Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 14

[Sentinel]

Boy, I'm glad I'm not participating anymore! Too frustrating...

 

[Captain Bowie]

The bottom half of my list is tough to decipher. They all seem so... flawed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

on more reflection i giess i find it hard to say selanne belongs when there’s a third three time goal scoring champ winger from the 90s who isn’t up yet (and rightfully so, imo).

The one who was only top-10 in points the 3 times to Selanne’s 7 times? We kind of covered the massive gap in playmaking between Selanne and Brett Hull last round. Viewing Selanne only in the context of goal-scoring would be ignoring one of his better offensive tools that he was still leaning on while playing alongside Blake/Koivu in 2011.

 

[The Macho King]

The one who was only top-10 in points the 3 times to Selanne’s 7 times? We kind of covered the massive gap in playmaking between Selanne and Brett Hull last round. Viewing Selanne only in the context of goal-scoring would be ignoring one of his better offensive tools that he was still leaning on while playing alongside Blake/Koivu in 2011.

I assumed he was talking about a different winger. A Russian one.

 

[seventieslord]

I think we've matured past the point of terming just years before we melted another country as the only War years, right? We understand that not all the talent returned, not all the talent returned to full form, not all the prospects returned, not all the prospects returned to full form and that the league didn't really normalize until late in the 1940's...

We don't honestly suggest that the day the War ended, all the hockey players - who were fighting a World War - just put their keys down on the coffee table and went back to crushing it in the NHL, do we? Because that's some video game stuff...

Nearly all of Durnan's career was in a weakened league...


(Also, that wasn't the only way I was evaluating him...for the record...it was just a point of conversation where there was none)

You're absolutely right about this. It's gonna take deeper discussions to come to a Consensus about the degree of it, but the 46-49 NHL was definitely weakened.

 

[The Macho King]

You're absolutely right about this. It's gonna take deeper discussions to come to a Consensus about the degree of it, but the 46-49 NHL was definitely weakened.

We discussed it a bit during vote 2 w/r/t Richard, but I don't think we really came to a conclusion about the degree. It's frankly kind of complicated because I think part of why we say 49 is a cut off is because Howe broke out in 50.

 

[seventieslord]

I think you have to take Denneny’s stats seriously. Even if you end up rating other Senators over him, it’s important for the project to document why he would be rated less than his stats.

The Ottawa Senators, were a very strong regular season team for a full decade, from 1918-19 to 1927-28. They won the Stanley Cup in four of those seasons, concentrated primarily in the early 20s (1920, 1921, 1923, 1927). During this ten season stretch, they showed a remarkable ability to replace players.

Sprague Cleghorn was replaced by George Boucher, and while the Senators were never quite as good without Cleghorn, they won two Cups without him.

Eddie Gerard was replaced by King Clancy. They missed Gerard’s leadership for a couple of years but eventually won another Cup behind Clancy.

Clint Benedict was replaced by Alec Connell.

Frank Nighbor was a constant throughout the decade and was never successfully replaced by anyone. Hence his high rating in this project, as the key piece of a dynasty. Hooley Smith was supposed to be his replacement as a hook-checking, two-way centre, and it might have worked, but Ottawa had to let him go to the Maroons as money flooded into the NHL of the late 20s.

Cy Denneny was also on the Ottawa roster for the full decade in question. And he was indeed the leading scorer for most of the regular seasons. He also led them in playoff scoring over the decade. Wasn’t he, like Nighbor, an irreplaceable part? Well, there are a few reasons to suggest he wasn’t.

1. In 1917-18, Cy Denneny played a full season and finished second in league scoring with 36 goals, not far behind Joe Malone’s record season. Frank Nighbor missed half the season. Ottawa finished third in the league with a 9-13 record. So a prime Cy Denneny scoring season was no guarantee of team success, but the loss of Frank Nighbor was devastating.

