Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Wingers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,838
16,576
Conacher's career value isn't THAT much worse than Ovechkin or Lafleur, is it? Also keeping in mind that average careers were a bit shorter back then do to more primitive sports medicine.

Yeah, but..

- Most unidimensional game in that group
- Could really be efficient in one "setting"
- Could arguably change "efficient" to "useful" on the line above
- Regardless of the above, he's significantly below Lafleur and below AO for playoff play.

And yes, there should be a little "bonus" given to goalscorers, but Conacher wasn't simply a goalscorer -- he was a Cy Young winner.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,414
139,410
Bojangles Parking Lot
The thing about Conacher, he just fell off SO hard. I'm not one to take a hard line against giving credit for "ordinary" seasons at the end of a career. But his after age 26 (by which point he was indeed in the Ovie/Lafleur tier), I mean there's really nothing else there at all. A couple of almost totally lost seasons, a sad year in Detroit, and then some time tooling around on horrendous Amerks teams. I guess you could give him a little nod for learning to play D, presuming there's some evidence beyond the scoring stats that he played the position well.

I'd like to take a closer look at him next round. Feels like he kind of got skimmed over in this round.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Yeah, but..

- Most unidimensional game in that group
- Could really be efficient in one "setting"
- Could arguably change "efficient" to "useful" on the line above
- Regardless of the above, he's significantly below Lafleur and below AO for playoff play.

And yes, there should be a little "bonus" given to goalscorers, but Conacher wasn't simply a goalscorer -- he was a Cy Young winner.

The first three are fair*, but I don't see how Conacher could be considered behind AO in playoff play - he was one of the more productive playoff players of his era, though his team underperformed somewhat.

This is what I said about Conacher's playoffs in my Conacher vs Ovechkin post:

Conacher put up pretty strong playoffs stats during his prime (1931-1936): http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...at=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points_per_game

His stacked team (King Clancy, Busher Jackson, Joe Primeau) somewhat underachived, winning 1 Cup on 4 trips to the finals.

Conacher had a few noteworthy playoff performances - leading the league in playoff goals in 1932 (Cup) and playoff points in 1935. He also performed well in the 1939 playoffs, well past his regular season prime - 7 points in 5 games in a 2nd round loss for Detroit.

Hard to compare to Ovechkin who played in a completely different playoff environment (30 teams, 4 rounds, team not nearly as stacked as Conacher's even compared to era).

My feeling is that Conacher has a small advantage in the playoffs based on 2 excellent performances on 4 trips to the finals.

*Conacher wasn't totally one-dimensional either - seemed to be a feared fighter, back when fighting was important, though I haven't seen anything about him throwing his weight around other than fighting to protect himself and his teammates. Definitely not much of a playmaker though.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Charlie Conacher

Yeah, but..

- Most unidimensional game in that group
- Could really be efficient in one "setting"
- Could arguably change "efficient" to "useful" on the line above
- Regardless of the above, he's significantly below Lafleur and below AO for playoff play.

And yes, there should be a little "bonus" given to goalscorers, but Conacher wasn't simply a goalscorer -- he was a Cy Young winner.

Somewhat overstated in the context that after leaving Toronto Charlie Conacher did play as a defenseman at times at the NHL level, something that I seriously doubt any other players up for consideration this round did, can do or will do.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Wrist Injury

The thing about Conacher, he just fell off SO hard. I'm not one to take a hard line against giving credit for "ordinary" seasons at the end of a career. But his after age 26 (by which point he was indeed in the Ovie/Lafleur tier), I mean there's really nothing else there at all. A couple of almost totally lost seasons, a sad year in Detroit, and then some time tooling around on horrendous Amerks teams. I guess you could give him a little nod for learning to play D, presuming there's some evidence beyond the scoring stats that he played the position well.

I'd like to take a closer look at him next round. Feels like he kind of got skimmed over in this round.

Sensed for a long time that there is a lot more to the 1936 wrist injury than history shows. Alleged to have happened at training camp in 1936 but seems to be a carry over from the 1936 playoffs.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,838
16,576
Somewhat overstated in the context that after leaving Toronto Charlie Conacher did play as a defenseman at times at the NHL level, something that I seriously doubt any other players up for consideration this round did, can do or will do.

Well, he did, but one has to question his efficiency at it, considering the amount of points he got (that is, quite a bit) and his voting support (that is, none), at a time where defensemen got... quite a bit of support actually.

I mean, as a D, he did outscore Goodfellow the year the later won the Hart. That translated into absolutely zero support.

