Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Dreakmur]

How many professional games did Cleghorn play... 400? Does anyone else hold that against him?

Sure, it's not his fault, but most of the defensemen he is going up against played easily 1,000 professional games and more. Someone like Stevens played well over 1,600 professional games and was an impact player till the very last one. I still have trouble seeing Cleghorn placing high in this round.

To be frank, anyone who is looking at games played totals when comparing players from 1920 to 1990 has no business being in this project.

Sprague Cleghorn had one of the longest careers of his era. He started top playing top level hockey in 1909 and retired in 1928. In terms of longevity as an elite player, Cleghorn is among the elite in this group.

 

[MXD]

How many professional games did Cleghorn play... 400? Does anyone else hold that against him?

Sure, it's not his fault, but most of the defensemen he is going up against played easily 1,000 professional games and more. Someone like Stevens played well over 1,600 professional games and was an impact player till the very last one. I still have trouble seeing Cleghorn placing high in this round.

But he also played 60 minutes a game.

I consider games played as a bit irrelevant. However, % of games played has an importance, but it probably won't have any until Ken Reardon is up for voting.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Fleshing out the historic record for Cleghorn, here's what I can find from newspapers concerning his style and reputation over the years:

The first mention of Cleghorn in an American newspaper:

The Wanderers, however, have been strengthened through the acquisition of three of the most expert players in Canada. Otis and Sprague Cleghorn... have been in demand by the professional clubs of Canada for several seasons past, and may be depended upon to give the local followers of the game a real treat in expert hockey playing.

Cleghorn was 19 years old at the time... could it be true that he had already been recruited by professional teams for "several seasons", ie into his mid-teens?

A recap of the same game:

In carrying the puck the Wanderers seemed to have the advantage over their opponents and Sprague Cleghorn and Odie Cleghorn far surpassed any but Dufresne in this respect.

With Dufresne off the ice in the second half and a penalty inflicted against Sprague Cleghorn, the attack of the St. Nicholas players became more formidable... Then Sprague Cleghorn came on the ice, and he made several brilliant sorties which threatened scores.

The meeting of the Executive Committee of the Amateur Hockey League yesterday, to form an All-New York hockey team from various clubs in the local league, to play an international championship game against the Victorias of Montreal at the St. Nicholas rink to-morrow night, resulted in the selection of... Sprague and "Odie" Cleghorn of the Wanderers at centre and right wing...

This was the first mention of Cleghorn's position... and it apparently has him at center.

The recap of the promised "international championship", which the New York team won in what was apparently a barn-burner, mentions briefly:

The two Cleghorn brothers, Odie and Sprague, were terrors to the Victorias.

Sprague turned 20 five days later, on March 11th.

The following article previews a championship tourney with a purse of $1000 per round, to be played between the Wanderers, Renfrews and Ottawas:

The three teams named comprise the most expert professional players in the world.... Odie and Sprague Cleghorn, who formerly played on the Wanderers of this city, distinguished themselves by scoring the winning goals [in a previous set of games]. The Cleghorns will be remembered here for their aggressive playing... in their efforts to win the Amateur League Trophy. As professionals they have both jumped into favor with the Canadian experts, and Sprague Cleghorn is hailed as the best defense player in Canada to-day...

So a year later, Sprague had converted to defense to great effect.

Just for context as to how the game was played at this time, here's a description of the second game in a similar "special series" the following year:

The stick work of both teams -- six men being engaged on a side -- was the cleanest seen at the rink this year. the men relying on their dribbling ability rather than body-checking an opponent out of the way in order to forward the rubber. Therefore, there was an absence of the amateur body-checking methods seen hereabout when the sevens of this district play.

Another feature which attracted the onlookers was the playing of only six men, the rover being eliminated from the lineup. This made the game a great deal more open than has been seen here, which permitted some capital carries.

Team work which stood out in marked contrast to the type of play of an individual nature usually seen in New York was the outcome almost continually, no matter who had the rubber. This caused a most interesting contest, and one which did not take on any degree of roughness until the third period, when the play became fast enough to satisfy any one.

According to the box score, Cleghorn scored 4 goals and took no penalties.

Two-thirds of the way through the last period Moran, the goal tender for the Quebec team, received a smash from the puck which had been shot with lightning force by Sprague Cleghorn in an attempt to score, and was completely knocked out. [ed: four stitches to close a completely split upper lip; took him 15 minutes with a doctor to recover]

Sprague Cleghorn excelled in dazzling serpentine runs down the ice... Sprague Cleghorn holding his stick with one hand blocked his opponent with the other and bore down on the Ottawa net in many a speedy dash... The game was so free from roughness that a penalty was not inflicted... Then with lightning speed Sprague Cleghorn sped from one side of the rink to the other until he was well in the enemy's territory and scored from a difficult angle... After Sprague Cleghorn had scored after another dodging journey through the Ottawas...

Artie Ross and Sprague Cleghorn gave Moran valuable assistance on the defense, and time and again they stopped the Vancouver charge when it looked as if nothing could stay Taylor's spectacular rushes. The only bit of roughness last night was contributed by Ross... Sprague Cleghorn brought the crowd to its feet before two minutes of play when he rushed down the rink alone and scored.

Putting together each of the articles above, one can read between the lines that Cleghorn cut his teeth as a forward in a tight-checking environment in which relatively unskilled amateurs used their bodies to simply barrel through opponents to advance the puck. In his early 20s, as the high-skill players continued to consolidate in professional leagues and tournaments, he thrived in a faster-paced and more wide-open 6-man game that allowed him to use his forward's mentality to rush the puck from the back end. Also, the fact that he could knock out a goalie cold with a wrist shot to the head suggests that he likely had one of the better shots in the game at that time. If box scores are any indication, he was as much a threat to score as his brother who was known as a skilled winger.

What I find very interesting from this period is that Art Ross is mentioned time and again as an instigator and agitator... Cleghorn's penalties are for minor offenses like hooking and tripping. Aside from being described as "aggressive", he is never portrayed as a goon in the NYC press. And that's saying something, because a) it's the NYC press and b) the articles are often distracted with recounts of various scrums and ejections. It would seem that if Cleghorn was involved in those things in his early 20s, it was at no greater a level than those around him. Ross was the real threat when it came to stickwork.

[continued in the next post]

 

[tarheelhockey]

Then, in 1919, we get this:

Even brotherly love takes a back seat in the rough and tumble scrambles in the Dominion as shown by the recent clash between Odie and Sprague Cleghorn, who once played amateur hockey in New York. Odie now plays on Les Canadiens and Sprague on the Ottawa team of the big Eastern Canadian League.