2. In 1919-20, the Ottawa roster was loaded and they dominated the regular season. Denneny spent most of the season as a substitute on the wing, and finished behind Jack Darragh and Punch Broadbent in scoring. In the finals, Denneny was a substitute and not a factor, and George Boucher, Punch Broadbent, and Jack Darragh were all used ahead of him on wing. Boucher and Darragh were among Ottawa’s stars in the final. So when Ottawa’s lineup was at its deepest, Denneny could barely get on the ice. To be fair, it’s possible that Denneny was playing hurt or was not in shape that year, but it would be a coincidence for that to happen in the one season when he had serious competition for playing time on the wing.

3. More generally, in Ottawa’s Cup winning playoffs of 1920, 1921, and 1923, Denneny was only fifth in goals and tied for second in points. Again, among wingers, Darragh and Broadbent were right there with him. So on the best teams, in the biggest moments, he did not stand out.

Nighbor: 8 goals, 15 pts
Darragh: 11 goals, 13 pts
Denneny: 7 goals, 13 pts
Boucher: 9 goals, 11 pts
Broadbent: 8 goals, 11 pts

4. Punch Broadbent led all NHL scorers in goals and points in 1921-22. One of the more random leaders, his season almost came out of nowhere. Jack Darragh didn’t play, leaving the playing time on the wing wide open for Denneny and Broadbent. This raises the question—how many wingers could have put up big scoring numbers on the Ottawa Senators of the 1920s, when given a full season as a starter?

5. Some of Denneny’s best scoring regular seasons come in 1924, 1925, and 1926 when Ottawa doesn’t have any playoff success.

6. Denneny is basically done as of the 1927-28 season, becoming a rarely used substitute. Speedsters Frank Finnigan and Hec Kilrea take over the wing positions. Ottawa does have a worse record in the regular season, but their goal differential is actually slightly better. How much did they miss Denneny? Edit: OK, I have to be fair, they probably missed his 1927 playoff goal scoring in 1928 when they only scored 1 goal in 2 games against the Maroons.

I realize I’ve framed this to be unfavourable to Denneny, but I just get the feeling that he racked up offensive totals in a position where a lot of skilled players could have done the same—with Frank Nighbor centering him and with some combination of Eddie Gerard, Sprague Cleghorn, George Boucher, and King Clancy rushing the puck from the back.

This is all very good.

That said, I think he probably came up too late to begin with; his offensive numbers seem to be more in line with players from a couple of rounds ago. I think the fact we're seeing him now means he's already been downgraded appropriately.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Drastic scoring changes will help guide us...first thing that's lost when the talent depletes is well-rounded, quality players...so it's details and defense that go...

Scoring around WWI and about four seasons after balloons...then settles.
Scoring balloons in 1942 and '43...doesn't settle to around four seasons after the war...
Scoring takes another major jump in the mid-70's when everyone over-expands...takes another leap when the WHA joins the fray (to say nothing of WHA scoring in and of itself...sick league)...and scoring is obscene as disco dies...

Three of the weakest times in history by common sense and the eye test have the highest scoring...

You'll also notice more anomalies and weirdos appearing out of the wild, having just odd career years and other miscellany...

Early 1980's saw American high school students just waltzing right into the NHL and winning awards and what not...when Americans were an afterthought in the league...
1944: 19 junior-aged players played 10+ games in the NHL (17-20) [in all 23 teenagers played in the NHL this season]. In 1955, there was just 2...and they were both 20. 1960, 2 junior-aged players played in the league...one of them was 19 year old Stan Mikita.

In 1981, 18 teenaged players played 10+ games in the NHL. By 1987, it was down to 12. By 1991, following possibly the strongest draft class in history, it was down to 10 (2 of which are HOFers).

You get weird awards, weird anomaly seasons, weird...stuff...not surprising that the only two 3-0 comebacks in the first, what, 70 years of seven-game series happen in 1942 and 1975, respectively...that's not to say that odd stuff can't happen sporadically in other seasons...but when the game gets off the rails, or sudden rule changes occur, weird stuff tends to accumulate and hover in those areas...