And it's not a team thing either, since the Amerks goalie got voting support.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,260
1,651
Chicago, IL
Yeah, but..

- Most unidimensional game in that group
- Could really be efficient in one "setting"
- Could arguably change "efficient" to "useful" on the line above
- Regardless of the above, he's significantly below Lafleur and below AO for playoff play.

And yes, there should be a little "bonus" given to goalscorers, but Conacher wasn't simply a goalscorer -- he was a Cy Young winner.

The first three are fair*, but I don't see how Conacher could be considered behind AO in playoff play - he was one of the more productive playoff players of his era, though his team underperformed somewhat.

This is what I said about Conacher's playoffs in my Conacher vs Ovechkin post:

Conacher put up pretty strong playoffs stats during his prime (1931-1936): http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...at=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points_per_game

His stacked team (King Clancy, Busher Jackson, Joe Primeau) somewhat underachived, winning 1 Cup on 4 trips to the finals.

Conacher had a few noteworthy playoff performances - leading the league in playoff goals in 1932 (Cup) and playoff points in 1935. He also performed well in the 1939 playoffs, well past his regular season prime - 7 points in 5 games in a 2nd round loss for Detroit.

Hard to compare to Ovechkin who played in a completely different playoff environment (30 teams, 4 rounds, team not nearly as stacked as Conacher's even compared to era).

My feeling is that Conacher has a small advantage in the playoffs based on 2 excellent performances on 4 trips to the finals.

*Conacher wasn't totally one-dimensional either - seemed to be a feared fighter, back when fighting was important, though I haven't seen anything about him throwing his weight around other than fighting to protect himself and his teammates. Definitely not much of a playmaker though.

Conacher was also awarded a Retro Conn Smythe in 1932


*Given that there's still good information being posted fairly late here, I would like everyone to make note if you happen to change your mind after you've voted, you're more than welcome to send in a revised vote before the voting period expires.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Tommy Anderson

Well, he did, but one has to question his efficiency at it, considering the amount of points he got (that is, quite a bit) and his voting support (that is, none), at a time where defensemen got... quite a bit of support actually.

I mean, as a D, he did outscore Goodfellow the year the later won the Hart. That translated into absolutely zero support.

And it's not a team thing either, since the Amerks goalie got voting support.

Tommy Anderson effect.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Re: Conacher's 1940 -

1) Are we sure he was a defenseman the whole season or did he move back and forth?
2) We don't actually know if he got any Hart votes - all we know is that he wasn't Top 5, since we only have records of the top 5

Anyway, I voted. I settled into voting Conacher #4 behind Ovechin, Lindsay and Geoffrion because I think his prime was just that good, even though it was pretty short. I can see how more "career value" oriented voters would have him lower though.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,838
16,576
Re: Conacher's 1940 -

1) Are we sure he was a defenseman the whole season or did he move back and forth?
2) We don't actually know if he got any Hart votes - all we know is that he wasn't Top 5, since we only have records of the top 5

Anyway, I voted. I settled into voting Conacher #4 behind Ovechin, Lindsay and Geoffrion because I think his prime was just that good, even though it was pretty short. I can see how more "career value" oriented voters would have him lower though.

1) Well, if he moved back and forth, he had a totally insignificant year... Considering what we know about him.

2) fair enough - I just learned something. Did he get any support for AST'S?

I had him 5th. Just felt like I need to weight in for the opposite side of the argument.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
MXD said:
1) Well, if he moved back and forth, he had a totally insignificant year... Considering what we know about him.[/B]

2) fair enough - I just learned something. Did he get any support for AST'S?

I had him 5th. Just felt like I need to weight in for the opposite side of the argument.

Yeah, the case for Conacher is mainly what he did between 1931-1936.

As for Charlie's 1939-40, he did receive 4 votes for 1st Team All-Star D, none for 2nd Team (which is a strange split).

Based on my method of counting defenseman All-Star votes between 1931 and 1943, Conacher with 6th in defensemen All-Star voting in 1939-40. Not great, but not insignificant either. A "Third Team All Star," perhaps?