When these two teams met in Montreal Odie raced down the ice swinging the puck ahead of him and Sprague essayed to stop him. Odie was geting (sic) past his brother, when, according to the Canadian papers, Sprague rapped him over the head with his hockey stick... Odie didn't take the count for a wonder and was getting ready to return the compliment in kind when the officials intervened.

Part of what makes this incident interesting, beyond the obvious, is that it follows a 4-year absence of Cleghorn's name in the American press. I take this as an indicator that NHA teams were no longer traveling to New York to play in tournaments, perhaps the result of their financial collapse. As the league wobbled and the talent level began to drop, did the culture of the on-ice product change? Was it more necessary than before to play a violently aggressive game, a hit-or-be-hit situation similar to what one might see in certain low-minor leauges? It makes for an interesting question, because smacking Odie across the head with a stick is certainly out of character for Sprague as we knew him back in 1915.

Then, three years later, there's the infamous "Mrs. Cleghorn" incident that preceded his departure from Ottawa.

In 1924, he appears in the NYT for the first time in a decade... as a "weird news" blurb that's actually well-timed given the conversation above.

When Sprague Cleghorn, captain of the Montreal Canadiens, world's professional hockey champions, was relieved in the last period of the recent Stanley Cup series match against Calgary, he is believed to have completed a record for continuous professional hockey play which will stand for a long time. It was the first time in the seventy-six games that he has played with the Canadiens that he ever stepped out for a rest. In 1922 Cleghorn played twenty-four complete games. He played the same number in 1923 and this year he participated in twenty-three regularly scheduled league games and five play-off battles.

Anybody know if there's a chance this record still stands for a non-goaltender? Anyway, it's noteworthy that the article implies that Cleghorn never missed any time due to ejection or suspension. Kind of hard to believe, isn't it?

Another "weird news" article of note:

The price of a Boston hockey player went up $10,000 in five minutes the other day, and as a result the Pittsburgh Pirates failed to get Sprague Cleghorn, according to a report here. The Pirates had made overtures to Manager Art Ross of the Bruins.
"Sure I'll sell Cleghorn," Ross is reported to have replied.
How much do you want for him," queried Pittsburgh.
"Forty thousand dollars, and if you wait five minutes I'll make it $50,000."
The surprise which this occasioned consumed five minutes and Ross announced the price had jumped to $50,000. Thereupon negotiations were broken.

Professional hockey comes back to the centre of the stage on Thursday night when Tex Rickard's New York Americans play the Boston Bruins, a line-up which includes the famous Sprague Cleghorn, one of the fastest of all the hockey stars.

This is the first visit here this season of the Boston team and the old hockey enthusiasts who remember Sprague Cleghorn, who used to play with the Wanderers at St. Nicholas rink, will be out in force to see him lead the Boston skaters. Cleghorn has developed into a prominent figure in Canadian hockey since he left here and is rated as one of the strongest defensive players in the professional game.

The game was so rough that at times it took on the delightfully wild abandon of the Donnybrook Fair... Sprague Cleghorn was the chief offender in uncorking rude hockey methods. Four times he was ruled off for roughness, once for a five-minute period... Fast rushes down the ice by Sprague Cleghorn were rudely interrupted by New York's defense line... Cleghorn was the first player ruled off the ice. He got a two-minute penalty for upsetting Shorty Green with a violent spill... Randall got a bad smash in the head from Cleghorn's stick and had to retire from the ice. Simpson took his place and Cleghorn was booed as he was ruled out of the game for a five-minute penalty. The injured Randall also got two minutes for his part in the fracas.... Cleghorn broke loose shortly after this, jimmied his way through the New York skaters, then passed the puck to Herberts just in time for the Boston centre to jam in a goal and tie the score.

Early rushes in the first by Burch and Langlois resulted in those players losing the puck to Boston when they reached the territory of Cleghorn and Hitchman... Sprague Cleghorn put the Bostonians in front when he skimmed down on the New York net alone and when Simpson tumbled in front of him he dodged to one side and pocketed the disk through Forbes's skates... Cleghorn and Langlois tried very seriously to rap each other with their hickory flails but both were ruled off for two minutes before any damage was done. Cleghorn was hardly back on the ice before he was ruled off again.

As usual, Sprague Cleghorn was a tower of strength on defense.

The case of Sprague Cleghorn, the great defense man of the Boston Bruins, is one in point which seems to prove that hockey does not wither a veteran's value in this swift-moving game.

Cleghorn... disappeared from metropolitan ken years ago, it seems, but now bobs up again as the mainstay of a winning team -- a sextet that has been brought into the winning column mainly by Cleghorn. In baseball Cleghorn would probably have been relegated to the role of a bench manager or mere spectator years ago. In hockey he remains as swift and untiring as a youth of 20, and much more skilled.

Perhaps the biggest star of the Boston outfit, if not the best known player in the National League today, is Sprague Cleghorn, who plays a defense position and captains the team. Cleghorn is a slashing type of player feared by his rivals because of his driving power on offensive play. Sprague has been playing professional hockey for sixteen years and has competed in more world's championship series than any other professional hockey man in the game today. Cleghorn is a two handed hitter, holding his stick with both hands in making a shot, and the puck travels at a terrific speed.

Lionel Conacher of the Americans, Ching Johnson of the Rangers, King Clancy of the Senators and Sprague Cleghorn of the Bruins are the premier hoisters [ed: defensemen] of the league.

Herberts and Hitchman were ruled off, but Cleghorn, with only three team mates [ed: shorthanded 3-on-5... one of his teammates is the goalie] broke away to carry down and count on a long shot with about a minute to play. The teams went to overtime in a 3-all tie.

Note in the article below, detailing a Finals match between the Bruins and Blackhawks, which defenseman is described as "mighty".

The mighty Cleghorn, Herberts, Oliver and Shore did the rest of the Bruin scoring, helping the total considerably [ed: this mattered in a 2-game, most-goals-wins series].
The Bruins attack subsided while Cleghorn and Shore, defense men, were off for roughing. It blazed again, though, when they came back...

This brings up another interesting intersection in Cleghorn's career: in his later years, he was paired with a newly-arrived 25-year-old Eddie Shore. Much the same as his pairing with Ross early in his career, Cleghorn actually seems to have taken a bit of a back seat to Shore in the violence department:

After rolling up a lead the Bruins gave one of the greatest defensive exhibitions ever seen here and constant attacks by the Rangers were blanked by the hard-fighting back line of the visitors... The Boston players came on the ice first, led by Sprague Cleghorn and were greeted by a thunder of jeers... Just before the opening whistle Referee O'Hara called the teams to the centre and gave them some preliminary advice as to rough play... After hositilities were resumed Ching Johnson and Shore were benched for a clash near the Boston net... The Rangers started a heavy attack and the play grew rough. Shore and Abel were put off for a tilt and soon afterward Cleghorn carelessly swung on Johnson's nose and also was banned... Shore and F. Boucher were put off for fighting and Boston for a time was down to three men. It was Shore's third trip to the box for the period and he was off a fourth time almost as soon as he got back... The second period was the roughest session ever seen in a Garden hockey game, fourteen penalties being handed out by the referees. Of these Shore of Boston had four and Abel of the Rangers three... [in the third period] Shore was put off [again].