No offside? Cooney Weiland (who?) scores 17,000 goals by December. No touching/power play league? Jonathan Cheechoo (who?) wins the goal scoring crown. These oddities tend to congregate in weaker times a lot more than they do when the league is well-fueled and orchestrated...follow the breadcrumbs...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Much better puck carrier, much more skill in open ice, much more responsible and a much better skater than Corey Perry. Not similar in my eyes. He made offense, he didn't just cap it off.

i thought moore was a bad skater? that, plus the scoring spike, was the basis for the comp.

i also don’t think perry just finished off chances getzlaf created but that’s neither here nor there.

 

[ted2019]

Boy, I'm glad I'm not participating anymore! Too frustrating...

Took your ball and went home.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not sure we can term Durnan's Hart record as "lackluster". Over the course of his career, he appears to have the best voting record of any goaltender.

As you say, a quality 2nd and 3rd place finish for Durnan. Chuck Rayner has the win in 1950 and some throwaway votes in other years. Brimsek has a decent 2nd place finish, nothing more. Broda has some throwaway votes in a couple seasons. Lumley has the one substantial 4th place finish.

I think the fact that we're only just discussing him for the first time now suggests that his dominant stats and all-star record have been significantly discounted. Montreal allowed the fewest goals in the league six out of his seven seasons. So for those low on Durnan, I'd ask if they are particularly high on defensemen Butch Bouchard and Ken Reardon (I can't imagine either will appear for voting in this project). If we took his six 1st-AS at face value, Durnan should have appeared right along with Dryden.

Excellent post.

Missing one key element coaching. Dick Irvin Sr.

Dick Irvin NHL & WHA Hockey Coaching Record | Hockey-Reference.com

Poorest SC Final coaching record in history be it with Toronto or Montreal. Managed to get his star players, especially Maurice Richard involved in fights - 1947 one game suspension, agianst depth players. Nothing to do with Durnan.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You're absolutely right about this. It's gonna take deeper discussions to come to a Consensus about the degree of it, but the 46-49 NHL was definitely weakened.

Pre 70 game RS, O6 NHL.

 

[ted2019]

• Al MacInnis: Will make it this round, most likely as the top guy.
• Tim Horton: Don't know if Horton will be 2nd or 3rd this round. Stats alone don't show his value.
• Georges Vezina: Early take for me is that he will be 2nd. His resume speaks for itself at this stage not to make it this round.
• Cy Denneny: On the surface, he appeared to be a strictly offensive forward, but further research has shown that he was far from a liability in his own end.
• Dickie Moore: Will place somewhere between 8th to 10th on this list. As others have said, 2 really strong years and then the rest is, ehh. His playoffs look better to me then his regular season. Lead the league 2x in the playoffs and had a strong playoff at the age of 37 for the Blues.
• Dit Clapper: Starting to think that I had him placed a bit low on my original list. Don't see him making it past 10th however.
• Frank Mahovlich: Middle of the pack as Malone, but will most likely be a spot higher then Malone. Long career as a solid player who aged very well and could be 4th on my list
• Clint Benedict: The more I look at things, the more I like Benedict. I think you could compare Benedict to Martin Brodeur as he played a long time and he lead teams that were strong and weak to cup wins.
• Joe Malone: Will be in the middle of the pack this round. 3 Retro Harts will place him a few spots higher then a few others.
• Teemu Selanne: Hard to gauge. Had a phenomenal Olympic career which I think gets overlooked by some. Is Selanne's career on par with Mahovlich? Is it better? Worse?
• Bill Durnan: Towards the bottom of the list. It will be between Benedict and Durnan towards the bottom until Gardiner comes aboard. Have to also see on how much stock you put into Ultimate Hockey's winner as the 1940's top Goalie.