1940
1. Dit Clapper (21, 4)
2. Ebbie Goodfellow (16, 9)
3. Art Coulter (9, 10)
4. Earl Seibert (1, 19)
5. Ott Heller (3, 5)
6. Charlie Conacher (4, 0)
7. Babe Pratt (1, 1)
8. Bingo Kampman (0, 2)
Flash Hollett (1, 0)
Eddie Shore (0, 1)
Red Horner (0, 1)
Doug Young (0, 1)
Joe Cooper (0, 1)
Wilf Field (0, 1)
Red Goupille (0, 1)

Parenthesis indicate 1st Team, 2nd Team votes
 

Elvis P

718 Boxster
Dec 10, 2007
24,110
5,776
ATL
Rk Player From To Active Tm Lg Nat. Pos GP G A PTS GC +/- PIM EV PP SH S S% TOI G A PTS GC S OPS DPS PS
1 Wayne Gretzky* 1979 1999 20 TOT NHL CA C 1487 894 1963 2857 1018 518 577 617 204 73 5089 17.6 1475 0.60 1.32 1.92 0.68 3.42 223.9 27.1 251.0
2 Mark Messier* 1979 2004 25 TOT NHL CA C/LW 1756 694 1193 1887 704 210 1910 452 179 63 4219 16.4 7775 0.40 0.68 1.07 0.40 2.40 135.6 24.8 160.5
3 Gordie Howe* 1946 1980 26 TOT NHL CA RW 1767 801 1049 1850 747 87 1685 172 78 11 1141 13.3 0.45 0.59 1.05 0.42 3.09 186.6 30.5 217.1
4 Ron Francis* 1981 2004 23 TOT NHL CA C 1731 549 1249 1798 635 -10 979 349 188 12 3754 14.6 9728 0.32 0.72 1.04 0.37 2.17 121.0 28.4 149.5
5 Marcel Dionne* 1971 1989 18 TOT NHL CA C 1348 731 1040 1771...
142 Alex Ovechkin 2005 2014 9 WSH NHL SU LW/RW 679 422 392 814
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Dionne is the 5th leading scorer in NHL history and he ranked 19th in the centers project, because he never lead his team to the Conference Finals. Ovechkin is the 142nd leading scorer in NHL history and has never lead his team to the Conference Finals, but he's a 10 ten winger all time!?! :amazed: That argument is not based purely on personal feelings. :sarcasm:
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Dionne is the 5th leading scorer in NHL history and he ranked 19th in the centers project, because he never lead his team to the Conference Finals. Ovechkin is the 142nd leading scorer in NHL history and has never lead his team to the Conference Finals, but he's a 10 ten winger all time!?! :amazed: That argument is not based purely on personal feelings. :sarcasm:

Well we all know Mike Gartner should be up this round using this type of thinking eh?

We needeto account for scoring context a bit here one would think eh?
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,202
7,360
Regina, SK
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Dionne is the 5th leading scorer in NHL history and he ranked 19th in the centers project, because he never lead his team to the Conference Finals. Ovechkin is the 142nd leading scorer in NHL history and has never lead his team to the Conference Finals, but he's a 10 ten winger all time!?! :amazed: That argument is not based purely on personal feelings. :sarcasm:

Are you suggesting we should judge players less on the strength of their offensive peak and the recognition and status they earned in the league as a result of it, and more on where they rank on the all-time points leaders?
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,414
139,410
Bojangles Parking Lot
Here's what I can find on Conacher's year as a defenseman (1940-41) from the NYT:

New York Times 10/29/40 said:
Big Charlie Conacher scored two late first-period goals tonight to lead the New York Americans to a 3-2 triumph over the Rangers...

The defenseman broke away from a Ranger power play, took Anderson's pass and beat Goalie Dave Kerr from close in on the left wing. His second counter came from a right wing spot.

New York Times 11/14/40 said:
Egan, Field and Conacher play the defense positions, while Smith is used as a utility player.

New York Times 11/24/40 said:
Smith and Conacher carried the puck close in for Americans, only to have Goalie Gardiner smother the shot.

New York Times 11/25/40 said:
Jimmy O'Flaherty and Charlie Conacher drove the disk past Bert Gardiner into the Canadien cage...

The Canadiens sought to keep the play in New York ice after yielding this score, but Anderson intercepted a pass and gave the disk to Conacher on the Canadiens' blue line. Conacher moved about two yards into Montreal ice and released a blistering shot that flew past Gardiner for a goal in (sic) 8:56.

New York Times 11/29/40 said:
Through the first period the Americans swept into Ranger territory and had several chances to score. Jackson, Armstrong and Charley Conacher all had shots at Kerr, but the Ranger goalie stood up well.
...
The Rangers had a free shot in the second period when Conacher was detected holding the puck in the American crease. Alfie Pike took the free shot, but fired straight at Robertson.

New York Times 12/1/40 said:
It was Goldup who again electrified the crowd when he flew down the right boards, sped past Egan and Conacher and went over in front to beat Robertson...