The above describes a playoff game.

Could it be that Cleghorn influenced Shore's game more than we have discussed to this point? That brand of rushing, attacking, brawling hockey was certainly a constant between the two and the overlap of their careers in Boston seems a bit too much of a coincidence to ignore. Cleghorn appears to have picked up the "Bullies" style of hockey in his mid-20s... perhaps he passed it on to Shore at a similar juncture.

On 4/4/1927, NYT writer John Kieran listed King Clancy and Herb Gardiner as the prominent defensemen of the league, followed by a "wrap up" type list including Cleghorn, Ching Johnson, Boucher and Mantha. This is the first time that Cleghorn appears to slip definitively behind another defenseman in the NYC press. Clancy was 24 at the time, Cleghorn 37. The 36-year-old Gardiner is of course an odd case, having made his NHL debut only a year earlier and won the Hart, and only two more years from retirement.

This has all been a fairly NYC-centric viewpoint, as I have immediate access to that archive at work. I'll pull some more diverse sources shortly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ross was definitely an instigator and aggitator. He had a rep similar to King Clancy as a small man who would fight anyone anytime and usually lose.

Anyway one of Cleghorn's most notorious acts of violence happened during the period of time in which you are talking about. Is it possible it got blown out of proportion because it was such a high profile game? The game was billed as an exhibition of 6 man hockey to eastern crowds and featured the Montreal Canadiens vs. the Montreal Wanderers in Toronto and the description is actually quite interesting as it pertains to the transition from 7 man to 6 man hockey.

Here's an article from the day after the incident (which happened on Dec 22, 1912):

Hockey of the pro. six-a-side variety was tried Saturday night in the Arena and was not found wanting. This style will be the vogue the first part of the championship season, which opens up Wednesday night, Canadiens v. Tecumsehs

The exhibition incident was in real earnest, both sides doing their level best, and the big crowd was evidently well satisfied with everything, except the unprovoked attack on Newsy Lalonde by Sprague Cleghorn.

Those connected with the Arena and the two local clubs were pleased with the game, believing that the public will never miss the seventh man. In fact, they may still insist on the sextet the second part of the season, when according to agreement, they are to play seven-a-side.

It might be argued that the fewer numbers would please the owners for economic reasons. However, with six to a team, the game is more individually tougher, necessitating more frequent change of players and a greater number of substitutes.

The game recap (Cleghorn's Wanderers won 4-3 in OT):

This was the first encounter of the season of these professional teams and marked the return of pro. hockey to our midst, and naturally the crowd were anxious to judge for themselves whether the game had bettered since the old days. As the recognized fastest teams in the N.H.A. they were thought fitting exponenets of Canada's national winter pasttime.
...
Canadiens brought the old, reliable Newsy Lalonde, who is no newcomer in the Queen City. He was easily the star of the game until he retired and was the most aggressive player on the ice. His opponents recognized his ability and dogged him whereever he went, but even at that the wily Frenchman got away enough to score two goals, both of which were practically unaided. His work stands out head and shoulder from the rest, not only for strick handling and speed, but also for cleanness.

The article also describes Donald Smith and "Little Laviolette" for the Canadiens. Then the Wanderers players:

Ross flashed occasionally and electrified the crowd with his individual work, but quickly faded, only to revive in spots. Ross looks strong in this six-man business, but his laurels might be sadly blighted when he strikes the septet kind. The Cleghorn duo fell by the wayside and covered themselves with a cloak of rankness, not that they are not good hockey players, in fact they are not overestimated, but displayed much foul tactics to cover up their lack of condition.

The article then talks about how the purpose of the game was to convince the Toronto public of three things in favor of the 6 man game: it was a faster and better style of hockey, it more spectacular, and cleaner than the old 7 man hockey. The first and second points were considered mixed success. As for the third?

How far they fell down on the third is hard to say, but very seldom does one see such a gross piece of work as S. Cleghorn pulled off. Still this can be said in favor of the other players than up until the last ten minutes the only two who tried to pull of roughhouse tactics were the Cleghorn Bros. Both Odie and Sprague repeatedly made jabs at Lalonde's head, but were luckily unable to land him.

More on the "Rough Play:"

When Newsy checked Russell it was nothing more than a stiff body check and the force the two men were travelling at put both of them flat on the ice, but a man who will deliberately skate up and smash another with a stick over the head when he is lying on the ice, is a contemptable individual and should be put where he belongs. And why is this allowed? one asks and the reply is that it is sport. This is what is designated as sport and the dear public pay their good money to see a worthless scamp gain notoriety. But the managers cannot help themselves and are afraid to make a move lest dissension break out among their players, because they realize that these men are their drawing cards who fill up their coffers. Cleghorn was allowed to stay on the ice after the foul, but from the feeling of the crowd it would have been far wiser to have the police remove the perpetrator.

The game itself went into overtime, where Sprague Cleghorn (who had been allowed to remain on the ice after bashing his stick over Lalonde's head while he lay on the ice) scored the winning goal after 4 minutes. Imagine if hfboards had been around then?

Sammy Lichtenheim loses S. Cleghorn's services for four weeks for the latter's unprovoked attack Saturday night in the Arena on Newsy Lalonde of the Canadiens. The Wanderers will thus have their chances for a championship impaired.
...
In speaking of the mix-up President Quinn said he thought that Lalonde was to blame for going after Odie Cleghorn, for which he was fined $25 and ruled off, but in his opinion there was no excuse for Sprague Cleghorn attacking Lalonde as he did.

-The Toronto World, Dec 23, 1912

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Then, in 1919, we get this:

Part of what makes this incident interesting, beyond the obvious, is that it follows a 4-year absence of Cleghorn's name in the American press. I take this as an indicator that NHA teams were no longer traveling to New York to play in tournaments, perhaps the result of their financial collapse. As the league wobbled and the talent level began to drop, did the culture of the on-ice product change? Was it more necessary than before to play a violently aggressive game, a hit-or-be-hit situation similar to what one might see in certain low-minor leauges?