 

[seventieslord]

• Al MacInnis: Will make it this round, most likely as the top guy.
• Tim Horton: Don't know if Horton will be 2nd or 3rd this round. Stats alone don't show his value.
• Georges Vezina: Early take for me is that he will be 2nd. His resume speaks for itself at this stage not to make it this round.
• Cy Denneny: On the surface, he appeared to be a strictly offensive forward, but further research has shown that he was far from a liability in his own end.
• Dickie Moore: Will place somewhere between 8th to 10th on this list. As others have said, 2 really strong years and then the rest is, ehh. His playoffs look better to me then his regular season. Lead the league 2x in the playoffs and had a strong playoff at the age of 37 for the Blues.
• Dit Clapper: Starting to think that I had him placed a bit low on my original list. Don't see him making it past 10th however.
• Frank Mahovlich: Middle of the pack as Malone, but will most likely be a spot higher then Malone. Long career as a solid player who aged very well and could be 4th on my list
• Clint Benedict: The more I look at things, the more I like Benedict. I think you could compare Benedict to Martin Brodeur as he played a long time and he lead teams that were strong and weak to cup wins.
• Joe Malone: Will be in the middle of the pack this round. 3 Retro Harts will place him a few spots higher then a few others.
• Teemu Selanne: Hard to gauge. Had a phenomenal Olympic career which I think gets overlooked by some. Is Selanne's career on par with Mahovlich? Is it better? Worse?
• Bill Durnan: Towards the bottom of the list. It will be between Benedict and Durnan towards the bottom until Gardiner comes aboard. Have to also see on how much stock you put into Ultimate Hockey's winner as the 1940's top Goalie.

Durnan is an easy NR for me. Not saying I can't be convinced on him, but... Not this round.

I have to say, the two new offense-only forwards look VERY strong in this field. I feel like Selanne and Mahovlich make up no ground in this round for me thanks to the introductions of Denneny and Malone. And believe me when I say I really want to be an advocate for Mahovlich.

Vezina will rate high for me... Perhaps first. No problem with Benedict coming in right after him, either.

Moore seems to lack the career value of these other forwards but he was also a better all-around player. I hate his Hart voting (in that he had none).

Clapper is certainly the most intriguing and difficult to assess. I feel like I'll end up just slapping him in between the guys I'm high on and the guys I'm low on.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

You're absolutely right about this. It's gonna take deeper discussions to come to a Consensus about the degree of it, but the 46-49 NHL was definitely weakened.

Counting actual war years, I guess the whole of the 40s was weak.

Shore wasn't really that good because the 30s were weak.

Orr wasn't that good because the 70s were weak.

Gretzky & Mario scored a billion points because the 80s were weak.

Howe's prime wasn't really that great because, ya know, the league was weak then.

1920s and before, we don't even know what it looked like. I'd assume it was ………..weak.

 

[seventieslord]

I promised to re-post this when Malone showed up, so here it is plus a few more Malone related thoughts. He arrives at 21 and until 31 he is remarkably consistent (aside from injuries). His NHA/NHL scoring finishes are…

Year	League Rank	Team Rank
11/12	6th	1st
12/13	1st	1st
13/14	7th	2nd
14/15	Injured	Unsure
15/16	2nd	1st
16/17	2nd	1st
17/18	1st	1st
18/19	Injured	6th
19/20	1st	1st
20/21	4th	1st
21/22	5th	1st

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

3 times leading the league in scoring and 2 seconds, along with another 2 years where he was hurt but on pace for top 2 is a really impressive stretch of 11 years for the 10s/20s. Is it fair to say if the league wasn’t split Malone gets 8 or 9 top 10 point finishes with 5 in the top 5 and a Ross or two? It's an impressive run.

Unlike Denneny, Malone was generally the best player on his team, or at least was the offensive leader of his team. Aside from injury hit years he had just 1 season where he was second on his team in scoring.

I am not sure what we should dock him for the WWI years. Would be very interested to hear what people think about WWI and its affect in the NHA and PCHA.

I think he belongs behind Vezina, for a guy that was from a similar time period, depending on how much mileage we give goalies at the time. I could see an argument for putting Vezina below Malone, but only if it's because we are docking goalies as a position at the time.

