Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 12

[DannyGallivan]

If you actually look at Mahovlich's numbers (whether top 10 finishes or VsX or whatever), they actually aren't nearly as gaudy as his reputation would have. I realize some of that is because he played for a Punch Imlach coached Toronto team that was super-defense-first. But some of it IMO speaks to him being a bit overrated.

I think he was most notable for finishing second in goals four times (and third once) during an overlapping era that featured Boom-Boom Geoffrion, Bobby Hull and Phil Esposito. That included a 49 goal season (in '69 after expansion) and a 48 goal season in the much defensively tighter '61 season. He was also seven times a top ten scorer, and has decent career numbers that were hurt by four years in the WHA.

I've often wrote of his 1971 playoffs where he had a record (at the time) 14 goals and 27 points in 20 games with Montreal. Two years later when Montreal won the Cup again, he had 23 points in 20 games. He had 12 points in 12 games during the '62 Leafs Cup win, and had 15 points in 14 games two years later when the Leafs won again.

Mahovlich was one of the games' more notable "secondary superstars", in that he never won an individual trophy of note (other than edging Bobby Hull for the Calder in '58), yet he knocked on the door several times. It's also interesting to compare his playoff plus/minus (mostly poor to middling) to his regular season plus/minus (several impressive seasons). He was still a major offensive contributor to the Leaf's 1960's dynasty, Detroit, and the early 70's Habs powerhouse. That speaks to his consistency as a goal scorer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The case for Frank Brimsek:

Basically, in the late 30s, he was considered the best goalie in the world, better than Tiny Thompson who preceded him in Boston, and better than everyone who came since Charlie Gardiner. He went off to serve during World War 2, came back, and was considered just as good as Bill Durnan when he came back.

Basically, Brimsek likely peaked as high as Durnan but maintained that level for longer. The contemporary evidence (mostly contemporary newspaper articles from people who were watching them play during their careers) seems to indicate that Brimsek and Durnan were considered equals while their careers overlapped, but Brimsek was at that level for quite a bit longer.

Brimsek also looks to have been more of a difference-maker in the playoffs than Durnan.

Detailed arguments from last round:

1) Brimsek was likely cheated out of 2-3 1st Team All Stars by the tradition that the 1st Team always went to the Vezina winner:

• In 1942-43, players, general managers, and opposing goaltenders all seemed to agree that Brimsek was the best goalie
• In 1947-48, Brimsek lost the 1st Team to Turk Broda, the Vezina winner, by a single point, but easily beat him in Hart voting (finishing 2nd while Broda got no votes).
• In 1940-41, Brimsek lost the 1st Team by a single point to Broda, the Vezina winner.
• The All-Star records of Brimsek's contemporary Turk Broda is illuminating for voting patterns during this era: It's highly suspicious that in Broda's long, Hall of Fame career, the only two times he was awarded the 1st Team were the two times he happened to lead the league in GAA.

Details: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11

Brimsek likely deserved 4 1st Teams and 4 2nd Teams, with possibly a 5th 1st Team. And that's before you take into account that he lost 2 years in the middle of his prime to World War 2.

2) Regardless of voting patterns, Brimsek was top 2 in All-Star voting for 10 straight years, except the 2 he lost to the war:

Details: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11

3) Brimsek was very good in the playoffs for most of his career

• The Bruins ended a 10 year Cupless Drought in Brimsek's rookie year and won 2 Cups in his first 3 seasons in the league before the team was destroyed by World War 2
• Brimsek played very well in 1946, his first playoffs after the war, but was let down by the Bruin Defense

Details: Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11

_______________________________________________

Why Brimsek over Gardiner? Longevity. Why Brimsek over Vezina or Benedict? Better established as the best of his generation.

I also do think there is something to the statements by Jack Adams and Dick Irvin (made in the 1940s, I believe) that goaltending improves over time, so the best goalie of the 40s maybe should be rated a little higher than the best of the 20s. As a group, we seem to endorse that thinking as not a single goalie in our top 50 played in the NHL before 1950. @Mike Farkas touched on this point when he asked if Brimsek was the first "modern" goalie.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I also do think there is something to the statements by Jack Adams and Dick Irvin that goaltending improves over time, so the best goalie of the 40s maybe should be rated a little bit higher than the best of the 20s. As a group, we seem to endorse that thinking as not a single goalie in our top 50 played in the NHL before 1950. @Mike Farkas touched on this point when he asked if Brimsek was the first "modern" goalie.

This is almost a controversial statement in a forum that aggressively (rightfully so) defends the prowess of the very early hockey pioneers. Yet, that statement makes total sense to me. There is so much to take into account when looking at this (style of play, rules, equipment for both the goaltender and the skaters, schedule, etc.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is almost a controversial statement in a forum that aggressively (rightfully so) defends the prowess of the very early hockey pioneers. Yet, that statement makes total sense to me. There is so much to take into account when looking at this (style of play, rules, equipment for both the goaltender and the skaters, schedule, etc.)

We act like it's controversial, but then vote like it isn't. Nobody from before WW2 in our top 10. No goalies from before WW2 in our top 50.

I don't think it's controversial that hockey has slowly gotten more competitive; the controversy is just how much.

 

[overpass]

Sprague Cleghorn, with Frederick Edwards, wrote a four part series in MacLeans in 1934/1935 about his hockey career.

It's a great read. The whole thing is pretty long, and maybe not a must read for the purposes of this project, but I would recommend it.

Part 1
https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1934/11/15/its-a-tough-game

Part 2
It's Tough Game | Maclean's | DECEMBER 1, 1934

Part 3
It’s a Tough Game | Maclean's | DECEMBER 15, 1934

Part 4
It’s a Tough Game | Maclean's | January 1st 1935

Here are a couple of excerpts:

From Part 2, about Cleghorn's time in Renfrew
I was still sticking to it that I was a forward, and it wasn’t until the season was well along that anybody found out different. For one thing, no man figured himself a defense player in those days unless he weighed a ton and was built like the side of a bam. The main theory of defense play was to wait until the puck carrier got close enough and then fall on him. If a point or cover point had to get rid of the rubber in a hurry, he lofted it into the gloom up among the rafters and hoped for the best.

We had to play Wanderers in Ottawa in the middle of February. This was a transferred game postponed from our own rink when Wanderers’ equipment got lost on the journey up. Postponements because trunks went astray or trains were stalled in snowdrifts were common enough. Even railroad travel was tougher.

The team was pretty badly battered up, and Sprague Cleghorn was on the spot. The directors knew Odie was a coming star but I looked like a total loss to them. They were on the edge of firing me for keeps, only for this game we needed every man who could stand on skates.

Just before the game Alf Smith came to me and said: “You’re going to play point.”

“Point!” I said, scared to death. “I can’t play point. I never played point in my life.” “Nevertheless,” Smith said, “you’re going to play point.”

So I played point.

I don’t think Alf had any real idea that I’d be good on the back line. He knew I was no good up front and he had to have somebody back there, so he took a chance.

Sometimes when a man gets in a tough spot like that, he gives stuff he never knew he had to give. I was frightened and desperate and fighting mad. We beat Wanderers five to four. I still have the clipping from ! the Montreal Gazelle of February 16, 1911. Here’s what the Gazelle reporter wrote:

“Sprague Cleghom starred for Renfrew throughout. He was shoved in at point when nobody else could be found for the position, and was without a doubt the most effective man on the winning team.”

You never know what you can do until you have to. Since that date I have always been a defense player.

