Bell, you're suggesting we need to ignore half of his career? That's rather selective of you.

And of all my points, you chose to only respond to the LHS/RHS issue, which was a throwaway comment from my perspective, nothing substantive? Can I assume this means you have nothing further to contribute?

So my position, which is as follows, stands.

Billy Bell was not a leading defensive centre. One reason is because he was not a centre. He was primarily a RW and didn't play that much centre. Another reason is that while he was probably solid defensively, there's no evidence that he was among the best defensively (which is surely a requirement to be a leading defensive player), and there are significant arguments against it. He may have been a solid depth player, but he was not a leading defensive centre.

Basic problem all along with your position is that from the first seven NHL seasons, with small rosters, which precluded rolling even two lines you had a situation where beyond each teams core starters you simply had depth players. Due to the small rosters, players inc starters at various times played a second or even third position.Part of the game.

In spite of all your semantic dancing and trying to move the discussion beyond the specific time frame you have failed to produce the name of one player who filled the same role as Billy Bell over the same period of time only better.

Within the context of the thread and succeeding eras, Billy Bell was no different than centers/forwards like John McCormack - not mentioned to date, who would not be close to the NHL unless they could play top quality defense.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

1930-31
Team G AST "AST per G"
BOS 143 109 0,76
CHI 108 114 1,06
DET 102 88 0,86
MTL 129 100 0,78
MTM 105 74 0,70
NYA 76 85 1,12
NYR 106 106 1,00
OTT1 91 87 0,96
PTP 76 69 0,91
TOR 118 142 1,20
Total 1054 974 0,92

I found this in another post and wonder if it was a one off for that season or if Toronto consistently got more assists per goal than other teams in that time period.

PNEP in post #25 of the link below:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=9203538#post9203538

Presented three tables with the data above representing a seasonal excerpt. Comment, sense that the min and max column headings require changing for the third table.

Basically the presentation of data shows how the league adapted to the forward pass changes starting with the 1929 - 30 season, the liberalized scoring, inclusion of rebound assists, changes in perception of possession, continuation and contributing to a goal. It also reflects team styles.

Notice the drop in assists starting with the 1943-44 season which featured the introduction of the Red Line which facilitated the quick strike, one pass transition goal, causing a drop in assists.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No Reason

No, that's not what I did. I was correcting a metric that would have 6th in scoring in 1929-30 as worth significantly more than 6th in scoring in 30-31 because the raw point totals in 29-30 were significantly higher due to rules that were in effect for half of 29-30 alone.



I was defining "goal scorer" as someone who ranked higher among his peers in goals than assists.

Points leaders

1935-36: Sweeney Shriner - 4th in goals, 2nd in assists
1936-37: Sweeney Shriner - 4th in goals, 3rd in assists
1937-38: Gordie Drillon - 1st in goals, 3rd in assists
1938-39: Toe Blake - 2nd in goals, 7th in assists
1939-40: Milt Schmidt - 2nd in goals, 1st in assists
1940-41: Bill Cowley - 10th in goals, 1st in assists
1941-42: Brian Hextall - 2nd in goals, 2nd in assists
1942-43: Bill Cowley - 5th in goals, 1st in assists

Looks like we are both incorrect here. In the early 30s, points definitely favored goal scorers as you said. From the mid 30s to World War 2, they seem to be more split.

After World War 2, points favored playmakers.

This is consistent with the fact that the number of assists per goal rose until World War 2, when it reached more or less what it is today. (I don't have the numbers for that in front of me).

Of course, all this is irrelevant to Joe Primeau, who was basically an early 30s guy.

Except there is no reason to correct the metric or introduce personal definitions.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

In spite of all your semantic dancing and trying to move the discussion beyond the specific time frame you have failed to produce the name of one player who filled the same role as Billy Bell over the same period of time only better.