I think he's solidly ahead of Denneny for me though.

A question for me is how does he relate to two guys that might show up soon-ish in Bill Cowley and Nels Stewart. Both have Hart trophies, and in a non-split league (at least for Bill, I can't recall if Nels' were pre-1927). Both are all offense guys with Hart's. Does Malone win a Hart or two if they existed? And in a non-split league over Taylor/Lalonde?

I would like to dig more into his Stanley Cup showings. Off the cuff he performed well offensively 3 out of 5 times.

Can you explain why Malone is solidly ahead of Denneny? I'm not seeing it. Over the long run, Denneny was a better producer in the regular season, from the wing, and enjoyed infinitely more team success. Both non-factors defensively, but in Denneny's case it might be because he could afford to be, while still contributing greatly to winning, while Malone's loafing may have been a big reason why his teams never went anywhere. Also, Denneny at least had a physical dimension.

 

[seventieslord]

Counting actual war years, I guess the whole of the 40s was weak.

Shore wasn't really that good because the 30s were weak.

Orr wasn't that good because the 70s were weak.

Gretzky & Mario scored a billion points because the 80s were weak.

Howe's prime wasn't really that great because, ya know, the league was weak then.

1920s and before, we don't even know what it looked like. I'd assume it was ………..weak.

What's your point bro?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What's your point bro?

Can all that time really be weak?

Seems like everyone that wants to downplay a player goes to the weak era argument.

How'd Pierre Pilote get judged? Sure, 3 straight Norris Trophies, but weak era for defensemen. Stuff like that.

Maybe its just my imagination.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Montréal indeed had a very good defense, relative to the league, throughout Durnan's career.

He gets docked down a few points, because :
- That team should've won more than they did.
- He was significantly outplayed at least one contemporary goaltender in the playoffs.
- Yes, he won two cups. He was also on teams that were clearly the best in NHL. Never won anything when he wasn't in that situation.
- That wasn't exactly the strongest era.

Durnan wasn't an awful playoff goaltender, far from it. But, with all due respect, playoffs should be considered something of a non-factor for him. He was.. well... Bill Durnan. A solid netminder behind a solid defense behind a top-heavy offensive team who ended up having some depth issues.

Fair evaluation.

To respond to the individual points, I'd argue that Montreal could have won more, but I'd stop short of saying they underachieved during the time period. They lost twice to the Toronto dynasty of the time period. It looks a bit suspect due to the Leafs not usually posting great regular season records, but they steamrolled everyone come playoff time for years on end.

I'll assume you mean Broda outplayed him in the playoffs, but I'm not sure if that's really something we can knock Durnan for. Broda is generally considered one of the better money goalies in history. Coming in second place to him would be no shame. Pointing out that Durnan only won when his team was the best is accurate, but can't we say this about a lot of players? Specific to this group of candidates, Benedict winning with the Maroons and perhaps Malone with the Bulldogs are the only clear examples of players winning Cups on teams that probably weren't expected to.

Era concerns are legitimate. However, Durnan helps his case by putting in strong seasons in 1949 and 1950. The league was back to normal by then. I'm also not sure the competition at goaltender specifically followed the same general trend as the rest of the league regarding war-time considerations. Broda and Brimsek were stars before the war and remained so afterwards. Chuck Rayner had a good run in the late 40s/early 50s too. Nobody was really beating down the door to replace these guys. Non-Hall of Famers Gerry McNeil, Sugar Jim Henry, and Al Rollins were scooping up AST selections after Durnan/Brimsek/Broda gave way. They were replaced themselves by Sawchuk, Plante, Worsley, and Hall before too long. It's possible the war-time effect didn't show itself in regards to the goaltending position until the early 50s (besides years where the war was actually taking place).

Excellent post.

Missing one key element coaching. Dick Irvin Sr.

Dick Irvin NHL & WHA Hockey Coaching Record | Hockey-Reference.com

Poorest SC Final coaching record in history be it with Toronto or Montreal. Managed to get his star players, especially Maurice Richard involved in fights - 1947 one game suspension, agianst depth players. Nothing to do with Durnan.

It's a shame that it's tough to uncover more than the odd bit of general commentary when it comes to coaching specifics within a playoff series from these bygone eras.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Counting actual war years, I guess the whole of the 40s was weak.

Shore wasn't really that good because the 30s were weak.

Orr wasn't that good because the 70s were weak.

Gretzky & Mario scored a billion points because the 80s were weak.

Howe's prime wasn't really that great because, ya know, the league was weak then.

1920s and before, we don't even know what it looked like. I'd assume it was ………..weak.

everyone knows hockey achieved perfection in 1993... coincidentally also the second golden age of hip-hop.

 

[Canadiens1958]

What's your point bro?

DBs point seems to be that a number of posters use pronouncements of "weak" to denigrate specific candidates without substantive / supportive details or information.

 

[Vilica]

I have Dickie Moore's team splits - it's actually quite interesting comparing him to Geoffrion because his are much more evenly split.

				Total
	Games	Goals	Assists	Points	+/-	Shots
BOS	131	45	57	102	25	151
CHI	131	51	67	118	10	130
DET	128	50	61	111	6	111
MTL	0	0	0	0	0	0
NYR	132	53	66	119	17	172
TOR	132	55	88	143	18	112
	654	254	339	593	76	676
		0.388	0.518	0.907		1.034

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

BOS		0.344	0.435	0.779
CHI		0.389	0.511	0.901
DET		0.391	0.477	0.867
MTL
NYR		0.402	0.500	0.902
TOR		0.417	0.667	1.083

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For comparison's sake, here's Geoffrion's stats as a Hab:

TOT		0.484	0.507	0.991
		GPG	APG	PPG
BOS		0.472	0.535	1.006
CHI		0.510	0.536	1.046
DET		0.372	0.448	0.821
MTL
NYR		0.654	0.582	1.235
TOR		0.410	0.429	0.840

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If there's interest, I do have a team split of all the relevant Canadians for that 54-55 to 59-60 era, except for Henri Richard and Bert Olmstead. So Beliveau, M. Richard, Moore, Geoffrion (and Harvey). Without providing all the numbers, Beliveau beat up everybody but especially Chicago, Maurice Richard beat up Chicago, Bernie Geoffrion beat up the Rangers, and Dickie Moore saved his best for Toronto. Doug Harvey averaged more assists per game against New York than he did points per game on any other team. Now you probably know match-ups better and the various reasons why those point totals spiked where they did, but it still is instructive looking at the results for each player.

Also, I've gotten my yearly templates back to the inception of the NHL complete, so I should be able to knock out most all the old players in one go, especially because it's just goals and assists, and tiny season sizes. It takes much longer to track +/- and shots than to just add up points. I'm also down to just a few players left from the top 50 that I want to finish their splits - H. Richard, Esposito, Lindsay and Schmidt.

Also also, I have a comparison/partial argument with Mahovlich and a modern winger (who was on a list of preliminary nominees but I don't know if he will come up for a vote). I know comparing players to players not eligible for voting in that round is frowned upon, but I don't know if that applies to players who might not get a chance to be voted on with Mahovlich.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Playoff R-On vs R-Off

This might be my last post of the week - worked til 1:30 AM last night. Here's the playoff R-On/R-Off numbers for the two new skaters who played after 1960:

Dickie Moore

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1959-60	8	2.50	2.67	-6%
1960-61	6	1.50	1.00	50%
1961-62	6	3.00	0.27	1000%
1962-63	5	1.00	0.10	900%
1964-65	5	999.99	1.67	59899%
1967-68	18	0.92	0.81	13%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'll be honest, Moore's numbers surprised me. I was expecting mediocre results, and I'd have to preface this by saying they're from the second half of his career. On the contrary, Moore's results are great (both objectively, and relative to his team). They're not quite as good as they appear at a first glance - a big chunk of them was from 1967-68, which was his longest and probably weakest playoff run in the 1960's, but he was 37 by then. No Hall of Fame forward (minimum 40 games) had a better R-On/R-Off than Moore (Forsberg, Keon, Armonstrong and Howe are the next closest - Kopitar, Bergeron and Zetterberg are right up there too).

(Side note - there's a lot to like about Moore - he had an outstanding two-year peak, and these numbers give credence to him being a very defensively responsible forward. But him being almost completely shut out from Hart voting, even when winning back-to-back Art Rosses, is a big strike against him).

Teemu Selanne

Season	Games	R ON	R OFF	INCREASE
1992-93	6	0.50	0.73	-31%
1996-97	11	0.73	0.54	35%
1998-99	4	0.67	-	999%
2000-01	6	3.00	0.80	275%
2001-02	12	0.73	1.31	-45%
2003-04	10	0.60	1.40	-57%
2005-06	16	1.00	1.67	-40%
2006-07	21	1.13	1.57	-28%
2007-08	6	0.67	0.86	-22%
2008-09	13	0.67	1.20	-44%
2010-11	6	0.50	0.90	-44%
2012-13	7	1.33	1.11	20%
2013-14	12	0.50	0.84	-40%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

We're dealing with small sample sizes here. Selanne looked pretty good at his absolute peak (1997 and 1999), even if his teams went nowhere. But he didn't look great relative to his team in 2006. It's hard to evaluate Selanne's playoff career. On its surface, his R-On and R-Off numbers are almost identical to Joe Thornton. But so much of Selanne's playoff career was from outside his prime, or on paper-thin teams.

(Side note - I was probably one of only a small handful of voters who had Selanne in my top 60 on my original list. Yes, he was inconsistent from year to year, but he had so many great seasons spread over two decades. I really liked quoipourquoi's summary of his playoff career - but I'm still not sure if I can rate it any higher than "incomplete").

(EDIT - I realized I posted Selanne's results last week, with basically the same commentary. I'm tired).

Career numbers

Player	GP	R-On	R-Off	Change
Dickie Moore	48	1.54545	0.88235	75.2%
Al MacInnis	177	1.08	0.99	9.3%
Tim Horton	106	0.89	0.91	-1.3%
Teemu Selanne	130	0.79	1.07	-25.6%
Frank Mahovlich	125	0.79	1.38	-42.9%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If I have time for one more post this week, I might dig into Dit Clapper's career. One of the most unique and difficult to evaluate careers in hockey history. There are arguments that could push him to either end of the ballot this week.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

One more observation - I always found Clint Benedict's (apparent) impact on his team to be impressive. The Senators allowed the fewest goals against five years in row (1919 to 1923), and then the second fewest in 1924. He was traded (in substance, sold) to the Maroons in 1925, and the Senators were only 4th (out of six) in goals against - and that was with another HOF goalie, Alec Connell, taking over.

The Maroons were an expansion team and actually allowed fewer goals against the Senators (who still had five HOFers - the aforementioned Connell, plus Nighbor, Clancy, Denneny and Smith). The new Montreal team had Benedict, two Hall of Fame forwards, but a shockingly weak blueline - and still gave up (slightly) fewer goals.

The Senators allowed the fewest goals in the league again in 1926 - so that's a counter-argument, as perhaps they didn't need Benedict after all. But the Maroons upset them in the playoffs, and won the Stanley Cup - Benedict got a shutout in the decisive game.

In 1927, both teams allowed the same number of goals against - the rosters were more comparable, but the Senators on paper still appeared to be the better team.

What do others think? I know it's a crude metric to simply look at goals against - but when the results seemed to follow Benedict around, I think that speaks to his value.

(EDIT - apparently I spent the last twenty minutes re-writing something I wrote eight years ago - HOHHOF - Early Era - Round 2 thread)