From Part 3, about Cleghorn's time in Ottawa:
What’s more—and I can see this now although it wasn’t so plain to me at the time —I was beginning to take hockey seriously. Really seriously. Schoolboy and amateur hockey had been fun. My year in New York had been adventure. That winter in Renfrew was a new and amusing experience, big frog in little puddle stuff, and during my six seasons with Wanderers I had been more or less of a playboy, having a good time, sure my luck would last for ever. That jolt on the chin Kennedy handed me changed my whole attitude toward the game. I began to see that this hockey proposition was a serious business, a hard job of work, something to be studied and thought about, demanding sacrifices for the sake of perfect physical condition.

With Gerard, I kept cases on the men opposed to us. We took note of their weaknesses, figured out plans to stop them where they were easiest stopped. I improved my stick handling and my puckcarrying, and I played to stay on the ice, In my three seasons with Senators I was in a serious jam with referees only once, and that was in the last game of the Stanley Cup play-offs against Vancouver at the end of 1921. That’s pretty good for a “bad man.”

Finally, here's a link to the 1925 Macleans piece where hockey experts from across the country selected their all-time hockey teams, which were aggregated to form an all time first team, second team, and third team. Sprague Cleghorn was named to the all-time first team.

All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

ALL-STARS, NUMBER ONE
Goal: Georges Vezina, Canadiens, Montreal.
Defence: Sprague Cleghorn, Canadiens, Montreal.
Defence: Hod Stuart (deceased), Ottawa.
Centre: Frank Nighbor, Ottawa.
Right Wing: Allan “Scotty” Davidson (deceased), Kingston and Toronto.
Left Wing: Tom Phillips (deceased), Toronto. Kenora and Ottawa.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Pronger's competition for the 1999-00 Hart

Pronger probably deserved the 1999-00 Hart, but largely because the competition was too injured that year to actually compete.

Look at all the players who missed games that year: Hasek (only played 35 of 82 games), Jagr (missed 19 games), Sakic (missed 22 games), Forsberg (missed 33 games), Lindros (missed 27 games). It's like a who's-who of the guys who normally competed for the Hart at the time.

Or look at actual Hart voting that year.

1) Chris Pronger 396 (25-9-11-8-4) Played 79 games
2) Jaromir Jagr 395 (18-22-9-4-4) Played 63 games.
3) Pavel Bure 346 (11-18-16-9-3); Played 74 games.
4) Olaf Kolzig 139 (2-3-12-10-8); Played 73 games.
5) Owen Nolan 62 (1-0-3-7-16); Played 78 games.

Not exactly a murderer's row of competition. Jagr lost the Hart by 1 point 396-395, despite missing almost a quarter of the year. None of Bure, Kolzig, or Nolan ever finished top 5 in Hart voting outside of 1999-00. I realize Bure at least had some star power, but he wasn't normally the kind of player to pick up Hart votes, and he missed 8 games anyway.

I'm seriously not sure what makes Pronger's 1999-00 season better than Stevens' 1993-94.

I feel like one can agree with all of this and not necessarily feel any differently about Pronger’s season - which unlike Stevens’ was obviously going to be highlighted for team factors (the injuries to MacInnis and Turgeon, placing 1st overall in points and GA).

I’d take 1993-94 Scott Stevens over most if not all of the 1999-00 Hart competition. I’d take 1993-94 Scott Stevens over most Norris seasons that have occurred in the past 25 years. It was a fantastic season from him. But what separates Pronger from the ineligible Stevens is the replication of this same level of play and the same media buzz - albeit in seasons in which he was later injured by getting hit with pucks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Finally, here's a link to the 1925 Macleans piece where hockey experts from across the country selected their all-time hockey teams, which were aggregated to form an all time first team, second team, and third team. Sprague Cleghorn was named to the all-time first team.

All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

ALL-STARS, NUMBER ONE Goal:
Georges Vezina, Canadiens, Montreal.
Defence: Sprague Cleghorn, Canadiens, Montreal.
Defence: Hod Stuart (deceased), Ottawa.
Centre: Frank Nighbor, Ottawa.
Right Wing: Allan “Scotty” Davidson (deceased), Kingston and Toronto.
Left Wing: Tom Phillips (deceased), Toronto. Kenora and Ottawa.

You noted this by listing the deceased players on the list. But it should definitely be noted by everyone that if you look at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Teams by MacLean's, they seemed to consider every generation before 1925 equal, while we on this forum (with the benefit of history) consider the Nighbor/Taylor/Lalonde/Cleghorn/etc generation a clear step above the ones who came before it.

So the hockey experts who voted on that list (which included basically every important person in the game at the time - from the Patricks on down) voted Cleghorn the best defenseman of his generation. A generation that this forum seems to consider hockey's first great generation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Post on Sprague Cleghorn from the 2008 HOH Top 100 list (summarizing other posts about Cleghorn):

some arguments for cleghorn:


he was generally considered the best or among the best d-men before eddie shore.

Hockey Outsider reported from newspapers from the '30s:

The consensus was that Shore is roughly on the same level as Hod Stuart, Sprague Cleghorn, Cyclone Taylor, etc., as one of the greatest defensemen ever. Keep in mind that this was written before Shore won three more Hart trophies.

pitseleh reported a similar thing from old papers, citing '20s-'30s hockey writer red mackenzie:

Well, I just came across Mackenzie's defenseman article, and this is what he had to say (interestingly, he notes that it's very difficult to compare players from before the forward pass to after it because of the big changes in style of play):

- Eddie Shore and Sprague Cleghorn are the best all around defensemen he has seen. Both were steady blockers, better than average pasers and goal scoring threats every second they were on the ice. He goes on to talk about their glaring weakness as being penalty prone and how it has cost their teams games in the past.

charles coleman, author of "trail of the stanley cup," picked cleghorn and ernie johnson as the 2 best d-men from 1893-1926.
johnson was a star in the PCHA.


cleghorn played his best seasons before the hart trophy was awarded, but he was a close runner up in '24 and '26.

he scored a point per game in 6 seasons, and scored over a goal per game in '15. he was also the 1st NHL d-man to lead his team in scoring ('22).

he was a brilliant skater who learned from cyclone taylor.

if the norris had existed, it would be a safe bet that he'd have won several.


cleghorn was also a very dirty player. i once read a bit of a book by king clancy, where clancy described an enraged cleghorn skating around butt-ending every opposition player in the ribs.
when ottawa traded him, he got revenge by injuring 4 ottawa players the next time he played against them.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I was browsing the HOH Top defensemen project for other posts about Cleghorn to repost. Instead, I found a ton of information about him spread out through about 2 pages of the thread. So here they are. Most of pages 11 and 12 of Vote 3 of the defensemen project are about Cleghorn:

Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)
Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Unfortunately, overpass's long post on the major positive impact Cleghorn had on a team's record when he joined, and the major negative impact when he left, has been lost to the server migration.

 

[ted2019]

Not my point. Pronger was not strong against an East-West offence. Game 5 he was a -5.

Yes he was, everyone is allowed a bad game once in a while. They also had an AHL goalie in net which didn't help matters. If Ray Emery stayed healthy the entire season, the Flyers would've handled the Blackhawks in 6 games. Your point was that he sucked against an East/West offense, then what did Chicago run the rest of the series, the wishbone option? They were a East/West team the entire time under Coach "Q". I you take out that -5 game, then Pronger was a +8 for the series.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Brimsek's Bruins struggled on the road...perhaps due to team makeup...I'm swiping my own posts from Goalies project (Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders))

Spoiler

I think we'll find (well, maybe just you C1958, not everyone is especially entertained by our pre/post red-line banter) that Brimsek is more in line with his peers at home (where his sluggish defense could better protect him) as opposed to on the road, in sum. For gander taking: (sorry, I just don't know how to make pretty tables)

1946-47 through 1948-49 regular season

Brimsek:
Home: 45-23-17 - 2.49 GAA

Broda:
Home: 54-19-17 - 2.41 GAA

Durnan:
Home: 51-27-12 - 2.11 GAA

Then the friendly confines are vacated...