Louis Berlinguette, Rusty Crawford, Jack Laviolette, Jack Darragh all fulfilled this role at some point during Bell's NHL career (low-minute sub, quality checker). Morley Bruce would also have to be considered. Crawford, Laviolette and Darragh were at the end of their careers when doing so. Berlinguette covers the same time period, but of course he was so good as a low-minute sub (17/18, 18/19, 22/23) that in some seasons he was a starter or at least a semi-regular sub, rather than a few-minutes-per-game-type sub, as Bell was in the NHL and never rose above. Berlinguette is clearly the best example.

With only three or four teams, there aren't going to be that many actual leading defensive centres from that time period (17/18-23/24). Frank Nighbor is of course the granddaddy of them all. Reg Noble would be next, before he shifted to LW. Frank Boucher played in 21/22, and Georges Boucher was primarily a centre in 17/18, playing the position in Nighbor's absence.

Edit: To be clear, I only answered this question to demonstrate one thing. I wasn't not answering the question because I didn't have an answer, I was not answering it because it was irrelevant to the topic at hand: leading defensive centres. I have now answered the off-topic question, so perhaps C1958 can now provide some evidence that Bell should be considered a leading defensive centre, rather than a decent substitute winger.

 

[Killion]

With only three or four teams, there aren't going to be that many actual leading defensive centres from that time period (17/18-23/24). Frank Nighbor is of course the granddaddy of them all. Reg Noble would be next, before he shifted to LW.

Ya, pretty hard to argue against Frank Nighbor as the leading Defensive Center of his era, an innovator, the proto-type for those who followed. I was unaware of the fact that Reg Noble had ever played Center?. I understood him to be a Left Winger who was converted to Defence by Jack Adams in the latter stages of his career. Am I missing some pieces here?.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Ya, pretty hard to argue against Frank Nighbor as the leading Defensive Center of his era, an innovator, the proto-type for those who followed. I was unaware of the fact that Reg Noble had ever played Center?. I understood him to be a Left Winger who was converted to Defence by Jack Adams in the latter stages of his career. Am I missing some pieces here?.

I have him as playing primarily centre in 1918/19 and 1920/21, and splitting between centre and LW in 1917/18 and 1919/20. Starting in 1921/22 he was a LW until being converted to defence.

If we don't restrict ourselves to the NHL but also include the western leagues, Mickey MacKay and Frank Foyston need to be mentioned as well.

 

[Killion]

I have him as playing primarily centre in 1918/19 and 1920/21, and splitting between centre and LW in 1917/18 and 1919/20. Starting in 1921/22 he was a LW until being converted to defence. If we don't restrict ourselves to the NHL but also include the western leagues, Mickey MacKay and Frank Foyston need to be mentioned as well.

OK. I've only seen references to him having played LW & D with the exception of one site that does have him listed as a Center, erroneously throughout his career, which unfortunately tends to be all too a-typical when we try to retrieve information on these early-era players & try & gauge their impact/style/propensities/strengths & weaknesses. I also agree with your suggestion that in considering the early era players, you really should include guys from an assortment of leagues, as the mercenary nature of the game at that time was absolutely prevalent, singling out Foyston & MacKay very good examples of that dynamic, as in its infancy, the NHA & arguably the NHL did not in fact retain the services of all of the best players. This then brings up another problem though, as how then do we measure some of these outliers against NHA/NHL players?. Vintage reports & stats, if you can find them scouting reports, able to parse & read between the lines, create an accurate context we may be able to do so & have fun in the process.

 

[Canadiens1958]

To Be Clear

Louis Berlinguette, Rusty Crawford, Jack Laviolette, Jack Darragh all fulfilled this role at some point during Bell's NHL career (low-minute sub, quality checker). Morley Bruce would also have to be considered. Crawford, Laviolette and Darragh were at the end of their careers when doing so. Berlinguette covers the same time period, but of course he was so good as a low-minute sub (17/18, 18/19, 22/23) that in some seasons he was a starter or at least a semi-regular sub, rather than a few-minutes-per-game-type sub, as Bell was in the NHL and never rose above. Berlinguette is clearly the best example.

With only three or four teams, there aren't going to be that many actual leading defensive centres from that time period (17/18-23/24). Frank Nighbor is of course the granddaddy of them all. Reg Noble would be next, before he shifted to LW. Frank Boucher played in 21/22, and Georges Boucher was primarily a centre in 17/18, playing the position in Nighbor's absence.

