I was going to do a longer discussion on Dit Clapper, but my wife probably doesn't want me to spend tonight writing an essay about a man. (Looks like I ended up writing an essay anyway).
- Argument for: Clapper was one of only ten players who had the minimum three-year waiting period for the Hall of Fame waived. The others? Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Beliveau, Richard, Kelly, Lindsay and Sawchuk - seriously impressive company.
- Counter-argument: the Hall, especially in its earliest days, made some strange decisions. Clapper is by far the weakest player on that list.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? Not very. It speaks to the fact that he was well-respected, but I don't think we should rest our case on a questionable decision from the 1940's.
- Argument for: he was the first player in NHL history to player 20 seasons. Clapper retired in 1947 and still held that record outright as late as 1965 (Howe tied him the next year).
- Counter-argument: granted, you have to be a good player to play a long time. But we're talking about the top 100 players of all-time here - there should be more to his case than merely hanging on. There was a point in time when Doug Mohns, Dean Prentice, Eric Nesterenko and Ron Stewart had among the longest careers in NHL history - good for them, but that doesn't inherently prove that they were great. I know 20 is a nice round number, but Clapper only played six games (held scoreless) that final year. And the last four years before that, the NHL was watered-down due to WWII.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? I don't find this one very convincing either. Good for Clapper for having a long career, but it's not a strong argument in the context of this project.
- Argument for: he was the only player in NHL history to be an all-star at multiple positions (not even Red Kelly, who got a lot of mileage for his strong performance as a centre in the second half of his career, can claim this).
- Counter-argument: they aren't really comparable. Maybe Clapper was a bit better as a forward (compared to Kelly), but the Wing/Leaf was far better as a defenseman. Clapper was a four-time all-star on D and a two-time all-star upfront - but is that necessarily better than Mahovlich (nine-time all-star), MacInnis (seven-time), Horton (six-time) or Durnan (six-time)? Are we just rewarding versatility for the sake of versatility here?
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? This is a solid one. I debate whether this is more of a quirk/gimmick, or a key attribute. I don't think there's anything "wrong" with a player spending his whole career at one position - as is the case for the overwhelming majority of star players. But this would speak to Clapper's hockey sense and willingness to do what's needed to support his team.
- Argument for: Clapper is the only Bruin to win three Stanley Cup.
- Counter-argument: the Bruins under-achieved during most of Clapper's career. Shore was criticized for a disappointing playoff resume, and rightfully so, and Clapper shouldn't escape that criticism. I realize that Clapper was at defense for two of these victories, but one goal in 28 playoff games (along with six assists) is unimpressive, even by the standards of that low-scoring era. The Bruins were first in the regular season standings seven times (six outright, once tied) - so walking away with three Stanley Cups is disappointing.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? There isn't a lot of information about how Clapper, as an individual, performed in the postseason. We know that his teams were generally disappointing, and his offensive numbers usually weren't great. Three Cups is great, but relative to the length of his career, the size of the league, and the strength of his team, I find it underwhelming.
- Argument for: Clapper retired 5th all-time in scoring, behind only Cowley, Howe, Stewart and Blake - with half his career on the blueline.
- Counter-argument: none of those players are even up for discussion yet - that tells you something right there. (They're all great players, but their scoring totals were inflated by longer schedules compared to the previous generation). Clapper was only top ten in scoring twice - and in one of those seasons (1930) he finished behind his centre Cooney Weiland - and that was a weird season where the NHL changed their rules partway through as some teams took advantage of the sudden liberalization of forward passing. Clapper may not have been a major offensive catalyst - he only led his teams in scoring once in his career (1932 - and the Bruins were bad that year - two points out of last place - so perhaps he wasn't good enough to be the lead player on a strong team), and was second on the team once more (the aforementioned 1930 season). Clapper really only has one semi-notable season according to VsX (his score is barely better than MacInnis's - and Chopper spent his whole career as D).
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? Not a great argument - regular season offense isn't his forte.
- Argument for: Clapper was a two-time Hart finalist (a close runner-up to his teammate Cowley in 1941, and third behind Goodfellow and Apps in 1943). Only one player up this round, Bill Durnan, matches this - and one of his seasons as a finalist was during the talent-depleted WWII.
- Counter-argument: his record looks good against the competition - but three players largely pre-dated the Hart, and two more are defensemen (in the post-Norris era), who rarely get consideration. Selanne may have only been a finalist once, but I find his three top-five finishes much more impressive. Also note that Clapper's two Hart nominations came during the days when defensemen were far more likely to get consideration for that trophy, compared to the past 65 years.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? Superficially this one looks good against this group, but there's a lot of context that needs to be considered here.
- Argument for: partly covered before, but six year-end all-star selections (even if you don't give bonus points for them being at two different positions) is impressive. Three straight first-team selections is excellent.
- Counter-argument: I already explained why this doesn't stand out against half the people up this round (and many of them - Vezina, Malone, Denneny, Benedict - spent most or all of their careers before the NHL awarded year-end all-stars). Besides, I'm not overly impressed by several of his selections. In 1935, when Clapper was on the second team at RW, he only received a single first place vote, compared to Charlie Conacher's 32. Voting for defensemen was a gong show during this era, as there were supposed to be separate votes for LD and RD, but it's obvious from the results that there was a lot of confusion as to who belonged in which position. Also, his 1944 selection can be discounted pretty heavily due to the talent vacuum of WWII.
- How good of a pro-Clapper argument is this? Solid, but with caveats.
Overall I think it's too early for Clapper. There's a lot to like about him - he was healthy, consistent, versatile, and seemed to be a great team player. That would also make him very valuable in an ATD setting. But if we're talking strictly about his historical ranking, unless we're giving a lot of credit for the novelty of him being the NHL's only multi-positional all-star, his resume seems too thin for this round - lots of forgettable years, a low offensive peak (which came during a fluky season), and an underwhelming playoff resume. I also don't know how good he was defensively (he was huge for his era, but a pretty gentle player - but I can't find much about his actual defensive ability). His time will come, but I don't think we're there yet.