Brimsek:
Road: 30-44-15 - 3.12 GAA

Broda:
Road: 31-40-19 - 2.88 GAA

Durnan:
Road: 31-41-17 - 2.71 GAA

Durnan and the Habs were freakishly good at home, so that skews it a tiny bit. Given the information that we have though, I don't think that Brimsek just plumb forgot how to play on the road...there are other factors involved. To what degree they matter is a matter for the courts.

EDIT:

Of note, of varying significance.

1947 Broda @ Boston: 0-4-2
1948 Broda @ Boston: 1-3-2
1949 Broda @ Boston: 3-3-0
---
1947-49 Broda @ Boston: 4-10-4

1947 Durnan @ Boston: 5-0-1
1948 Durnan @ Boston: 1-3-2*
1949 Durnan @ Boston: 3-3-0
---
1947-49 Durnan @ Boston: 9-6-3

* - McNeil actually played Boston to a 2-2 tie in his only start of the season in Beantown (included as Durnan for illustration)

In front of Brimsek from 1945-46 through 1949-50 on defense:

1945-46: Pat Egan, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson, Jack Church, Dit Clapper
1946-47: Pat Egan, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson, Babe Pratt, Fern Flaman
1947-48: Pat Egan, Clare Martin, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson(f), Fern Flaman
1948-49: Pat Egan, Fern Flaman, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson, Ed Kryzanowski
1949-50: Last season, with Chicago: Bill Gadsby, Ralph Nattrass, Ernie Dickens, Bob Goldham, Doug McCaig

I'm gonna take some liberties here on interpretations because I don't have any video...please, feel free to make corrections if you feel something was incorrect or misleading.

Egan: regarded as good or fast and powerful.

Crawford: adjusted well, apparently, to the red-line as seen in his AS voting. Was probably at least an average skater.

Henderson: Poor skater that is said to do poorly away from Boston

Church: ? Highly touted prospect before the red-line, no mention for or against his skating that I could find.

Clapper: As far as I can tell, wasn't renowned for his skating and it would make sense that pre-1943 that a slower forward - if capable - would move back to defense, I think.

Pratt: Wasn't a great skater, kind of heavy fellow.

Flaman: Doesn't appear to be more than average and is regarded as a "classic defenseman" which wouldn't suggest a ton of mobility necessarily.

In front of Durnan from 1943-44 through 1949-50 on defense:

1943-44: Leo Lamoureux, Mike McMahon, Glen Harmon, Butch Bouchard
1944-45: Butch Bouchard, Leo Lamoureux, Frank Eddolls, Glen Harmon
1945-46: Butch Bouchard, Glen Harmon, Leo Lamoureux, Ken Reardon
1946-47: Ken Reardon, Roger Leger, Glen Harmon, Leo Lamoureux, Butch Bouchard
1947-48: Ken Reardon, Roger Leger, Glen Harmon, Butch Bouchard, Doug Harvey
1948-49: Glen Harmon, Doug Harvey, Ken Reardon, Roger Leger, Hal Laycoe, Butch Bouchard
1949-50: Ken Reardon, Doug Harvey, Glen Harmon, Roger Leger, Butch Bouchard, Hal Laycoe

Lamoureux: ? Though, as a defensive guy, he couldn't hang around after the War vets came home. Also played some forward.

Harmon: Known as speedy and shifty

Bouchard: Fine skater, better straight line skater than in transition or tight turns. Looked like he could rely on his size, strength and positioning to navigate tight spaces as opposed to agility.

Reardon: Not a very good skater

Leger: ?

Harvey: Excellent

Laycoe: ?

In front of Broda from 1946-47 through 1949-50 on defense:

1946-47: Vic Lynn, Wally Stanowski, Gus Mortson, Jimmy Thomson, Garth Boesch
1947-48: Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, Bill Barilko, Wally Stanowski, Garth Boesch
1948-49: Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, Garth Boesch, Bill Barilko, Bill Juzda
1949-50: Vic Lynn, Bill Barilko, Gus Mortson, Bill Juzda, Jimmy Thomson, Garth Boesch

Lynn: Excellent

Stanowski: Excellent, may have been the fastest d-man in the league at one time.

Mortson: Regarded as a very good skater

Thomson: Referred to as "fast skating", despite him being a "classic defensive defenseman"

Boesch/Barilko: Weren't these the guys that would leave their feet constantly to block shots? No real mention of skating ability that I could find.

Juzda: Below average skater it seems

---

Depending on coaching adjustments, the Boston Bruins d-men would struggle the most with this new, faster-paced game. Faster, more offensive forwards would become more valuable, so even if the Bruins sat back to get a "head start" on their opponents, they would be hemmed in their end due to their - my estimation - below average mobility. They played in a smaller rink, but that still means half of their games aren't in the friendly confines.

Now, I don't believe we have shot counts from the years in question. I would hypothesize that the Bruins are more susceptible than another team to giving up high quality scoring chances on the road due to the limited nature of their defensemen. Thus, if the goaltending talent is equal (and based on where we're at in the discussion, they have to be pretty close), I would suggest that the Bruins - more than their peers - are more susceptible to giving up goals on the road as opposed to at home.

Brimsek:
1945-46: Unfortunately for me, I thought Brimsek played the last 34 games consecutively, and when trying to made the original home/road splits work I drove myself nuts thinking I was miscounting. Further research indicates that Brimsek and Bibeault alternated in net when Brimsek first returned and Brimsek only took over full-time when Bibeault was returned to Montreal when Durnan broke his hand. As a result, I'll do a Bruins split, not just a Brimsek split.

Bruins total: 24-18-8 - 156 GA (3.12 GAA)
---
Away: 8-13-4 - 88 GA (3.52 GAA)
Home: 16-5-4 - 68 GA (2.72 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 5 times
- Gave up 4+ away: 10 times
- Gave up 4+ @home: 6 times

1946-47:
Total: 26-23-11 - 175 GA (2.92 GAA)
---
Away: 8-16-6 - 101 GA (3.37 GAA)
Home: 18-7-5 - 74 GA (2.47 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 10 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

1947-48:
Total: 23-24-13 - 168 GA (2.80 GAA)
---
Away: 11-16-3 - 89 GA (2.97 GAA)
Home: 12-8-10 - 79 GA (2.63 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 7 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 4 times

1948-49: (a little tricky because Brimsek only plays 54 games - I believe he misses six of them from January 22 - February 5 (Bruins went 3-3 in the stretch), not sure about the other ten. Surely, someone will suggest a better way to do this but given that he played in the playoffs and returned on February 6 vs. Toronto (his child was severely ill and he had to go home), I'm gonna take the games from Feb. 6 - season end for my numbers because, given that he played in the playoffs, he almost assuredly played these games as well. But I am assuming.

Total: 26-20-8 - 147 GA (2.72 GAA)
---
Away: 11-12-6 - 88 GA (3.04 GAA)
Home: 15-8-2 - 59 GA (2.36 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 1 time

I'm not sure I see the Chicago season as particularly important for what I'm looking into. If someone disagrees, I'll run the numbers. But my commentary is on the transition post-red line and the Bruins sluggish defensemen.

In thinking about it, I guess it would make sense to include 1944 and 1945, though Brimsek didn't play to see how the Bruins faired without him home/road.