Edit: To be clear, I only answered this question to demonstrate one thing. I wasn't not answering the question because I didn't have an answer, I was not answering it because it was irrelevant to the topic at hand: leading defensive centres. I have now answered the off-topic question, so perhaps C1958 can now provide some evidence that Bell should be considered a leading defensive centre, rather than a decent substitute winger.

To be clear Billy Bell was introduced to the discussion by VanIslander.

The introduction coincided with my experiences playing youth hockey in Montreal in the fifties. Two of the coaches/volunteers had played against Billy Bell in various city leagues and were constantly using him and others as examples of centers who were average offensively but because of their defensive skills made the NHL or NHA and had serviceable careers.

To date in this thread no evidence to the contrary has been submitted.The affirmation that a good defensive center can play other forward positions is a long accepted truism in hockey. Centers have the skating ability with lateral movement which allows them to play both wings. Common practice to this day, draft a center and convert to a winger if need be or others centers are better.

That defencemen or other wingers also played some center in short roster eras does not detract from what others were able to contribute.

In his meandering fashion IF has managed to raise a couple of interesting points. How defencemen extended their careers by playing forward and Jack Adams views on hockey.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

To be clear Billy Bell was introduced to the discussion by VanIslander.

True, but irrelevant. VanIslander conceded that Bell was likely not a leading defensive centre after my first post on the topic. You're the one who's been sticking up for him.

The introduction coincided with my experiences playing youth hockey in Montreal in the fifties. Two of the coaches/volunteers had played against Billy Bell in various city leagues and were constantly using him and others as examples of centers who were average offensively but because of their defensive skills made the NHL or NHA and had serviceable careers.

In the Montreal city league I'm sure Bell could have been a leading defensive centre. But in the context of the NHL he was not, and that's the context we're discussing. The city league was not nearly the same quality of competition.

But hey, how can this personal anecdote, which is based on 50-year old memories of people relating 40-year-old memories, not be considered strong evidence?

To date in this thread no evidence to the contrary has been submitted.

Sure, if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary that has been submitted. Every point you have raised in Bell's defence has been answered, even the ones irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Yet you continue to claim there are no arguments against him.

In his meandering fashion IF has managed to raise a couple of interesting points.

At least someone did.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Context

True, but irrelevant. VanIslander conceded that Bell was likely not a leading defensive centre after my first post on the topic. You're the one who's been sticking up for him.


In the Montreal city league I'm sure Bell could have been a leading defensive centre. But in the context of the NHL he was not, and that's the context we're discussing. The city league was not nearly the same quality of competition.

But hey, how can this personal anecdote, which is based on 50-year old memories of people relating 40-year-old memories, not be considered strong evidence?


Sure, if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary that has been submitted. Every point you have raised in Bell's defence has been answered, even the ones irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Yet you continue to claim there are no arguments against him.


At least someone did.

Same relationship era to era between Montreal junior and developmental leagues and the NHL. Same leagues that produced quality defensive centers from Jacques Lemaire -MMJHL/Lachine. Fleming Mackell, Ken Mosdell, Pit Lepine and others, same basic hockey philosophy, teaching and results. That you choose to ignore it or belittle it is your loss. I prefer to look at the accuracy, results and success of my mentors.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Same relationship era to era between Montreal junior and developmental leagues and the NHL. Same leagues that produced quality defensive centers from Jacques Lemaire -MMJHL/Lachine. Fleming Mackell, Ken Mosdell, Pit Lepine and others, same basic hockey philosophy, teaching and results. That you choose to ignore it or belittle it is your loss. I prefer to look at the accuracy, results and success of my mentors.

We only have records of Bell playing in Montreal city senior leagues. Same for Pit Lepine. We don't know where (or if) they played organized developmental-level hockey. It's a stretch, even for you, to try to connect the Junior Royals to the Montreal Manufacturers League from the 1910s.

Quit dodging the question: was Billy Bell a leading defensive centre in the NHL, or not? I answered your off-topic question, it's about time you answered my on-topic question.

Sorry for the thread derailment, everyone. I'm trying to get this part of the discussion back to the topic of leading defensive centres.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Answered

We only have records of Bell playing in Montreal city senior leagues. Same for Pit Lepine. We don't know where (or if) they played organized developmental-level hockey. It's a stretch, even for you, to try to connect the Junior Royals to the Montreal Manufacturers League from the 1910s.

Quit dodging the question: was Billy Bell a leading defensive centre in the NHL, or not? I answered your off-topic question, it's about time you answered my on-topic question.

Sorry for the thread derailment, everyone. I'm trying to get this part of the discussion back to the topic of leading defensive centres.

The question was answered previously with anecdotal support added. Billy Bell had the ability to be a leading defensive center in the NHL. His overall defensive skills sustained him in the league. His lack of offense limited his playing time.

Now you want posters to believe that no developmental hockey was played on the Island of Montreal because records do not exist. The Island of Montreal featured plenty of parish teams, school teams, community teams, going back to the 19th century.

 

[Killion]

Sorry for the thread derailment, everyone. I'm trying to get this part of the discussion back to the topic of leading defensive centres.

No worries, its an interesting discussion & actually highlights some of the difficulties we all encounter in determining the pedigree's & contributions to the game the early era players made. Unfortunately, records for amateur leagues in places like Montreal & Toronto, Winnipeg & QC etc in the early years of organized hockey are thin to non-existent. Billy Bell a good example, as the first recorded entry I can find is for 1909-10 with the Montreal Bell Telephone Team which played in the MCMHL. He played but 1 or 2 games for them, and wouldve' been 19 or 20 at the time (1891). As he's listed as being born in Lachine, we can pretty much assume he wouldve' grown up playing hockey in & around Montreal. From 1918-24 (sat out 19-20) as we know, he played variously in the NHA/NHL, Right Wing or Center, equally effective & adroit at both, a solid defensive forward. I cant/wont comment on his dominance or mediocrity as a player one way or the other as I can only find thin grists to mill into a full sheaf, a short career, nothing contextually upon which to sink some fangs & make a meal of.

But certainly Iain, be it North York or Pointe Claire, the players of the teens, 20's, 30's, 40's & 50's who were raised in those & or the surrounding areas, and who returned after hanging the blades up as players & took to coaching; along with the people who played alongside them as kids would constantly reference & use them as touchstones, high water marks & an example to be followed with the following generations. I believe Billy was such a player in Montreals amateur hockey culture, as confirmed by C58. These players had a tremendous influence on how the game was taught & expected to be played; were constantly referenced if not coaching a team themselves. So yes, Bell was, to several generations of boys in Montreal, an important figure in the development of the game, the role of a Center/Winger in terms of being responsible defensively. Was he the best in the NHA/NHL for his time?. Dont think so, but obviously he was good, damn good, and thats beyond good enough for me.

Finally, and not to be argumentitive, but I believe you actually can draw a straight line from a Montreal Mercantile League of the tens/teens to the senior, amateur, junior & even minor-pro leagues of the 30's-40's and 50's to early 60's in that city (as is the case everywhere else, be it Toronto, Wpg etc), depending on the lifespan of the players, coaches & volunteers involved. Very fundamental & quite organic regardless of location. Halifax to Helsinki, St.Paul to St.Petersburgh.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Billy Bell

No worries, its an interesting discussion & actually highlights some of the difficulties we all encounter in determining the pedigree's & contributions to the game the early era players made. Unfortunately, records for amateur leagues in places like Montreal & Toronto, Winnipeg & QC etc in the early years of organized hockey are thin to non-existent. Billy Bell a good example, as the first recorded entry I can find is for 1909-10 with the Montreal Bell Telephone Team which played in the MCMHL. He played but 1 or 2 games for them, and wouldve' been 19 or 20 at the time (1891). As he's listed as being born in Lachine, we can pretty much assume he wouldve' grown up playing hockey in & around Montreal. From 1918-24 (sat out 19-20) as we know, he played variously in the NHA/NHL, Right Wing or Center, equally effective & adroit at both, a solid defensive forward. I cant/wont comment on his dominance or mediocrity as a player one way or the other as I can only find thin grists to mill into a full sheaf, a short career, nothing contextually upon which to sink some fangs & make a meal of.

But certainly Iain, be it North York or Pointe Claire, the players of the teens, 20's, 30's, 40's & 50's who were raised in those & or the surrounding areas, and who returned after hanging the blades up as players & took to coaching; along with the people who played alongside them as kids would constantly reference & use them as touchstones, high water marks & an example to be followed with the following generations. I believe Billy was such a player in Montreals amateur hockey culture, as confirmed by C58. These players had a tremendous influence on how the game was taught & expected to be played; were constantly referenced if not coaching a team themselves. So yes, Bell was, to several generations of boys in Montreal, an important figure in the development of the game, the role of a Center/Winger in terms of being responsible defensively. Was he the best in the NHA/NHL for his time?. Dont think so, but obviously he was good, damn good, and thats beyond good enough for me.

You actually can draw a straight line from a Montreal Mercantile League of the tens/teens to the senior, amateur, junior & even minor-pro leagues of the 30's-40's and 50's to early 60's, depending on the lifespan of the players, coaches & volunteers involved. Very fundamental & quite organic regardless of location. Halifax to Helsinki, St.Paul to St.Petersburgh.

Billy Bell was a referee in pro and amateur circles including the NHL until his death.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19520604&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Obit is on page 18 below the "Playing the Field" column

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The question was answered previously with anecdotal support added. Billy Bell had the ability to be a leading defensive center in the NHL. His overall defensive skills sustained him in the league. His lack of offense limited his playing time.

So you claim he "had the ability to be" a leading defensive centre. This again dodges the question of whether or not he actually was. He wasn't that bad offensively; he scored a bit when he was a regular with the Wanderers, once even trailing teammate Harry Hyland by a single goal. If he was one of the very best defensive forwards in the NHL, his offence would not be nearly enough to limit him to a few minutes per game. Since is offence is better documented in the numbers than his defence, you'll need to provide more than an anecdote.

In the preceding paragraph I even gave a loose rein on which forwards we're supposed to be discussing here. One thing you continue to ignore is that in the NHL (and the NHA), Bell played right wing. He played a bit of centre, but played far more on the wing. This by itself would exclude him from this thread, even if he was one of the best defensive forwards in the league, which there is no evidence for.

Now you want posters to believe that no developmental hockey was played on the Island of Montreal because records do not exist. The Island of Montreal featured plenty of parish teams, school teams, community teams, going back to the 19th century.

Of course not. Read what I wrote; I was speaking of two individual players only. You tried to tie Bell's developmental hockey directly to more recent leagues. But since we don't actually know where Bell played his developmental hockey, you simply can't produce evidence of such a lineage.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I believe Billy was such a player in Montreals amateur hockey culture, as confirmed by C58. These players had a tremendous influence on how the game was taught & expected to be played; were constantly referenced if not coaching a team themselves. So yes, Bell was, to several generations of boys in Montreal, an important figure in the development of the game, the role of a Center/Winger in terms of being responsible defensively.

Absolutely. His later contributions to the game don't retroactively make him a better player on the ice in 1920 though. This thread is about leading defensive centres in the NHL. Bell does not fit under than topic. He may be very interesting to discuss, but he does not fit in the context of this discussion. That is the only point I'm trying to make.

Was he the best in the NHA/NHL for his time?. Dont think so, but obviously he was good, damn good, and thats beyond good enough for me.

Being good enough to play a few minutes per game in the NHL is not enough to be called one of the best defensive centres in the NHL. I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that if he were really that good defensively, he would be limited to the role of a second-tier sub. C1958 might not realize this, but subs were a big part of the game by Bell's time in the NHL, and most of them did not play as little as he did. Some subs played quite a lot, even 15-20 minutes per game, while Bell clearly did not. These would be the "first-tier" subs, players like Louis Berlinguette or say Lloyd Andrews, who were not starters but did receive significant minutes.