I have no idea as to the NHA/NHL's exhibition games in New York, but the NHA did not financially collapse. The NHA was turned into the NHL as a ploy to force out a "rouge" owner:

A series of disputes in the National Hockey Association (NHA) with Toronto Blueshirts owner Eddie Livingstone led the other owners, representing the Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Wanderers, Ottawa Senators, and Quebec Bulldogs to meet at the Windsor Hotel in Montreal to talk about the NHA's future.[9] Realizing the league constitution left them unable to force Livingstone out, the four teams voted instead to suspend the NHA, and on November 26, 1917, formed the National Hockey League.[10] While a full member of the new league, the Bulldogs were unable to play, and the remaining owners created a new team in Toronto to compete with the Canadiens, Wanderers and Senators.

It makes for an interesting question, because smacking Odie across the head with a stick is certainly out of character for Sprague as we knew him back in 1915.

Why is it out of character?

 

[pdd]

Agree. Brian Leetch is basically the Al MacInnis of this round in my personal opinion

I dunno... I think Al MacInnis is the Al MacInnis of this round...

While I do agree that Brad Park's competition among defensemen was not strong, I don't really think you can punish the guy for that.

I think most people would agree that, while defensemen during Park's peak were not overly strong, the forwards and goaltenders definately were. Instead of just comparing him to other of his position, I think you need to look at how Park compared to all positions to get a true picture of how great he was.

Brad Park's Hart voting record is extremely strong for a defenseman.

For what it's worth, in 1933-34 when Clancy finished 2nd in Hart voting among defensemen, he was first in All Star voting, so I awarded him his second "retro Norris" in that thread.

Hart voting is all well and good; but it's not equivalent to a Norris. Mark Howe is a perfect example. He was second in Hart voting to Gretzky, but didn't win the Norris. All-Star voting is a better test of pre-Norris defensemen.

I could have stretched out Pronger to 2010, maybe Coffey to 1995.

Coffey won the Norris in 1995 and was fifth in 1996.

Paul Coffey Offensively talented but failed to realize that not all teams were the Gretzky Oilers. Failure to adapt or mature his game has to be addressed.

Coffey was key to Gretzky's Oilers; and point totals. Watch Gretzky with and without Coffey. Coffey was excellent outside of Edmonton, as was Gretzky. But both worked AMAZINGLY well together. It wasn't a one-way transaction.

Retaliation - the phantom excuse, no penalty was called so I/we had to retaliate. Bailey/Shore - Shore's excuse basically comes down to mistaken identity. Also I have yet to see a net benefit to anyone involved in the incident. not the players, not the teams not the league, not hockey, certainly not Ace Bailey.

Red Horner?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I dunno... I think Al MacInnis is the Al MacInnis of this round...

I was obviously talking about the player who came up a round too early...

Hart voting is all well and good; but it's not equivalent to a Norris. Mark Howe is a perfect example. He was second in Hart voting to Gretzky, but didn't win the Norris. All-Star voting is a better test of pre-Norris defensemen.

I agree, which is why I use All-Star voting when it exists. Prior to 1930-31, we only have Hart voting for several seasons.

Also, I do think when two players like Clancy and Seibert have such different Hart records, it means something.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Despite his violent behavior I have been pretty impressed with the information given about Sprague Cleghorn. It seems that in the past it has been fairly widely accepted that Clancy > Cleghorn, but I'm having a tough time seeing it that easily. What are the arguments for Clancy to be ranked higher?

 

[Dreakmur]

Hart voting is all well and good; but it's not equivalent to a Norris.

That was the whole point. I used it because it wasn't the same as the Norris.

People were discounting Park's Norris voting because of his competition on the blueline. I wanted to show how highly he was viewed, even when compared to the forwards, which were very strong during his career.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Some non-NYC sources, courtesy the Google archives:

Was Cleghorn an outright forward early in his career?

Sprague Cleghorn starred for Renfrew throughout. He was shoved in at point when no one else could be found for the position and was without a doubt the most effective man on the winning team.

Sprague Cleghorn, who had not scored up to this stage, took a hand, and after an end to end rush scored, he taking no chances and did not shoot until he was well inside the defence, and right on top of Bedient.

Interestingly enough, he was selected as a referee in at least one game that March.

More evidence of his early versatility as a forward:

The Wanderers' management left nothing undone to turn defeat into victory. They made frequent changes in their line-up, and even moved Sprague Cleghorn up on the line to strengthen the team on the offensive, Stevens taking his place on cover point, but without result.

Ottawa hockey fans saw the greatest exponent of the modern game at his best Monday night when Sprague Cleghorn, of the Montreal Wanderers, unbuckled his case of samples and exposed the whole lot to view. Not since the days of the late Hod Stuart has a player of such all-around excellence as Cleghorn been seen on a hockey arena. And it is just doubtful if the great Hod, who was cut down at the height of his hockey career, could quite touch the general efficiency of the man who is now playing for the same team and same position Stuart held down when he passed away.

Big and strong, far-seeing and intelligent, Cleghorn is the mainspring of the Wanderers' machine.... On each occasion [ed: 4 goals] he caught the three Ottawa line men coming in, intercepting the puck, and with his rivals going the other way, he broke like a sprinter straight down the centre.... with Cleghorn working the puck in jigger fashion, they appeared hypnotized.
...
Four times Cleghorn performed this feat in identically the same manner last night. Four goals resulted.
...
By reverting to the files of 1915, it will be seen Mr Cleghorn was in the habit of pulling this stuff a year ago. With him it is no flash in the pan. He dopes out the situation and catches the opposition coming in. He strikes where the opposing team is the weakest, and he doesn't have to be told where rivals are in that condition... he is the Hod Stuart of present-day hockey.

Note the lack of any mention of violence or even physicality in that description!

It is not likely that hockey fans will ever see Sprague Cleghorn on skates again... There might be some chance for him to come back if this were his first fracture; unfortunately he broke his left leg nearly two years ago [Ed: on January 20, 1916]... he was out of the game for the rest of the winter and after ten months' rest attempted to come back.

His early form was promising and once in a while he turned in a good enough game to warrant recognition. But he never approached the grand form that made him the superman he was in 1915 and 1916.

It is reported that Sprague Cleghorn, once considered the greatest defence man in the game, will... finish out the season with the Ottawa club in the National Hockey League... Last week he was able to discard his crutch and he is now walking about as nimbly as ever. He says that he can skate and will get down to practice immediately. ... When Sprague is right he has at least a little on the majority of the defence players in the NHL.

That would be less than a 60-day recovery from the "career ending" second leg break.

The announcement of his acquisition by Ottawa from the Wanderers:

Thus Cleghorn will cost the Ottawas [Dave] Ritchie, a promising defence player; [Harry] Hyland, a dangerous forward; and [Rutsy] Crawford, a good utility man.... They believe Cleghorn just the man they require and are convinced that his presence on the Ottawa team will more than offset any effectiveness they might have secured through the addition of Hyland, Ritchie and Crawford. Captain Eddie Gerard has highly recommended Cleghorn and other members of the team are tickled at the prospect of having the Montreal boy shooting up and down the ice in a barber pole sweater. Cleghorn comes high, but should prove one of the sensations of the season.