1943-44:
Total: 19-26-5 - 268 GA (5.36 GAA)
---
Away: 4-18-3 - 156 GA (6.24 GAA)
Home: 15-8-2 - 112 GA (4.48 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 15 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 7 times
- Gave up 10+ away: 6 times
- Gave up 10+ @home: 0 times

1944-45:
Total: 16-30-4 - 219 GA (4.38 GAA)
---
Away: 5-18-2 - 126 GA (5.04 GAA)
Home: 11-12-2 -93 GA (3.72 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 9 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 3 times
- Gave up 7+ away: 8 times
- Gave up 7+ @home: 0 times
---

News flash: teams lose more on the road than at home. Got it.
Let's see how the other two noteworthy teams do with home/road splits in that era...

Montreal Canadiens:

1943-44:
Total: 38-5-7 - 109 GA (2.18 GAA)
---
Away: 16-5-4 - 59 GA (2.36 GAA)
Home: 22-0-3 - 50 GA (2.00 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 1 time
- Gave up 6+ @home: 0 times
- Gave up 5+ away: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 0 times

1944-45:
Total: 38-8-4 - 121 GA (2.42 GAA)
---
Away: 16-6-2 - 58 GA (2.32 GAA)
Home: 22-2-2 - 63 GA (2.52 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 1 time
- Gave up 6+ @home: 1 time
- Gave up 5+ away: 2 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

1945-46:
Total: 28-17-5 - 134 GA (2.68 GAA)
---
Away: 12-11-2 - 69 GA (2.76 GAA)
Home: 16-6-3 - 65 GA (2.60 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 3 times

1946-47:
Total: 34-16-10 - 138 GA (2.30 GAA)
---
Away: 15-10-5 -81 GA (2.70 GAA)
Home: 19-6-5 - 57 GA (1.90 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

1947-48:
Total: 20-29-11 - 169 GA (2.82 GAA)
---
Away: 7-16-7 - 87 GA (2.90 GAA)
Home: 13-13-4 - 82 GA (2.73 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 3 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 6 times

1948-49:
Total: 28-23-9 - 126 GA (2.10 GAA)
---
Away: 9-15-6 -75 GA (2.50 GAA) [far outlier 9-0 loss to Rangers really hurts this]
Home: 19-8-3 - 51 GA (1.70 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 2 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

Toronto Maple Leafs:

1943-44:
Total: 23-23-4 - 174 GA (3.48 GAA)
---
Away: 10-12-3 - 89 GA (3.56 GAA)
Home: 13-9-1 - 85 GAA (3.40 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 2 times
- Gave up 5+ away: 8 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 7 times

1944-45:
Total: 24-22-4 - 161 GA (3.22 GAA)
---
Away: 11-13-1 - 89 GA (3.56 GAA)
Home: 13-9-3 - 72 GA (2.88 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 1 time
- Gave up 5+ away: 9 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 5 times

1945-46:
Total: 19-24-7 - 185 GA (3.70 GAA)
---
Away: 9-11-5 - 97 GA (3.88 GAA)
Home: 10-13-2 - 88 GA (3.52 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 7 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ away: 9 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 7 times

1946-47:
Total: 31-19-10 - 172 GA (2.87 GAA)
---
Away: 11-11-8 - 97 GA (3.23 GAA)
Home: 20-8-2 - 75 GA (2.50 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 7 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 4 times

1947-48:
Total: 32-15-13 - 143 GA (2.38 GAA)
---
Away: 10-12-8 - 74 GA (2.47 GAA)
Home: 22-3-5 - 69 GA (2.30 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 3 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 3 times

1948-49:
Total: 22-25-13 - 161 GA (2.68 GAA)
---
Away: 10-17-3 - 88 GA (2.93 GAA)
Home: 12-8-10 - 73 GA (2.43 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 6 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 3 times

1949-50 (all teams, quick look):
Bruins - Home GA: 98 (2.80 GAA) /// Road GA: 130 (3.71 GAA)
Leafs - Home GA: 77 (2.20 GAA) /// Road GA: 96 (2.74 GAA)
Habs - Home GA: 66 (1.89 GAA) /// Road GA: 84 (2.40 GAA)

It seems to me, and maybe you'll make a different conclusion, but it seems to me that the Bruins struggled more on the road defensively over the era in question because of management's and/or coaching's failures to make proper adjustments to the new era and rules. As a result, one might suggest that Brimsek was under undue distress in this time, facing higher quality opportunities and thus, eventually yielding to these pressures. At a glance, it appears the Bruins were embarrassed more on the road than many other teams which I think is noteworthy as it likely meant the opposition was adjusting to Boston's limitations as a team and taking great advantage of it.

 

[seventieslord]

Unfortunately, overpass's long post on the major positive impact Cleghorn had on a team's record when he joined, and the major negative impact when he left, has been lost to the server migration.

I used this information when doing my retro Norrises article for THN this summer. I can't tell you exactly where I got it, but it was somewhere on hfboards.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes he was, everyone is allowed a bad game once in a while. They also had an AHL goalie in net which didn't help matters. If Ray Emery stayed healthy the entire season, the Flyers would've handled the Blackhawks in 6 games. Your point was that he sucked against an East/West offense, then what did Chicago run the rest of the series, the wishbone option? They were a East/West team the entire time under Coach "Q". I you take out that -5 game, then Pronger was a +8 for the series.

Only Pronger had to play with an AHL goalie?

Eventually his weaknesses caught-up to him. Nature of hockey.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Only Pronger had to play with an AHL goalie?

Eventually his weaknesses caught-up to him. Nature of hockey.

... not before he led his team to game six of the finals.
And in Edmonton, he was one game away from the Conn Smythe and another Stanley Cup.
...a Cup that he already won in Anaheim.
The fact is, after his apprenticeship with MacInnis, Chris Pronger made every team he was on better. In some cases, much better.

 

[sr edler]

... not before he led his team to game six of the finals.

That Philly team wasn't Pronger and a bunch of scrubs. It had Timonen, peak Mike Richards, young Giroux, Daniel Brière, Jeff Carter, Simon Gagne, even some decent depth guys like Hartnell.

 

[DannyGallivan]

That Philly team wasn't Pronger and a bunch of scrubs. It had Timonen, peak Mike Richards, young Giroux, Daniel Brière, Jeff Carter, Simon Gagne, even some decent depth guys like Hartnell.

They had several decent players... something you can say about virtually every team that made it to the finals since the dawn of the NHL. Was Pronger not still a driving force on that team and their number one defenseman at age 35?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Because they were given to Adam Graves instead.

Hard to imagine that in the season you're referring to (1994), Graves got more Hart votes than any other winger in the league!

I (slightly) prefer Bathgate to Dionne

I agree with this for all the reasons you mentioned. I think you'd have to really emphasize raw numbers to rank Dionne ahead of Bathgate. I also think Bathgate faced tougher competition offensively.

Look at the cumulative scoring from 1956-64 for Bathgate, and 1975-85 for Dionne (yes, Dionne maintained his offensive peak for a bit longer, which is a positive, but it's also reflective of general trends around the league). Of the top fifteen in Bathgate's era (excluding himself), twelve are HOFers. My guess is at least eight, and perhaps as many as eleven, will make the top 100 list. The only "weaker" HOFer was George Armstrong. During Dionne's era, I also count twelve HOFers. But several of them are on the weaker end (Sittler, McDonald, Shutt, Barber and Federko) and only six or seven will make this list. I think Bathgate racked up high scoring finishes against a tougher pool of talent. (Before someone tells me that Dionne faced more European competition - just four of the top 50 scorers during this span were non Canadian, and just one of them was in the top 25).