New York Times 12/2/40 said:
Buzz Boll, Charley Conacher and Lorne Carr came through with the local markers.
...
Shortly afterward, at 13:24, Charley Conacher took a rebound and caged the puck.

New York Times 12/13/40 said:
Charley Conacher worked furiously on the American defense and came to Robertson's assistance several times.

New York Times 12/18/40 said:
... but when Charley Conacher drove a long shot home for the Americans early in the second frame, the Wings unleashed a heavy offensive...
...
The Wings had a penalty shot following a misplay by Conacher. The drive was made by Arch Wilder, who missed by five feet.

New York Times 12/26/40 said:
When Bauer came on for his second turn in the period, he started from his zone, raced the length of the ice and split Conacher and Slobodian to beat Robertson neatly.
...
Cowley was felled as he split Conacher and Slobodian, but before he lost his footing he rapped a hard shot that Robertson couldn't handle...

New York Times 12/28/40 said:
Then the Bruins kept five skaters in the vicinity of New York's cage, and when Charley Conacher was detected holding the puck inside his team's crease the Bruins earned a free shot. The try was made by Porky Dumart, who drove a high shot past Robertson for the tying goal at 17:25.

New York Times 1/20/41 said:
Fired by this success, the local skaters persisted in their "all out" offensive and tied the count in (sic) 15:33 when Jackson deflected a long shot by Conacher into the cords.

New York Times 1/25/41 said:
Conacher, who got credit for an assist along with Carr, had shot, and Jackson slipped in the rebound.
...
Detroit players bitterly protested a penalty shot Conacher made in (sic) 19:53 to tie it up again. Goalie Mowers had made a nice save of a hard American shot, but as he batted the puck away it stuck to his glove too long and sailed over the screen.

New York Times 1/27/41 said:
Save for Harvey Jackson,... Charley Conacher, Pat Egan, Pete Slobodian and the unfortunate Robertson, the Americans seemed powerless against the hard-charging Bruins.

New York Times 2/4/41 said:
The veteran Charley Conacher, who still has an ear infection, will be available to the Americans if an emergency arises.

New York Times 2/10/41 said:
The third period was half over when Charley Conacher blasted a long right-alley shot into the habitant cords to inform the visitors that it was still a contest.
...
All hands seemed satisfied with the tie as overtime opened, but when Conacher was penalized for tripping Chamberlain [the Habs got caught cheating and the Americans scored shorthanded]

New York Times 2/19/41 said:
Charles Conacher sent one of his long, right-alley shots into the cords in (sic) 1:26.

New York Times 2/26/41 said:
Then [Turk Broda] was caught off guard by Conacher, who fired a sizzling shot past him...

New York Times 3/3/41 said:
At length Conacher took a penalty for interfering with Blake, and this banishment helped the Canadien cause immensely. [Habs scored the game winning PPG with under 5 minutes left]

New York Times 3/7/41 said:
... Charley Conacher came close to tallying when his hard, short drive almost eluded Mowers.


I didn't include references like "X scored with the help of Conacher and Anderson", or "X scored while Conacher was serving a penalty", which are basically just re-stating the box score.

Conacher was listed at a starting defense position in game recaps on 11/14, 11/20, 11/22, 11/25, 12/2, 12/13, 12/18, 12/28, 1/12, 1/13, 1/20, 1/25, 2/24, 3/1, 3/3, 3/9, 3/10, and 3/17. The most common starters on defense were Egan and Field, with Conacher typically skating on the second pair with Slobodian. Notably, when both Egan and Field were badly injured late in the season, the Amerks usually sent Slobodian out to start next to Hooley Smith, with Conacher continuing to come off the bench.


Conclusion: Conacher skated the entire season at defense, with no indication at all of moving to forward. He seems to have been primarily an offensive threat from the blue line. Early in the season he seems to have done more rushing, whereas later in the season there are increasing references to his "blistering" shot. He was not particularly outstanding in his own zone, and had a penchant for ill-timed penalties including at least three penalty shots. Field and Egan were considered the stars of the blueline.

By the end of the season the Americans were a mess of injuries, their defense and goal situation having been mauled so badly that they often skated 3-4 players short compared to their opponent. Conacher was still not given a regular starting spot under these conditions, suggesting that he was viewed as a specialist or at least a counter-punch to take advantage of other teams' depth players. This isn't to say that he played badly, and frankly the team as a whole was so awful that it's kind of hard to separate the individual from the collective struggles..
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,838
16,576
I dont know, but being a spare part on a bottom feeder doesn't exactly scream "adds something to his resume". At least at this point. Kinda like Lafleur being PPG with the Nordiques.

