defensive play, specifically. Probably the possession game, the mental game and his stickwork, too. Obviously his offensive game in his last few seasons was not what it once was. For the record, it was never my contention that he had some hidden offense that was being lost in his point totals, and I'm not sure how that got inserted into the conversation.
Now would be a good time to remind everyone that Nighbor, in the 1927-28 season, was STILL 6th in Hart voting (with a not-insignificant number of votes) despite having only 1/3 as many points as the league leaders. This is a quote from late in the
following season, 1928-29:
So far ahead of all hockey players in defensive ability, in starting plays and in outguessing the opposition is Frank Nighbor that it would be almost a shame to mention another in the game at the present time. There is only one "Old Master" and aspiring players have a star to aim at.
They're not talking about what he
was in this passage. They're talking about what he
still is. Again, I do not think this in any way relates to his current offensive capabilities.
The player I just described is no also-ran and I'm kinda not clear on what you mean about his team, either. Ottawa's franchise index can be found here:
Ottawa Senators Franchise Index | Hockey-Reference.com
He was with them from 1917-18 through 1928-29, and part of 1929-30. Show me where in his tenure the team was ever bad. From what I can see, they only failed to be a .600 team in four of his twelve full seasons, and under .500 twice. And you should know something about those two seasons...
The first time was 1917-18, in which they were actually 5-5 (with 4.00 GAA) with him, and 3-9 (with 6.08 GAA) without. The other was 1928-29, when they were 12-11-7 (with a 1.29 GAA) with him, and 2-6-6 (with a 2.07 GAA) without him, so it actually kinda looks like, even at 36,
he was the only thing stopping them from actually being an als0-ran.
Since we got on the topic, there are a few other times Nighbor missed four or more games in a season. Here's what happened:
1922: 13-5-2 (2.95) with, 1-3-0 (6.25) without
1924: 15-5-0 (2.05) with, 1-3-0 (3.75) without
1925: 15-10-1 (2.27) with, 2-2-0 (1.75) without
1927: 27-7-0 (1.47) with, 3-3-0 (2.17) without
Combined with the other two instances, in these six seasons in which there are reasonable samples (he missed 1-2 games other times that I do not consider worth researching), the results look like this:
87-43-10 (1.97) with, 12-26-6 (3.68) without. These six instances span 12 seasons, and every time the result was the same - better win percentage (6 of 6 times), and better goals against average (5 of 6 times). His impact was obvious and does show up in the numbers, just not in the ways you might expect. This is why he was the master. When he's playing, you get twice as many wins as losses. When he's not.... well, it's the opposite.
You're right about one thing -
He does deserve at least SOME blame, considering the amount of time he was spending on the ice.
I believe the answer to this is, such a statement might look like a head-scratcher if you're only looking at offensive stats. But his value went far beyond that, as I hope you can now recognize.
I mean, maybe there is some valid criticism of Nighbor, but this sure ain't it. He drove winning, it's quite clear. Going back to his pre-NHL years, his teams were only below .500 with him in the lineup when he was 20, 21 and 37. In between, his personal W-L record in the regular season was approximately 232-114-29, give or take a few missed single games that I won't bother to research, and 22-14-5 in the playoffs. By the time he was retired, only Jack Marshall had amassed as many as his five stanley cups, and a couple of Jack's were gimmes. Nighbor's cup count would take decades for another player to top. If Nighbor's name wasn't the one most synonymous with winning at the time of his retirement in 1930, whose was?
Criticizing Nighbor for how his teams performed just doesn't fly, because they did perform, and he was the reason why, almost without exception.