If you actually look at Mahovlich's numbers (whether top 10 finishes or VsX or whatever), they actually aren't nearly as gaudy as his reputation would have. I realize some of that is because he played for a Punch Imlach coached Toronto team that was super-defense-first. But some of it IMO speaks to him being a bit overrated.

Agreed again. Mahovlich will likely be in my bottom two this round. Because he's a well-known player, I suspect he's up for voting so soon because few people forgot or seriously underrated him. (In contrast, Cleghorn is up at the same time - but I suspect that's partly because he's less of a household name).

I also think that (like Lindsay in our 2008 project), he got a lot of mileage out of having so many year-end all-star selections. I think we (the HOH forum) is less impressed by that this time around, partly because Ovechkin's record is now clearly superior, and partly because we're doing a better job of taking competition into account.

Yes, he finished behind Hull a number of times, but look at who he was facing after that - in 1964, the next two vote-getters were Camille Henry and Dave Balon; in 1965, it was Johnny Bucyk and Henry again; in 1966 it was Doug Mohns and Don Marshall; in 1969 it was Vic Hadfield and Danny Grant; in 1970 it was an Orr-assisted Bucyk and JP Parise; and in 1973 it was Dennis Hull and Bucyk again. Mahovlich deserves credit for being a consistently great player, and nobody is faulting him for the competition being weaker, but at the same time, it looks like his record is similar to Brad Park's - he was runner-up many times to an all-time great, but once you look at the field in more depth, it's not that impressive.

Pronger's competition for the 1999-00 Hart

Pronger probably deserved the 1999-00 Hart, but largely because the competition was too injured that year to actually compete.

I agree with this too. Pronger probably deserved the Hart that year, but he was lucky because the competition was so weak - lots of injuries to top players that year. Still, I agree that there was little pushback when Pronger actually won. A lot of people seem to be disagreeing with the choice almost two decades later, because it seems surprising that Pronger won but Potvin didn't in 1976, or Bourque didn't in 1987 or 1990, etc. So I'd consider it both a deserved, and a weak, Hart trophy.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I wanted to dig deeper into Kennedy's reputation as a playoff legend. Here's how he performed in each of the playoff series where his team won the Stanley Cup (this is just from box scores, so I can't speak to his defensive play, leadership, etc):

1945

In the first round, Kennedy helps lead the Leafs to a huge upset against Montreal (the Habs finished 28 points ahead in the standings - absolutely massive during a 50 game season). In the first game, Kennedy scored the sole goal, unassisted, with less than a minute to go in the third period. He scores the opening goal in the next game (the Leafs win 3-2). Kennedy goes scoreless in a 4-1 loss in game three. He records one assist (not on the game-winner) in the 4-3 OT victory. He scores one goal in a blowout loss in game five. The only disappointment? He's scoreless in the decisive game six. Still, he led the Leafs in goals, and tied for the team lead in points.

The Leafs are also underdogs against Detroit. They must have shocked the hockey world with three straight shutouts (Kennedy scores the first of the Leafs' two goals in the second game). Detroit storms back with three straight wins. Hard to fault him in game 4, as he scores two goals in the first period only a few minutes apart. In game 7, the Leafs win the Stanley Cup, but Kennedy's scoreless. Overall, Kennedy decisively leads the team in goal-scoring this series (he's the only Leaf with more than one goal!) He also leads the SCF in overall scoring.

1947

This time, Kennedy's Leafs are heavy favourites against Detroit. It was a weird series. The Leafs needed overtime to win game 1 (Kennedy gets two assists, including the game-winner). Detroit demolishes Toronto 9-1 in the next game (Kennedy scoreless). Then the Leafs pummel the Wings by a combined score of 14-3 to finish the round (Kennedy has a goal and an assist). Kennedy is tied for second on the team in scoring behind, surprisingly, defensive specialist Nick Metz.

In the finals, the Leafs face Montreal (the slight favourites on paper). The team trade blowouts in the first two games - Kennedy got a goal and an assist in the first two minutes of game 2, which the Leafs ended up winning 4-0. In game 3, Kennedy scores an insurance goal late in the third period to make it 4-2. Kennedy's scoreless in the next two games, close ones where the teams trade victories. The Leafs win the Cup in game 6. Kennedy assists on the tying goal in the second period, then scores the Cup-winning goal with just over five minutes to go in the third. Kennedy ties for the team lead in goals and points this series.

1948

The Leafs are significant favourites against the Bruins on paper. The Leafs win the first game 5-4 in overtime; Kennedy assists on the tying goal with less than five minutes to go. In the next game, Kennedy single-handledy demolishes the Bruins, scoring four goals. I want to be clear that none of these are blowout goals - one opened the scoring, two of them re-established a lead after Boston tied the game, and the last of them (scored barely halfway through the contest) gave the Leafs a two-goal lead. Kennedy has another excellent performance in game 3, with a goal and two assists (only the last helper, which made it 4-1 with exactly 13 minutes to go, can be considered gratuitous). Kennedy's held scoreless in the Leafs' game 4 loss. In the decisive game 5, Kennedy assists on the tying goal in the first period, and scores the series-winning goal in the third period. This may have been Kennedy's best series - 10 points in five games (in a low-scoring era), with nearly every point being important to the outcome of the game.

Next, Toronto played Detroit in the finals. They finished five points behind the Leafs in the standings, but were swept. Kennedy has an assist in game 1 (on a goal that made it 5-1 late in the second). He was held scoreless in game 2, a comfortable Toronto win. He assists on the insurance marker late in the 3rd period in game 3. Kennedy scores two goals in the decisive fourth game (the opening marker, and one that turned this into a route). A quieter series for Kennedy.

1949

The Leafs regressed in the standings and faced off against a much stronger Boston club. Kennedy is scoreless in the Leafs' first two victories. They lose game 3 in overtime, but it's hard to blame Kennedy - he scored the opening goal, assisted on a goal that cut Boston's lead to one late in the second, and assisted on the tying goal with eight minutes to go in the third. In game 4, Kennedy records two assists - on the go-ahead goal midway through the second, and an insurance marker late in the third. He's scoreless in the decisive fifth game. Kennedy ties for the team lead in scoring.

In the finals, the Leafs play the Red Wings for the second year in a row. Detroit is a much superior team on paper (18 points higher in the standings), but Toronto sweeps. Kennedy is scoreless in game 1, which went to overtime. He assists on two important insurance goals in game 2. He scores what proves to be the game-winner partway through the second period in game 3. He's scoreless in game 4. A less impressive performance for Kennedy.

1951

This time the Leafs are enormous favourites (33 point advantage in the standings). The Leafs are shut out in game 1. Game 2 is called a tie (anybody know why?) - Kennedy is scoreless. He's shut down entirely in games 3 and 4 (both wins) - so that's now four straight pointless games. He scores one goal in game 5 (which made it 4-0 halfway throug the 3rd - probably not the most important goal). In the blowout game 6, Kennedy scores the opening goal, then assists to make it 5-0 halfway through the third. This is by far the least impressive series for Kennedy - arguably just one "significant" goal in six games against a heavy underdog.

The Leafs play a much weaker Habs team in the finals. This series is significant because all five games went to overtime. The Leafs win the first game; Kennedy assisted on the opening goal just fifteen seconds into the game. The Leafs lose game 2, but Kennedy assisted on the Leafs' first goal late in the second to cut the lead to one, and then scores the tying goal halfway through the third. In game 3, Kennedy scores the overtime goal. Kennedy assists on the opening goal in game 4 (also less than a minute into the match). In the decisive game 5 (this was the one where Bill Barilko scored the overtime winner - as popularized by The Tragically Hip), Kennedy assists on the tying goal midway through the second. He finished tied for second on the team in scoring.