Then you have subs like Bell, who seemed to exist mainly to give other players a breather, and not do anything stupid while on the ice. I pointed out earlier that Bell played 36 NHL games in his last two NHL seasons, recording zero points and only one penalty. He was clearly not playing very much, even by a sub's standards. If he were really one of the very best defensive forwards in the NHL (the thread topic), he would not be limited to such playing time.

C1958 likes to take discussions off into many directions, further and further away from the topic at hand. All I'm saying is that Billy Bell was not one of the very best defensive centres in the NHL, not least because he was a right wing. To fit under that definition, you need to contort the definition of leading a great deal, and also centre.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Billy Bell was a referee in pro and amateur circles including the NHL until his death.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Fr8DH2VBP9sC&dat=19520604&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

Obit is on page 18 below the "Playing the Field" column

Google has the functionality to link to specific articles. Scroll down below this one.

 

[Killion]

Google has the functionality to link to.

What, Billy Bells' obit or the blurb about needing Laxatives?.... Thanks Iain, thanks a lot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensive Centers

Absolutely. His later contributions to the game don't retroactively make him a better player on the ice in 1920 though. This thread is about leading defensive centres in the NHL. Bell does not fit under than topic. He may be very interesting to discuss, but he does not fit in the context of this discussion. That is the only point I'm trying to make.


Being good enough to play a few minutes per game in the NHL is not enough to be called one of the best defensive centres in the NHL. I find it exceptionally difficult to believe that if he were really that good defensively, he would be limited to the role of a second-tier sub. C1958 might not realize this, but subs were a big part of the game by Bell's time in the NHL, and most of them did not play as little as he did. Some subs played quite a lot, even 15-20 minutes per game, while Bell clearly did not. These would be the "first-tier" subs, players like Louis Berlinguette or say Lloyd Andrews, who were not starters but did receive significant minutes.

Then you have subs like Bell, who seemed to exist mainly to give other players a breather, and not do anything stupid while on the ice. I pointed out earlier that Bell played 36 NHL games in his last two NHL seasons, recording zero points and only one penalty. He was clearly not playing very much, even by a sub's standards. If he were really one of the very best defensive forwards in the NHL (the thread topic), he would not be limited to such playing time.

C1958 likes to take discussions off into many directions, further and further away from the topic at hand. All I'm saying is that Billy Bell was not one of the very best defensive centres in the NHL, not least because he was a right wing. To fit under that definition, you need to contort the definition of leading a great deal, and also centre.

Subs have had various functions since the start of the NHL. Johnny McCormack of the Leafs/Canadiens being a prime example. Center whose basic role was the PK, early fifties, in the era when the full two minutes had to be served. Doing the job he allowed the regular centers a breather by playing during the more tiring 4 on 5 situations. Once the penalty was over the teams line rotations remained in sequence with rested centers. Whether he played two minutes or more he contributed and to contribute in such a role he had to have defensive skills that would rank with the leading centers of his time.Killing penalties he had to have the defensive center skills to play against the elite offensive centers.

Going back to Billy Bell's era. Much has been made about no lineage to his developmental career. Billy Bell was born raised, schooled, lived and died in Lachine QC.He played Senior hockey for Dominion Bridge and died 40 years later on the job at Dominion Bridge.

Hockey was rather simple in the early days. Best player played center or rover. Progressing up the ranks the best centers or rovers from the feeder teams would go to training camp and the the best would stay at center or rover if the position was still in vogue, the other centers would become wings.This was evident in the NHL where Joe Malone played LW at times with Newsy Lalonde playing center. Players would change positions based on opposition, circumstance and requirements.

It has been admitted that Billy Bell played wing with the Wanderers - NHA.

What is being overlooked is that Billy Bell played in the NHL when game rosters comprised 8-10 players. The regular starting centers for the 3 or 4 NHL teams were all HHOF quality. The supporting cast forwards had solid backgrounds as centers because a strong defensive center could play any forward position for the amount of time required. No team was going to tie-up a valuable roster place for a one position winger.