Morenz and Sprague Cleghorn were best for Canadiens... The Toronto players advanced three abreast but a poke by Sprague Cleghorn saved a sure looking goal. Sprague carried the puck to the other end and gave Boucher the opening to make the count 3-1 for the locals.

Summarizing a Cup Final game:

While Nighbor stood out as the most brilliant player on the ice... the real hero of the sensational struggle was not the flashy Nighbor. It wasn't Darragh... nor was it Broadbent, who notched the winning goal. It was big Sprague Cleghorn. Ottawa took a chance in starting Cleghorn on the defence and shifting Boucher to the line [ed: huh?], and in the first five minutes it looked as though the management made a bloomer, but Cleghorn quickly regained his old-time form and thereafter was the most useful man on the ice. He stepped into the Vancouver forwards time after time, sent McKay, Adams and others sprawling into heavy body checks and intercepted pass after pass when goals seemed certain. Cleghorn carried the puck down for Ottawa's first goal in the opening period, and it was he who brought it thru again and enabled Broadbent to tally the decisive one."

Quite the postseason performance. The article even says Nighbor played one of the best games of his career and was still overshadowed by Cleghorn.

Sprague Cleghorn appeared for the first time since his early season injury [ed: injury?] and stiffened the Boston defence... Sprague Cleghorn carried the rubber up the ice easily evading the Irish [ed: Toronto St. Patricks'] defence and scored alone.

And once more, just to contextualize the violence that was typical of the era:

Sylvio Mantha... and Sprague Cleghorn -- the two Canadien defence men -- were the players sent for enforced rests in the final period. Both received major penalties, while Mantha was awarded a $15 fine by Referee Art Ross [ed: the irony!]. Twice in the last session Cleghorn was penalized for too vigorous attention to Lionel Hitchman, the rugged Ottawa defence man. The first trip was a minor, but the second was a five-minute rest for carving a high stick, which caught Hitchman on the head and sent him sprawling to the ice. Mantha's temporary dismissal was for a deliberate swing he took with his stick at Cy Denenny's head. Denenny and Mantha had been in unfriendly tilts, and it was towards the end of the game that the local defence man became incensed at the Ottawa wing player, and took matters into his own hands.

Ottawa players came in for their share of penalties. George Boucher was given an enforced rest for a too promiscuous use of the butt-end of his stick on Sprague Cleghorn, while King Clancy went out of the game in the final period for tripping Billy Boucher. The spill wrenched Billy Boucher's injured knee and he was forced to retire from the game. After some deliberation Referee Ross banished Clancy for two minutes -- the limit for the offence -- but ordered him to remain off the ice until Boucher was ready to return, which meant that when his two minutes were up Jack Darragh had to be pressed into service.
...
In the second period George [Boucher] was stopped heavily by Sprague Cleghorn, and wrenched the cartilage of his right knee which necessitated his retirement from play. He was followed shortly after by Billy, following the trip which aggravated an already injured knee.

It's remarkable that these players were even able to complete their seasons, given the rate of injury and the "improvised" officiating.

What I hope I'm accomplishing with these walls of text is to illustrate that we're focusing on a very, very narrow portion of Cleghorn's career in which he mostly battled with one team in a way that went over the top by today's standards, but wasn't even enough to garner a suspension in his own period.

Prior to that outburst of violence against Ottawa, he was hands-down the most prominent puck-rushing defenseman of his era and arguably the best-rounded defenseman in the world for a period of at least 2 or 3 decades. He had a forward's instinct for rushing the puck, an amateur's instinct for body checking through traffic, and a defenseman's instinct for closing up passing and skating lanes. He had, I believe, a clear influence on the development of Eddie Shore and therefore of the archetypical concept of Defenseman prior to Harvey. It's quite possible, given the shock expressed in the 2/4/1916 article above, that he also pioneered the defenseman's role in transition offense to a greater extent than he has been given credit.

I think it's more than worth our while for the sake of this project to talk about Cleghorn in terms of how his contemporaries saw him (a standout and quasi-generational player) rather than how our own contemporaries describe him (a sideshow and precursor to modern goons).

 

[tarheelhockey]

Anyway one of Cleghorn's most notorious acts of violence happened during the period of time in which you are talking about. Is it possible it got blown out of proportion because it was such a high profile game?

I think the more likely thing is that over time it has been blown out of proportion because it fits the narrative that continued in his vendetta against the Senators. If that had been a stand-alone incident, nobody would remember it any differently from the other violence that was standard at the time among almost all "rough" players.

The game itself went into overtime, where Sprague Cleghorn (who had been allowed to remain on the ice after bashing his stick over Lalonde's head while he lay on the ice) scored the winning goal after 4 minutes. Imagine if hfboards had been around then?

It's funny you say that, the tone of indignance in that editorial immediately brought to mind our own Main Board after a suspendable hit on any given night.

I have no idea as to the NHA/NHL's exhibition games in New York, but the NHA did not financially collapse.

"Collapse" was too strong a word... but the league was not in good financial shape with teams drawing big crowds but still managing to spend more on their salaries than they could draw at the door, leading to a steady rotation of unstable franchises (sounds familiar...). I assume that at some point, they ran out of funding to conduct far-flung tournaments for large cash purses.

Why is it out of character?

Not least is the fact that he was knocking his own brother across the head. The two gravitated toward each other throughout their careers and Sprague was known to be most violent when he came to Odie's defense. It just seems out of place that, having only the Newsy incident as a standout act of violence in his first decade, he seems to have suddenly become a completely different kind of mean. From the scant evidence we have, I think there are probably a few different factors involved -- changes in league, personal issues involving his love life, and perhaps even a bit of undiagnosed mental illness. A change of character certainly seems to have taken place, whatever the case may have been.

But the larger point I'm trying to make, is that his contemporaries didn't talk about him as "Sprague Cleghorn, the guy who injures everybody's best player". They knew him as a startlingly fast puck-rusher with an impeccable sense of timing at both ends of the ice, a natural intelligence for creating open ice on the rush, a shot apparently as hard as anyone's at the time with considerable elevation and accuracy, and a general sense of assertiveness and strength that seems to have simply bowled over anyone short of a Clancy or Lalonde type of opponent. How many defenseman on our list can legitimately be described as elite at both ends of the ice starting in their early 20s and continuing almost unabated until their late 30s? That's what people knew Cleghorn for at the time, not so much for the colorful accounts of his trips to the police station.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ottawa took a chance in starting Cleghorn on the defence and shifting Boucher to the line [ed: huh?]

This means that Georges Boucher was moved up to forward. With no substitutions and three star defensemen (Cleghorn, Gerard, Boucher), one of them had to play forward. I'm sure it's also why Ottawa let Cleghorn go when they wanted to bring up Clancy.

Great articles, but I do want to try to clarify a few points.

Quite the postseason performance. The article even says Nighbor played one of the best games of his career and was still overshadowed by Cleghorn.

These are great quotes and information but please keep in mind that most of them are just individual game summaries. I'm sure that every defenseman up for voting now was the best player on the ice in multiple games.

And once more, just to contextualize the violence that was typical of the era:

Yup, it was definitely a violent era. There's a reason the Lady Byng award was created and why it was so prestigious at first.

It's remarkable that these players were even able to complete their seasons, given the rate of injury and the "improvised" officiating.

What I hope I'm accomplishing with these walls of text is to illustrate that we're focusing on a very, very narrow portion of Cleghorn's career in which he mostly battled with one team in a way that went over the top by today's standards, but wasn't even enough to garner a suspension in his own period.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, to be honest. History remembers Cleghorn as the most violent superstar in the most violent age of hockey. What makes his violence particularly aggregious is the apparently calculated nature of it.

Prior to that outburst of violence against Ottawa, he was hands-down the most prominent puck-rushing defenseman of his era and arguably the best-rounded defenseman in the world for a period of at least 2 or 3 decades.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hands-down the most prominent puck-rushing defenseman of his era." Maybe for about 5 years in the NHA, but by the time the NHL formed, Boucher and Cameron had caught up to him in terms of offense and puck rushing ability (though probably not in overall game).

I think it's more than worth our while for the sake of this project to talk about Cleghorn in terms of how his contemporaries saw him (a standout and quasi-generational player) rather than how our own contemporaries describe him (a sideshow and precursor to modern goons).

Upthread, I posted articles about how his contemporaries held him in contempt, he was suspended for a month after the Lalonde incident, and there was an effort at one point to ban him from the league after the Ottawa stuff.

I don't understand why we need to gloss over the violence to recognize how great he was.

Yes, Cleghorn was widely viewed as the best defenseman of his era (though it was not universal, as many seem to have preferred Eddie Gerard as the better team player. Then there were the defensemen out west).

But Cleghorn was also viewed as a player who engaged in excessive violence even in his own era. It's up to every voted to take into account whether that matters to them, but I think that glossing over it does a disservice to history.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Despite his violent behavior I have been pretty impressed with the information given about Sprague Cleghorn. It seems that in the past it has been fairly widely accepted that Clancy > Cleghorn, but I'm having a tough time seeing it that easily. What are the arguments for Clancy to be ranked higher?

The thing that needs to be emphasized about Cleghorn's violent behavior is that it wasn't always calculated to help his team win games. Some of it was incredibly selfish and created quite the sideshow that became a distraction.

In the previous top 100 projects, there was definitely a bias against pre-consolidation players like Cleghorn, because "it is impossible to know how good they were with the talent spread throughout different leagues." IMO, that was a bit of a superficial analysis. We know that after World War I at least, talent was split between 2 leagues (PCHA and NHA/NHL) with a third league (WHL) briefly added. It's generally accepted now that the NHA/NHL that Cleghorn played in had about half the best players in the world.

I don't think it's given that Clancy > Cleghorn, but I'll probably end up ranking Clancy ahead.

Here are some definite advantages Clancy has over Cleghorn

1) Better offense, especially in the NHL. (Cleghorn's best offensive seasons were in the NHA years against weaker competition).

2) The ultimate leader, team player and winner. Stories about about how Clancy, one of the smallest players in the league, would fight anyone anytime for his team. Everything Clancy did seemed calculated to help his team win (including his famous aggitation of Eddie Shore in the playoffs which overpass posted earlier). Cleghorn, despite being arguably more talented than Clancy (or at least BIGGER), had something of a side show follow him around for much of his career, where he would engage in acts of violence for selfish reasons. Clancy would selflessly take beatings if they would help his team win. Cleghorn would give out beatings, which often helped his team win, but sometimes calculated to avenge personal vendettas, his team be damned.

3) Related to #2, Clancy was extremely highly sought after during his career. Ottawa only let him go because they were desperate for cash, and Toronto insisted on getting Clancy and nobody else. Cleghorn was dumped by multiple teams (including Ottawa).

4) Clancy appears to have been key to the long term success of the two teams he played for. When Toronto bought his rights, it signalled a shift in the balance of power in the young NHL. Cleghorn quite obviously made every team he played for quite a bit better in the short term, but he quickly wore out his welcome whereever he went.

Here are some other possible reasons to rank Clancy over Cleghorn, but voters will vary as to whether these are important:

5) Played a more modern style of defense that would succeed in any era. In other words, he didn't rely primarily on the threat of violence to defend his own goal, a tactic that slowly became outdated over the course of the 20s and 30s.

6) Easier to get a handle on how good he was. The vast majority of Clancy's accomplishments were after the 1926 consolidation, and we can say with a fairly high level of confidence that he was the 2nd best defenseman (after Shore and over Seibert) from consolidation until World War 2. Cleghorn was most likely the best defenseman to play before consolidation but there's a little bit of uncertainty there.

It really depends on how much each voter wants to punish Cleghorn for his negatives. Without the side show, there's a case that he's the best defenseman available this round. But taking everything into account, I'm probably going to end up ranking him 4th or 5th (behind Clancy and Park and possibly Pilote and Coffey - still haven't made up my mind about Coffey, heh).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not least is the fact that he was knocking his own brother across the head. The two gravitated toward each other throughout their careers and Sprague was known to be most violent when he came to Odie's defense. It just seems out of place that, having only the Newsy incident as a standout act of violence in his first decade, he seems to have suddenly become a completely different kind of mean. From the scant evidence we have, I think there are probably a few different factors involved -- changes in league, personal issues involving his love life, and perhaps even a bit of undiagnosed mental illness. A change of character certainly seems to have taken place, whatever the case may have been.

I don't think there's any question Cleghorn was mentally ill in some fashion.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I don't think there's any question Cleghorn was mentally ill in some fashion.

Not today's Chris Pronger, but Chris Simon.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I realize it might go against conventional thought, but I'm finding it really hard not to rank Horton as marginally below Pronger and Stevens. I think they are all really close, as guys who were among the best of their respective eras, but not the absolute best. And all three guys have their values increased quite a bit by a period of consistent dominance in the playoffs. When three guys are that close, I look at what one of them might be lacking. And I just see Horton lacking that one dominant regular season like Stevens in 93-94 or Pronger in 1999-00.

Thoughts?

 

[tarheelhockey]

This means that Georges Boucher was moved up to forward. With no substitutions and three star defensemen (Cleghorn, Gerard, Boucher), one of them had to play forward.

The "huh?" was directed to the idea that it was "taking a chance" to start Cleghorn at defense rather than move him up to forward. To me that seems like the fairly obvious thing to do, maybe it was more controversial in context.

These are great quotes and information but please keep in mind that most of them are just individual game summaries. I'm sure that every defenseman up for voting now was the best player on the ice in multiple games.

The game in question, though, was a championship match. It's a fairly large feather in the cap of any defenseman to be the standout player in the equivalent of a Finals Game 7, being dominant to the point of overshadowing a benchmark game by a star forward. You may be right that every defenseman on the list has done that, but there are a few that I need to learn about if that's the case (maybe you could give Park the Summit Series... did Pilote ever have that kind of performance?)

Anyway, it's on the record if anyone is looking for a rough approximation of a Conn Smythe type performance from Cleghorn.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here, to be honest. History remembers Cleghorn as the most violent superstar in the most violent age of hockey. What makes his violence particularly aggregious is the apparently calculated nature of it.

And while that is a legitimate thing to bring into the conversation, it shouldn't dominate the conversation to the extent that it always does. That's like having pages of discussion on how Scott Stevens was out to hurt people on purpose. It's one thing in a general discussion thread, but in a rankings thread we ought to get past that stuff fairly quickly because it frankly doesn't matter when comparing him to another great defenseman. I'm trying to provide a fuller narrative of Cleghorn's career, particularly the dominant impact that he had at both ends of the ice on a day-to-day basis, so we can get past the talk about a handful of violent incidents that shock modern sensibilities. Those incidents don't make up a large enough portion of his career to deserve the focus that they get.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hands-down the most prominent puck-rushing defenseman of his era." Maybe for about 5 years in the NHA, but by the time the NHL formed, Boucher and Cameron had caught up to him in terms of offense and puck rushing ability (though probably not in overall game).

I believe that Cleghorn was the most naturally talented of the three and but for two broken legs he would have brought the same game to the NHL that absolutely stunned the crowd in Ottawa 1916 and drew the Hod Stuart comparison. And as in any other era, it's more impressive to be a great offensive defenseman when you're also a great defensive defenseman at the same time.

Even if you disagree with that evaluation of his talent, I think the articles below indicate that Cleghorn was at least the most prominent player of the three. It sounds like he was the primary attraction when his teams came to town. Montreal wanted him largely for his drawing power. He was simply a bigger star than Cameron or Boucher.

Upthread, I posted articles about how his contemporaries held him in contempt, he was suspended for a month after the Lalonde incident, and there was an effort at one point to ban him from the league after the Ottawa stuff.

Again that's a fair point to bring into play, but let's not act like the man was considered some kind of war criminal. Lalonde himself went to court and prevented Cleghorn from seeing any serious consequences, and I've quoted him upthread saying it wasn't that big of a deal. The Sens tried to get him banned because he tormented their team, which is understandable but not really relevant to what the rest of the league thought. Other than Ottawa, nobody seemed to have THAT big of a problem with him... no more so, anyway, than others did with Shore, Chelios or Pronger.

But Cleghorn was also viewed as a player who engaged in excessive violence even in his own era. It's up to every voted to take into account whether that matters to them, but I think that glossing over it does a disservice to history.

It's not possible to gloss it over. At this point I'm simply trying to get the whole story out there so it's clear there was more to Cleghorn than raging violence. The fact that a couple of people have already commented that his personal reputation is influencing their rankings strikes me as kind of a shame. There is so much else to his career that could be discussed in lieu of those incidents, as has been the case with several other players on the list who were also regarded as among the dirtiest players in history.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And while that is a legitimate thing to bring into the conversation, it shouldn't dominate the conversation to the extent that it always does. That's like having pages of discussion on how Scott Stevens was out to hurt people on purpose. It's one thing in a general discussion thread, but in a rankings thread we ought to get past that stuff fairly quickly because it frankly doesn't matter when comparing him to another great defenseman. I'm trying to provide a fuller narrative of Cleghorn's career, particularly the dominant impact that he had at both ends of the ice on a day-to-day basis, so we can get past the talk about a handful of violent incidents that shock modern sensibilities. Those incidents don't make up a large enough portion of his career to deserve the focus that they get.

I appreciate that you are trying to provide a narrative about just how big an impact Cleghorn had on the ice. As for the comparison with Scott Stevens, as a young player, he was correctly criticized for sometimes hurting his team with either bad penalties or going out of position for a big hit. In the second half of his career, Stevens learned from Larry Robinson (assistant coach under Jacques Lemaire), and his violence was always under control, generally within the rules of the game, and was always calculated to help his team win. That makes him a greater hockey player than he otherwise would be not a lesser one, IMO.

Systematically attacking the players of the other team to settle a personal grudge is putting yourself above your team, and that is what Cleghorn is deservedly criticzied for.

Even if you disagree with that evaluation of his talent, I think the articles below indicate that Cleghorn was at least the most prominent player of the three. It sounds like he was the primary attraction when his teams came to town. Montreal wanted him largely for his drawing power. He was simply a bigger star than Cameron or Boucher.

No disagreement there. He was definitely a bigger star (and better overall player) than Boucher and especially Cameron. I'm sure the "bad boy" act was part of his draw though.

Again that's a fair point to bring into play, but let's not act like the man was considered some kind of war criminal. Lalonde himself went to court and prevented Cleghorn from seeing any serious consequences, and I've quoted him upthread saying it wasn't that big of a deal. The Sens tried to get him banned because he tormented their team, which is understandable but not really relevant to what the rest of the league thought. Other than Ottawa, nobody seemed to have THAT big of a problem with him... no more so, anyway, than others did with Shore, Chelios or Pronger.

And all of those players are criticized for lack of discipline. IMO, if Chelios was more disciplined during his peak, he would have been ranked ahead of Larry Robinson quite easily on our list. Robinson's ability to play elite defense and intimidate without taking penalties was his one clear advantage over Chelios. Would Shore have been ranked 2nd overall if he hadn't hurt his team with bad penalties? Maybe. I'm sure he would have gotten more support.

We'll see what happens with Pronger.

I don't see why Cleghorn should get special treatment.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Cleghorn's own team suspended him for the entire playoffs. All but two teams voted to permanently bar him from the league. That's a huge deal in any era, and is a major drawback of him as a player. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Cleghorn.

No other player up for voting this round has ever come close to being such a detriment to his own team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

And all of those players are criticized for lack of discipline. IMO, if Chelios was more disciplined during his peak, he would have been ranked ahead of Larry Robinson quite easily on our list. Robinson's ability to play elite defense and intimidate without taking penalties was his one clear advantage over Chelios. Would Shore have been ranked 2nd overall if he hadn't hurt his team with bad penalties? Maybe. I'm sure he would have gotten more support.

We'll see what happens with Pronger.

I don't see why Cleghorn should get special treatment.

Again, I'm not calling for special treatment at all, but a leveling of the playing field. I think Cleghorn's at a severe disadvantage in that none of us have seen him play and likely none of us even know anyone who saw him play... the only first-hand records are from newspapers which are only just coming into digital format... and the prevailing tone of modern accounts of his career is something along the lines of "he was really good, but listen to this CRAZY thing he did during a game!".

With Chelios and Pronger, we have all seen enough to know where their penalties and suspensions fit into their overall game. With Shore, there's an enormous amount of credibility among the hockey establishment that offsets his indiscretions. It's easy to get around their violent tendencies and understand exactly why they were great players; with Cleghorn you really have to dig deep and aside from stat analysis I wasn't seeing a lot of that in this thread... so I took some time to flesh out contemporary accounts of his speed, shot, intelligence, physicality, and clutch performance.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just to defend Cleghorn a little bit:

Cleghorn's own team suspended him for the entire playoffs. All but two teams voted to permanently bar him from the league. That's a huge deal in any era, and is a major drawback of him as a player. And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Cleghorn.

I'll assume that this happened in 1923 after the crap with Ottawa. At the time, there were only 4 teams in the NHL (Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and Hamilton), so the vote to ban Cleghorn had to be 2-2.

No other player up for voting this round has ever come close to being such a detriment to his own team.

Overpass clearly showed that he was a huge benefit to his team when he actually played hockey - arguably the best available here. But you are correct IMO in that nobody who has come up for voting yet has as many negatives, and in my opinion that has to take something away from his accomplishments.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again, I'm not calling for special treatment at all, but a leveling of the playing field. I think Cleghorn's at a severe disadvantage in that none of us have seen him play and likely none of us even know anyone who saw him play... the only first-hand records are from newspapers which are only just coming into digital format... and the prevailing tone of modern accounts of his career is something along the lines of "he was really good, but listen to this CRAZY thing he did during a game!".

Cleghorn's issues were well established in Trail of the Stanley Cup, the most widely cited history of the pre-consolidation period of hockey before the internet widely publicized the original source material.

With Chelios and Pronger, we have all seen enough to know where their penalties and suspensions fit into their overall game. With Shore, there's an enormous amount of credibility among the hockey establishment that offsets his indiscretions. It's easy to get around their violent tendencies and understand exactly why they were great players; with Cleghorn you really have to dig deep and aside from stat analysis I wasn't seeing a lot of that in this thread... so I took some time to flesh out contemporary accounts of his speed, shot, intelligence, physicality, and clutch performance.

I think it's probably a good thing that both sides of the player were fleshed out in this thread.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Era Issue

Again, I'm not calling for special treatment at all, but a leveling of the playing field. I think Cleghorn's at a severe disadvantage in that none of us have seen him play and likely none of us even know anyone who saw him play... the only first-hand records are from newspapers which are only just coming into digital format... and the prevailing tone of modern accounts of his career is something along the lines of "he was really good, but listen to this CRAZY thing he did during a game!".

With Chelios and Pronger, we have all seen enough to know where their penalties and suspensions fit into their overall game. With Shore, there's an enormous amount of credibility among the hockey establishment that offsets his indiscretions. It's easy to get around their violent tendencies and understand exactly why they were great players; with Cleghorn you really have to dig deep and aside from stat analysis I wasn't seeing a lot of that in this thread... so I took some time to flesh out contemporary accounts of his speed, shot, intelligence, physicality, and clutch performance.

One of the coaches administrators at the community center where I was introduced to hockey in the fifities had a pre WWI NHA tryout. Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Shore and Maurice Richard were constant example to us of talented players crossing the line and costing the team victories or championships. Industrial working-class neighbourhood, so tough or physical play was integral but winning mattered more. My opinions of the players listed above have not changed much from those days. Likewise my opinions of the various coaches involved in their careers.

Nice to see some general observations confirmed by the analysis done by overpass, extensive and detailed that brings us to the following dilemma.

We are looking at the top defensemen of all time. Yet we are not looking at the impact of rule changes that impacted the game and the position in question.

Looking at Sprague Cleghorn, the issue of his skills has to be viewed in terms of an entire career spent in the pre forward pass era and at a time when it was possible to play all five skaters behind the defensive blue line - forwards did not have to clear the zone once the puck exited. As such the defensemen did not have to worry about defending the forward pass and all the related defensive responsibilities. Also until the spring of 1939 icing was acceptable and made playing defense easier.

Likewise the offensive skills were rather limited. The defenseman did not have to make the wide range of forward passes. So the issue of assists has to be viewed in context. Rushing defenseman - big difference between a skill rush and a bull rush:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/cleghsp01.html

Sprague Cleghorn was almost six foot tall and weighed 190 lbs, much bigger than the typical NHL player of his era. Bull rush - no different than the big kid with average skating skills playing single letter hockey today that simply bulls his way up ice. Throw in the unwillingness of certain players to challenge a known stick expert and you have a different picture.

Comment. The by position approach is very interesting as it allows us to focus on the various issues that touch a specific position and its evolution.

 

[MXD]

Haaa.... Time to vote!

- I wouldn't say that this round had three tiers, but it's pretty close. The tiers being, of course, King Clancy, every body else not named Brian Leetch, and Brian Leetch.

- If anything, the project made me drop Brad Park in my list.

- I always thought of Pierre Pilote as a somewhat overrated player. Actually, he might be, but in a D-Men ranking... he's up there and I'm extremely comfortable in putting him in the Top-5 for this round. He should go in rather easily.

- There was something of a case being made AGAINST Earl Siebert in this round (and the pimping of Cleghorn was pretty clear as well...). I couldn't care less, really. Is penalized by a rather clear voting pattern, both for the Hart and the AST's berths.

- Sprague Cleghorn?... Well, there are positives, and there are negatives. Consolidation and era plays against him. As far as "antics" goes... Well, it goes both ways. In way, there has to be something of an adjustment for toughness (that screams weird stats...). Chances are, he would have been a different player, if he played just a few years later. On the other hand... There's a guy who screams "adaptation problems"... and that's why, I think, Cleghorn should get penalized. There's also the problem that he would probably not have been allowed to play pro hockey a few years later as well.

- Chris Pronger really made quite a jump in my rankings. Not Top-5 (consistency hurt him, big time), but certainly a jump.

- I know we shouldn't bring up guys who aren't up for voting yet, but I intended to vote Stevens AND (player x) back to back (in that order - and that's how I had them in my list). That player wasn't available for voting, so my plans are somewhat screwed. A shame, really.

- Horton and Coffey will back-to-back. A classic.

- I consider Brian Leetch's chances at getting above last rank next round at 4%. In my rankings, actually.