Overall assessment

During these five years, Kennedy played in all 53 of the Leafs' games. He scored 25 goals and 24 assists for 49 points. If we look at the span of seven seasons from 1945 to 1951 (so this includes 1946, when the Leafs missed the playoffs, and 1950, a first round loss which I didn't cover above), Kennedy leads all players in playoff assists and points, and is runner-up to Maurice Richard in goals. He's third in points per game, behind only the Rocket and Max Bentley (minimum 40 games).

Kennedy's playoff resume is like the anti-Dionne. One thing that jumps out is he frequently scores or assists the opening goal. That might not have meant much in the high-scoring eighties, but scoring the opening goal in his low-scoring era was more important (it's late but if I've added this correctly, he scored or assisted on the opening goal 10 times in 53 games). He also came up big - he scored or assisted on 8 goals in overtime, or winning or tying goals in the third (that excludes insurance goals altogether). Kennedy was consistent (he just had that one bad stretch in the first round in 1951). Furthermore, as I've shown, he rarely recorded points in blowouts - there are a few, but I'd be willing to bet it's a lower percentage than most other playoff performers we'd rank around his level ie Sakic, Messier, Lafleur.

(Despite what I said on the first page - that his 1955 Hart trophy was probably just a retirement gift - Kennedy will get a serious look at my top three for this round).

"First goals" scored or assisted (first goal of the game - not just for the Leafs)

1. 1945 (round 1, game 1) - scores first & only goal of game
2. 1945 (round 1, game 2) - scores first goal
3. 1945 (round 2, game 2) - scores first goal
4. 1947 (round 2, game 2) - scores and assists on first two goals in first two minutes of game
5. 1948 (round 1, game 2) - scores opening goal in his four-goal game
6. 1948 (round 2, game 4) - scores first goal
7. 1949 (round 1, game 3) - scores first goal
8. 1951 (round 1, game 6) - scores first goal
9. 1951 (round 2, game 1) - assists on first goal less than a minute into the game
10. 1951 (round 2, game 4) - assists on first goal less than a minute into the game

Winning or tying goals in 3rd period or OT (insurance goals excluded entirely, even if important)

1. 1945 (round 1, game 1) - scores game's only (and therefore) winning goal, a minute left in 3rd
2. 1947 (round 1, game 1) - assists on OT winner
3. 1947 (round 2, game 6) - scores Cup winning goal with five minutes to go in third
4. 1948 (round 1, game 1) - assists on tying goal with five minutes to go in third
5. 1948 (round 1, game 5) - scores series-winning goal in third
6. 1949 (round 1, game 3) - assists on tying goals with eight minutes left in third (Leafs lose in OT)
7. 1951 (round 1, game 2) - scores tying goal halfway through third (Leafs lose in OT)
8. 1951 (round 1, game 3) - scores OT winner

Great post, deserves more than a like.

Kennedy is the overwhelming favorite for my #1 spot, he was the heart of this dynasty.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Great post, deserves more than a like.

Kennedy is the overwhelming favorite for my #1 spot, he was the heart of this dynasty.

Agreed about HO's post. For me, I'm not sure that's enough for Kennedy to get #1 this round over Brimsek's near-flawless resume. But I think it's enough for me to favor Kennedy over the other centers this round, at least. Is it enough to rank Kennedy over Cleghorn (easy best D left) or Conacher (easy best non-Firsov winger left)? I'm not sure.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Agreed about HO's post. For me, I'm not sure that's enough for Kennedy to get #1 this round over Brimsek's near-flawless resume. But I think it's enough for me to favor Kennedy over the other centers this round, at least. Is it enough to rank Kennedy over Cleghorn (easy best D left) or Conacher (easy best non-Firsov winger left)? I'm not sure.

Kennedy, Cleghorn and Brimsek would be my Top 3 if I voted today.

At start of the project I decided to value highly guys like Frank Nighbor, Mark Messier, Bryan Trottier, Henri Richard, Ted Kennedy, Dave Keon, Jonathan Toews, Jacques Lemaire, etc.Two-way centers who were heart and soul players that contributed to multiple championships but are usually disadvantaged by most metrics used to evaluate and compare players.Me ranking Kennedy #1 here would be consistent with that decision.

Sprague Cleghorn: I really like Cleghorn, but I also know his contribution to the Ottawa dynasty are not overly impressive.Of course he only played for 2 cups out of 4, but overall he would be my 4th most important defenseman in that dynasty, after Boucher, Gerard and Clancy.I understand this is not the only thing to evaluate him for, but that's one point that restrains my enthousiasm.Still, I agree he's the best defenseman left; I had him very high in my Round 1 vote IIRC.

Frank Brimsek: You're right, his resume is near-flawless.But that's a case where I really like naother goalie, maybe even ahead of him, and that's Charlie Gardiner.I value peak and playoffs higher than most though.OTOH, I still would rank Brimsek in my Top 3 because Gardiner being uneligible shouldn't impact how I rank Brimsek, and won't.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Early All-Time All-Star Teams (and Sprague Cleghorn/Frank Brimsek):

NOTE: Originally, I was posting this just for Cleghorn, but I noticed that Brimsek was already getting votes for best goaltender of all-time very early in his career, so I'm posting instances where Brimsek was mentioned too.

Overpass posted a link to the 1925 MacLean's article that surveyed the top hockey minds across the continent. They picked Hod Stuart and Sprague Cleghorn as their 1st Team All-Timers. Here are other picks courtesy of this thread: All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries

Aurel Joliat picked his all-time All-Star Teams in 1936/37

Old Timers: Defencemen: Eddie Gerard & Sprague Cleghorn – “There’s a pair who could stop any attack!”
Recent Times: Defencemen: Eddie Shore & King Clancy

Hap Holes Picked his all-time starting lineup in 1937-38. “An all-star isn’t an all-star to me unless he has stood up for 10 years or more.”
Right defenceman: Eddie Shore – “Was and still is – the most formidable offensive defensive player in hockey.”
Left defenceman: Ching Johnson – “Bigger and more powerful than even [Nels] Stewart.”

Other defensemen mentioned: "It’s a pity to leave Sprague Cleghorn out of any all-star lineup. He played plenty of defense for the Canadiens, and wasn’t afraid to mix it.”

“Lester Patrick should be rated near the top as a defenseman with his brother, Frank, not far behind. They would have been super luminaries had they not been handicapped by the management of leagues, rinks, and clubs.”

“Herb Gardiner of Calgary and the Canadiens was an excellent defenseman, and so is the speedy Babe Siebert, a converted forward.”

Red Dutton selected his all-time All-Star team (since he had begun to play) in 1938-39

1st Team Right Defenceman : Sprague Cleghorn
2nd Team Left Defenceman: Eddie Gerard
2nd Team Right Defenceman : Eddie Shore
2nd Team Left Defenceman 2: Herb Gardiner

Art Ross picked the best players of all-time in 1939-40

Goalie: Frank Brimsek (He also selected him when picking the best goalie in 1941)
Defencemen: Eddie Shore, Hod Stuart

(Omitting an all-time opponents team by Ebbie Goodfellow as he wouldn't have played against Cleghorn in his prime)

Duke Keats picked an all-time All-Star Team in 1942-43

Defenceman – “Bullet” Joe Simpson
Defenceman – Sprague Cleghorn
Defenceman – Eddie Shore

Note: I don't know why Keats picked 3 defensemen.

Cooper Smeaton (HHOF ref) picked his all-time All-Star Team in 1942-43
Old Time Defensesmen: Lionel Hitchman, Sprague Cleghorn
Modern Defensemen: Ching Johnson, Earl Seibert

Shorty Green picked his all-time All-Star Team in 1943-44
Defensemen: Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard

Newsy Lalonde Picked his all-stars in 1944-45
Defensemen: Ebbie Goodfellow, Herb Gardiner

Cyclone Taylor's all-time All-Stars in 1946-47
Defensemen: Lester Patrick, Hod Stuart

Newsy Lalonde again in 1947-48:
Defensemen: Butch Bouchard, Eddie Shore

Aurel Joliat again in 1948-49:
Defensemen: Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard, Georges Boucher, Ching Johnson, Eddie Shore

Hap Day in 1948-49 picked his all-time pre-1926 team:
Georges Boucher - Eddie Gerard
Sprague Cleghorn - Lester Patrick

___________

Noteworthy that Cleghorn was named on most of these lists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ok, last Cleghorn post. Sorry about the somewhat unorganized nature of it.

Here's a fairly recent thread about Cleghorn: Sprague Cleghorn - Legendary badass

Here's a very basic summary of him as a player:

1) Statistically, he's as good offensively as any defenseman of his era (Harry Cameron and Georges Boucher are the two similar ones, I think).
2) Praised for his defense as much as any other defenseman of his era, with the possible exceptions of Eddie Gerard and the relatively offensively-inept Moose Johnson.
3) Significantly more longevity as a top defenseman than any of those guys I mentioned (remember, Sprague was runner-up for the Hart twice in his 30s; albeit in a split league).
4) The downside to Cleghorn - his bad temper hurt his team on multiple occasions. However, that's a reason to rank him below guys like Clancy, Coffey, Park, and Pilote. Without Cleghorn's negatives, why is he even below them at all? Don't get me wrong - he should be punished for his bad temper. But with his positives, I think he's already been punished for it by not appearing until this round.
5) Basically, Cleghorn's resume is flawless - peak, longevity, offense defense - with one big exception - his temper. But IMO, he's already been punished for his temper by not appearing until now.

With Clancy, Coffey, Park, and Pilote gone, Cleghorn rather easily has the most complete resume of any defenseman left.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I wanted to dig deeper into Kennedy's reputation as a playoff legend. Here's how he performed in each of the playoff series where his team won the Stanley Cup (this is just from box scores, so I can't speak to his defensive play, leadership, etc):

1945

In the first round, Kennedy helps lead the Leafs to a huge upset against Montreal (the Habs finished 28 points ahead in the standings - absolutely massive during a 50 game season). In the first game, Kennedy scored the sole goal, unassisted, with less than a minute to go in the third period. He scores the opening goal in the next game (the Leafs win 3-2). Kennedy goes scoreless in a 4-1 loss in game three. He records one assist (not on the game-winner) in the 4-3 OT victory. He scores one goal in a blowout loss in game five. The only disappointment? He's scoreless in the decisive game six. Still, he led the Leafs in goals, and tied for the team lead in points.

The Leafs are also underdogs against Detroit. They must have shocked the hockey world with three straight shutouts (Kennedy scores the first of the Leafs' two goals in the second game). Detroit storms back with three straight wins. Hard to fault him in game 4, as he scores two goals in the first period only a few minutes apart. In game 7, the Leafs win the Stanley Cup, but Kennedy's scoreless. Overall, Kennedy decisively leads the team in goal-scoring this series (he's the only Leaf with more than one goal!) He also leads the SCF in overall scoring.

1947

This time, Kennedy's Leafs are heavy favourites against Detroit. It was a weird series. The Leafs needed overtime to win game 1 (Kennedy gets two assists, including the game-winner). Detroit demolishes Toronto 9-1 in the next game (Kennedy scoreless). Then the Leafs pummel the Wings by a combined score of 14-3 to finish the round (Kennedy has a goal and an assist). Kennedy is tied for second on the team in scoring behind, surprisingly, defensive specialist Nick Metz.

In the finals, the Leafs face Montreal (the slight favourites on paper). The team trade blowouts in the first two games - Kennedy got a goal and an assist in the first two minutes of game 2, which the Leafs ended up winning 4-0. In game 3, Kennedy scores an insurance goal late in the third period to make it 4-2. Kennedy's scoreless in the next two games, close ones where the teams trade victories. The Leafs win the Cup in game 6. Kennedy assists on the tying goal in the second period, then scores the Cup-winning goal with just over five minutes to go in the third. Kennedy ties for the team lead in goals and points this series.

1948

The Leafs are significant favourites against the Bruins on paper. The Leafs win the first game 5-4 in overtime; Kennedy assists on the tying goal with less than five minutes to go. In the next game, Kennedy single-handledy demolishes the Bruins, scoring four goals. I want to be clear that none of these are blowout goals - one opened the scoring, two of them re-established a lead after Boston tied the game, and the last of them (scored barely halfway through the contest) gave the Leafs a two-goal lead. Kennedy has another excellent performance in game 3, with a goal and two assists (only the last helper, which made it 4-1 with exactly 13 minutes to go, can be considered gratuitous). Kennedy's held scoreless in the Leafs' game 4 loss. In the decisive game 5, Kennedy assists on the tying goal in the first period, and scores the series-winning goal in the third period. This may have been Kennedy's best series - 10 points in five games (in a low-scoring era), with nearly every point being important to the outcome of the game.

Next, Toronto played Detroit in the finals. They finished five points behind the Leafs in the standings, but were swept. Kennedy has an assist in game 1 (on a goal that made it 5-1 late in the second). He was held scoreless in game 2, a comfortable Toronto win. He assists on the insurance marker late in the 3rd period in game 3. Kennedy scores two goals in the decisive fourth game (the opening marker, and one that turned this into a route). A quieter series for Kennedy.

1949

The Leafs regressed in the standings and faced off against a much stronger Boston club. Kennedy is scoreless in the Leafs' first two victories. They lose game 3 in overtime, but it's hard to blame Kennedy - he scored the opening goal, assisted on a goal that cut Boston's lead to one late in the second, and assisted on the tying goal with eight minutes to go in the third. In game 4, Kennedy records two assists - on the go-ahead goal midway through the second, and an insurance marker late in the third. He's scoreless in the decisive fifth game. Kennedy ties for the team lead in scoring.

In the finals, the Leafs play the Red Wings for the second year in a row. Detroit is a much superior team on paper (18 points higher in the standings), but Toronto sweeps. Kennedy is scoreless in game 1, which went to overtime. He assists on two important insurance goals in game 2. He scores what proves to be the game-winner partway through the second period in game 3. He's scoreless in game 4. A less impressive performance for Kennedy.

1951

This time the Leafs are enormous favourites (33 point advantage in the standings). The Leafs are shut out in game 1. Game 2 is called a tie (anybody know why?) - Kennedy is scoreless. He's shut down entirely in games 3 and 4 (both wins) - so that's now four straight pointless games. He scores one goal in game 5 (which made it 4-0 halfway throug the 3rd - probably not the most important goal). In the blowout game 6, Kennedy scores the opening goal, then assists to make it 5-0 halfway through the third. This is by far the least impressive series for Kennedy - arguably just one "significant" goal in six games against a heavy underdog.

The Leafs play a much weaker Habs team in the finals. This series is significant because all five games went to overtime. The Leafs win the first game; Kennedy assisted on the opening goal just fifteen seconds into the game. The Leafs lose game 2, but Kennedy assisted on the Leafs' first goal late in the second to cut the lead to one, and then scores the tying goal halfway through the third. In game 3, Kennedy scores the overtime goal. Kennedy assists on the opening goal in game 4 (also less than a minute into the match). In the decisive game 5 (this was the one where Bill Barilko scored the overtime winner - as popularized by The Tragically Hip), Kennedy assists on the tying goal midway through the second. He finished tied for second on the team in scoring.

Overall assessment

During these five years, Kennedy played in all 53 of the Leafs' games. He scored 25 goals and 24 assists for 49 points. If we look at the span of seven seasons from 1945 to 1951 (so this includes 1946, when the Leafs missed the playoffs, and 1950, a first round loss which I didn't cover above), Kennedy leads all players in playoff assists and points, and is runner-up to Maurice Richard in goals. He's third in points per game, behind only the Rocket and Max Bentley (minimum 40 games).

Kennedy's playoff resume is like the anti-Dionne. One thing that jumps out is he frequently scores or assists the opening goal. That might not have meant much in the high-scoring eighties, but scoring the opening goal in his low-scoring era was more important (it's late but if I've added this correctly, he scored or assisted on the opening goal 10 times in 53 games). He also came up big - he scored or assisted on 8 goals in overtime, or winning or tying goals in the third (that excludes insurance goals altogether). Kennedy was consistent (he just had that one bad stretch in the first round in 1951). Furthermore, as I've shown, he rarely recorded points in blowouts - there are a few, but I'd be willing to bet it's a lower percentage than most other playoff performers we'd rank around his level ie Sakic, Messier, Lafleur.

(Despite what I said on the first page - that his 1955 Hart trophy was probably just a retirement gift - Kennedy will get a serious look at my top three for this round).

"First goals" scored or assisted (first goal of the game - not just for the Leafs)

1. 1945 (round 1, game 1) - scores first & only goal of game
2. 1945 (round 1, game 2) - scores first goal
3. 1945 (round 2, game 2) - scores first goal
4. 1947 (round 2, game 2) - scores and assists on first two goals in first two minutes of game
5. 1948 (round 1, game 2) - scores opening goal in his four-goal game
6. 1948 (round 2, game 4) - scores first goal
7. 1949 (round 1, game 3) - scores first goal
8. 1951 (round 1, game 6) - scores first goal
9. 1951 (round 2, game 1) - assists on first goal less than a minute into the game
10. 1951 (round 2, game 4) - assists on first goal less than a minute into the game

Winning or tying goals in 3rd period or OT (insurance goals excluded entirely, even if important)

1. 1945 (round 1, game 1) - scores game's only (and therefore) winning goal, a minute left in 3rd
2. 1947 (round 1, game 1) - assists on OT winner
3. 1947 (round 2, game 6) - scores Cup winning goal with five minutes to go in third
4. 1948 (round 1, game 1) - assists on tying goal with five minutes to go in third
5. 1948 (round 1, game 5) - scores series-winning goal in third
6. 1949 (round 1, game 3) - assists on tying goals with eight minutes left in third (Leafs lose in OT)
7. 1951 (round 1, game 2) - scores tying goal halfway through third (Leafs lose in OT)
8. 1951 (round 1, game 3) - scores OT winner

Fantastic post. I went back through the Playoff project to grab some relevant Kennedy posts. I won't run down his scoring exploits again as you have that covered, but some other things that may be of interest...

This portion of a post I made discusses how ridiculously dominant Toronto was in the playoffs during their dynasty.

The Maple Leafs' playoff W/L record is truly exceptional during this period, considering they were usually a merely decent regular season team. Overall they were 43-16 in the playoffs from 1945-1951 (this includes their only series loss, 4-3 to Detroit in 1950). They only lost 5 games total in the 1947-1949 three-peat.

This is a dynasty where the comparatively weak regular season records and fewer HOF players than most others has perhaps led history to underrate them. This further bolsters Kennedy's case in my eyes, because he was the only HOF-level constant on all those teams. Apps was only there for '47 and '48, Bentley for '48-'51. Frank McCool subbed in for Broda for the 1945 win (Broda was in the army), Al Rollins split duty with him in 1951.

Below is a post made by @Canadiens1958 from that same project. It discusses how strong Kennedy was in shutting down the top centers he played against.

Leader of the Maple Leaf teams that won 4 SCs in 5 seasons.

Per bigmouthsports.com

Ted Kennedy would face the opposing first line center as much as match-ups would permit. Opposition did not want the match-up, they were welcome to sit their top center.

During this period the Leafs played 48 playoff games, missing the 1950 finals after losing in a seven game semi-final to Detroit. Played Boston - Milt Schmidt, Detroit - Sid Abel, Montreal - Elmer Lach(injured, missed 1947 final). DNP against New York or Chicago.

During this stretch, Ted Kennedy scored 18G and 21A = 39 PTS, including a four goal game against Boston. The leading centers scored a combined 5G 9A, excluding the 1947 final against Montreal where the replacement center for Lach seems to have been a Quilty,Reay,O Connor rotation which being generous accounted for 5 or 6 points.

So Kennedy won his match-ups against the NHL elite centers during his prime playoff peak by roughly a 2 to 1 ratio offensively, against players who won the Art Ross Trophy or lead the NHL in Scoring three times and won the Hart Trophy four times.

Only one other center has a better record in the playoffs.

There's very little not to like about Kennedy at this stage of the voting. The most obvious weak point of his resume would be regular season offense. Kennedy topped out at 4th in league scoring in his best season, and only has three other top-10 finishes (one of them in the war-ravaged 1944-45 season, though he was just 19 years old).

But two points need to be kept in mind when evaluating his rather underwhelming scoring finishes. First, the Maple Leafs were usually very deep at center throughout his career. He shared the position with one of Syl Apps or Max Bentley for almost his entire career (both of them in 1947-48), and the relatively unknown Cal Gardner, who replaced Apps upon his retirement. Gardner's scoring record with the Leafs is actually rather impressive for a player whom few people have probably even heard of. So for the bulk of his prime seasons, Kennedy was in a rotation that saw all three centermen receiving significant ice time. This would likely hurt his scoring totals compared to players on teams that rode their top two lines, which was common in the late 40's/early 50's.

Second, Kennedy was undoubtedly Toronto's best defensive center. I'd love to find more information on his situational usage, but it stands to reason (based on the historical reputations of the two players) that he would have a higher proportion of minutes played in a defensive role than Max Bentley.

In my mind, there appears to be little that would separate Kennedy from recently-listed contemporary Milt Schmidt. Schimdt beats him in longevity and lost seasons to the war, while Kennedy was an absolute horse in the playoffs. As far as their game-to-game impact is concerned, these players seem extremely comparable. I think Schmidt landed in an appropriate position on the list, and Kennedy ought to be right beside him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In my mind, there appears to be little that would separate Kennedy from recently-listed contemporary Milt Schmidt. Schimdt beats him in longevity and lost seasons to the war, while Kennedy was an absolute horse in the playoffs. As far as their game-to-game impact is concerned, these players seem extremely comparable. I think Schmidt landed in an appropriate position on the list, and Kennedy ought to be right beside him.

Great overall summary.

I'm definitely leaning towards adding Kennedy this round, but his regular season offense is well behind even Milt Schmidt. In fact, Kennedy's regular season offense is quite a bit worse than any forward who has come up to vote.*

*With the exception of Frank Nighbor if you don't give Nighbor some kind of bump for being a pass-first player in an era that barely counted assists.

 

[ted2019]

Only Pronger had to play with an AHL goalie?

Eventually his weaknesses caught-up to him. Nature of hockey.

In that Stanley cup final, yes. Sometimes your posts don't make any sense whatsoever.