I did happen there is no one denying that, but there wasn't the advanced statistics tracking methods that they have today, and as a result it is possible that the statistics were comprimised. This would be compounded by the fact that there was no video or any way to backcheck. I suggest you read of the instances where in the early years the NHL has attempted to go back and explain the inconsistancies (which is documented in Total Hockey) and has at least from my interpretation discovered it is hard, if not impossible to do. It wasn't completely organized as it is today where all the statistics can be added at the click of a button. Sorry to burst your bubble there.
But the thing is it is hard to judge the validity of statistics when that is all they are, statistics. There is no video footage, there is nothing really to outline or show the story behind the statistics. Dave Brown scored 55 goals or something like that, under your system that makes him as valuable as a player who scored 55 goals in the same era but did so without riding shotgun for Lemieux. Really not a fair way to judge players in my opinion, and then to insult other lists and call them stupid (at least that is what I think you did for the hockey news list because they didn't follow your method of gathering statistics. There are just so many holes, and things that you can't quantify especially with statistical evidence which one could certanly argue is questionable, and a lack of any further empirical evidence, and then the many variables (which you haven't explained) which must be accounted for, and also the fact that you know next to nothing about the players past their statistics. You are trying to tell me that a 5'7 Denneny would be able to match up against some of the larger players throughout history, even if you were to add some inches on to represent society and whatnot, he would still be undersized.