When you're deemed not good enough to be a regular for the Amerks when the regulars went down...
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
85,414
139,410
Bojangles Parking Lot
I dont know, but being a spare part on a bottom feeder doesn't exactly scream "adds something to his resume". At least at this point. Kinda like Lafleur being PPG with the Nordiques.

When you're deemed not good enough to be a regular for the Amerks when the regulars went down...

To be clear -- he was a regular, just not on the starting pair most of the time. The implication is that he probably wasn't facing off against top lines, though he was skating a regular shift with PP time.

Does it add to his resume? I dunno, he was functional enough that it adds ever so slightly to his longevity and versatility. His scoring stats aren't half bad for a defensemen, though it's clear that he was an offensive specialist. Overall I don't think it adds much for him against guys who were still playing effectively for good teams at a much more advanced age.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,838
16,576
To be clear -- he was a regular, just not on the starting pair most of the time. The implication is that he probably wasn't facing off against top lines, though he was skating a regular shift with PP time.

Does it add to his resume? I dunno, he was functional enough that it adds ever so slightly to his longevity and versatility. His scoring stats aren't half bad for a defensemen, though it's clear that he was an offensive specialist. Overall I don't think it adds much for him against guys who were still playing effectively for good teams at a much more advanced age.

Functional in a MAB way, though.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,982
Brooklyn
Functional in a MAB way, though.

That's pretty harsh for a guy who got 4 votes as a post-season All-Star.

Shelden Souray maybe a better comparable? Big guy with big shot, pretty physical, not the most defensively aware. I'm assuming Conacher's famously hard shot was still a big part of his game at the blueline.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,838
16,576
That's pretty harsh for a guy who got 4 votes as a post-season All-Star.

Shelden Souray maybe a better comparable? Big guy with big shot, pretty physical, not the most defensively aware. I'm assuming Conacher's famously hard shot was still a big part of his game at the blueline.

Souray was, for a time, a very legit first-pairing D-Men.

Anyways... As long as we agree that anything Conacher did past the Kid Line is not relevant at this point, we're on the same page. Whether he was Souray or MAB isn't that important.
 
Last edited:

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Exactly

Souray was, for a time, a very legit first-pairing D-Men.

Exactly the point. Souray's stats adjusted well to older eras - O6 and before, post 1967 expansion. First pairing defenseman in a 30 team NHL, likely. First pairing defenseman in the O6? Very doubtful. Top 30 defensemean in the O6 - yes in the Kent Douglas mold as a depth PP specialist.

Back to Charlie Conacher. Shows reasonably well amongst the 41 NHL players from the 1940-41 season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,202
7,360
Regina, SK
Exactly the point. Souray's stats adjusted well to older eras - O6 and before, post 1967 expansion. First pairing defenseman in a 30 team NHL, likely. First pairing defenseman in the O6? Very doubtful. Top 30 defensemean in the O6 - yes in the Kent Douglas mold as a depth PP specialist.

Good comparison.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Exactly the point. Souray's stats adjusted well to older eras - O6 and before, post 1967 expansion. First pairing defenseman in a 30 team NHL, likely. First pairing defenseman in the O6? Very doubtful. Top 30 defensemean in the O6 - yes in the Kent Douglas mold as a depth PP specialist.

Back to Charlie Conacher. Shows reasonably well amongst the 41 NHL players from the 1940-41 season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

Re: Conacher at D, for those that dismissed Jagrs's 3 years in Washington (you know the 3 year period he was 5th overall in the NHL in points) as something not significant hopefully they put Coancher outside of his peak/prime (same thing for him) into a similar context.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Exactly the point. Souray's stats adjusted well to older eras - O6 and before, post 1967 expansion. First pairing defenseman in a 30 team NHL, likely. First pairing defenseman in the O6? Very doubtful. Top 30 defensemean in the O6 - yes in the Kent Douglas mold as a depth PP specialist.

Back to Charlie Conacher. Shows reasonably well amongst the 41 NHL players from the 1940-41 season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

Except Conacher played in a 7 team NHL the year you are mentioning.

As for Souray here is the breakdown of the top 30 Dmen in 06-07 after the lockout, notice that 17 of them aren't Canadian and the top guys Nieds comes form a non traditional Canadian talent stream, the kootneys in BC.

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

Sorry but it's a very weak comp.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad