Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 17

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Procedure
  • You will be presented with 10+ players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list (10 players plus anyone with 99% of the voting points of the 10th ranked player)
  • Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
  • You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to quoipourquoi
  • Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
  • The top-4 players will be added to The List in Vote 1, while the top-5 players will be added to The List in subsequent voting cycles (#1-4 in Vote 1, #5-9 in Vote 2, #10-14 in Vote 3, #15-19 in Vote 4, #20-24 in Vote 5, #25-29 in Vote 6, #30-34 in Vote 7, #35-39 in Vote 8, #40-44 in Vote 9, #45-49 in Vote 10, #50-54 in Vote 11, #55-59 in Vote 12, #60-64 in Vote 13, #65-69 in Vote 14, #70-74 in Vote 15, #75-79 in Vote 16, #80-84 in Vote 17, #85-89 in Vote 18, #90-94 in Vote 19, #95-99 in Vote 20)
  • A 100th player will be added to The List in Vote 21 from an expanded group of 15 candidates

Eligible Voters
  • Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 120 players (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the History of Hockey ranking
  • Art of Sedinery, Batis, BenchBrawl, blogofmike, bobholly39, Canadiens1958, ChiTownPhilly, DannyGallivan, Dennis Bonvie, Dr John Carlson, ehhedler, Hockey Outsider, Iceman, ImporterExporter, Johnny Engine, JoseTheodore2002, kruezer, Kyle McMahon, Mike Farkas, MXD, pappyline, quoipourquoi, ResilientBeast, Sentinel, seventieslord, steve141, ted1971, TheDevilMadeMe, TheGeneral, The Macho Man, tony d, VanIslander

Guidelines
  • Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
  • Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
  • Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
  • Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project.

House Rules
  • Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
  • We encourage interpositional discussion (forward vs. defenseman vs. goaltender) as opposed to the safer and somewhat redundant intrapositional debates. Overemphasizing a tired single-position argument like, I don’t know, Harvey/Lidstrom, will only be briefly tolerated before one is asked to move on to a less tedious comparison.
  • Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
  • Finish your drink when someone mentions that goaltenders cannot be compared to skaters

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, March 8th at midnight and continue through Sunday, March 10th at 8:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, March 11th.


Vote 17 Candidates
  • Bill Durnan
  • Bill Gadsby
  • Boris Mikhailov
  • Borje Salming
  • Brett Hull
  • Brian Leetch
  • Elmer Lach
  • Nels Stewart
  • Sergei Fedorov
  • Turk Broda
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,797
16,540
That Fedorov guy is starting to look not so bad, suddenly.

Seriously, other than Salming, it feels early for all of these guys. Starting with Brian Leetch, who'll firmly hold the last spot 'till the end. And I don't even like Salming that much in the grand scheme of things... but he was my 3rd highest unavailable skater from Round 1 (and my ... 9th highest available player), so it's not like I can really complain, other than....

I fully expected Ed Belfour to have been available this round.

Also, that's way too many B's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,797
16,540
Can't believe Brett Hull is still here.
He should have been ranked 30+ positions ago imo

For one, I'm very happy that he's still available here, because he a lot like Nels Stewart, but better at just about everything, which helps put Stewart in context.
 
Last edited:

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
I think Lach, Salming, Durnan are shoo-ins for me early on. Hull & possibly Fedorov being 4/5. The rest seem interchangeable.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,144
14,450
Hart trophy voting results

Player1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th+Total
Brett Hull1 2 1? 3 (4?)
Nels Stewart2 1 3
Elmer Lach111 3
Bill Durnan 11 1 3
Sergei Fedorov1 1 2
Turk Broda 1 1
Borje Salming 1 1
Boris Mikhailov 0
Bill Gadsby 0
Brian Leetch 0
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

See my commentary for the past two rounds on why I gave Hull a question mark for one of his Hart finishes (relates to the dumb voting rules used after the 1994-95 season).

In terms of "quality of league" disclaimers - Lach won his Hart trophy during 1945, at the peak of the talent vacuum. His other two years as a finalist are legit. Stewart won his first Hart trophy in 1926 (right before North American professional hockey was consolidated into one league). Durnan's third place finish was in 1946, when the league was still recovering from the war.

Remember that I'm using a 5% threshold when presenting results. This affected Brian Leetch more than anyone (he got Hart results in three different seasons, but never more than a few at a time).
 
Last edited:

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,144
14,450
VsX - 1927 to 2018

Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 7YR 10YR
Nels Stewart 100.0 97.1 90.7 90.7 88.7 83.0 81.8 81.8 79.5 77.8 90.3 87.1
Brett Hull 113.9 94.0 87.6 82.3 80.8 79.1 78.2 75.2 73.1 71.4 88.0 83.6
Elmer Lach 102.6 101.7 94.2 80.6 78.3 75.8 69.6 68.2 67.2 53.7 86.1 79.2
Sergei Fedorov 100.0 89.2 79.8 75.6 74.7 74.1 71.9 71.4 68.7 66.0 80.8 77.1
Brian Leetch 87.9 82.3 76.5 71.6 70.8 65.8 61.1 58.6 58.6 54.9 73.7 68.8
Bill Gadsby 71.8 67.2 64.8 61.4 53.2 50.7 44.0 38.9 38.8 36.1 59.0 52.7
Borje Salming 74.3 69.7 62.9 59.7 48.9 47.9 42.9 38.1 36.3 35.5 58.0 51.6
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Remember that Sturminator's benchmarks include "fudge factors" for WWII, so Lach's results are probably reasonably accurate.

Note that this excludes Stewart's 1926 campaign (pre consolidation) when he led the league in goals and points by comfortable margins.
 
Last edited:

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,576
10,182
Melonville
I think Lach, Salming, Durnan are shoo-ins for me early on. Hull & possibly Fedorov being 4/5. The rest seem interchangeable.
I'm kinda in the same boat. I had Hull and Durnan as shoe-ins in previous rounds (it's tough being an outlier, sometimes). I like that the often-overlooked Elmer Lach is up. Salming was a very likeable player, but he played for the Leafs which automatically tarnished him ;) I had him 113 on my list of 120, so yeah, I'm thinkin' it's a little early for him. Still liked him, though. Meanwhile, I had Leetch 118. It's safe to say I still have several players still available on my original list of 120.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
I like that Gadsby, Leetch, and Salming are available at the same time - they seem similar in quality to me. None totally wows me now, but they won't be bottom of the list for sure.

I definitely prefer Lach to Fedorov. Not entirely sure where to put Stewart there, but I lean towards having him fairly high. Too bad Ullman and Cowley aren't here, but not worth complaining about.

As one-dimensional goal-scorers go, Stewart had many more great years than Hull, but he doesn't have the clutch thing that Hull does.

Broda will be fairly high for me. Among short prime players, Durnan vs Leetch is worth looking at.

Fedorov might still be last, but it isn't guaranteed.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,450
7,989
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
*raises hand* I have a dumb question...the more I look into it, the less dumb I feel about it, but I'm wearing a lead shirt today, so do your worst...

Was Turk Broda really better than Johnny Bower? Is Broda just a slovenly Billy Smith?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,797
16,540
*raises hand* I have a dumb question...the more I look into it, the less dumb I feel about it, but I'm wearing a lead shirt today, so do your worst...

Was Turk Broda really better than Johnny Bower? Is Broda just a slovenly Billy Smith?

Well, Broda played LOTS of games and his playoff results are, I think, better than Bower.

I don't really think we should care about team records, but it's telling that Broda became the first player to register 300 wins with a single team (and, well, the first player to register 300 wins), despite missing 2.75 seasons to WWII. The next player to achieve this was, I think, Jacques Plante. Much later. With more games per season. Broda had absolutely crazy longevity and had more NHL games than Bower DESPITE shorter sesons and WWII. Bower was stuck in the minors, but maybe if he was, you know, better, somone would've traded for him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wrigley

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
Durnan, Broda, and Fedorov were three of my top five last round, so they start this one at the top of the pile. I'm not sure what the record is for most times listing a player at #1 on a ballot is, but I think I might well set it with Durnan. Not really sure what was said last round to suddenly send Kurri and Denneny sailing past him.

Brett Hull and Nels Stewart both have the lazy/one-dimensional tag with them. I think Hull has fallen about as far as reasonable though. He's been the best goal scorer left on the board for quite a while. Ken Hitchcock and Scott Bowman both wanted him around when they were winning Cups. Stewart has been described as lazy/floater to the extreme...but two Hart Trophies suggest this has to have been exaggerated to some extent.

I like the strong overall games of Lach and Mikhailov, I could be talked into having them in my top five this round.

I had Salming and Gadsby right next to each other on my initial list. I don't think they're out of place, they too could be in the mix for top five for me.

No clear last place for me, though I'd say Leetch might be the early favorite for that.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,797
16,540
Durnan, Broda, and Fedorov were three of my top five last round, so they start this one at the top of the pile. I'm not sure what the record is for most times listing a player at #1 on a ballot is, but I think I might well set it with Durnan.

Martin Brodeur and Ken Dryden, 3 times.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
VsX - 1927 to 2018

Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 7YR 10YR
Nels Stewart 100.0 97.1 90.7 90.7 88.7 83.0 81.8 81.8 79.5 77.8 90.3 87.1
Brett Hull 113.9 94.0 87.6 82.3 80.8 79.1 78.2 75.2 73.1 71.4 88.0 83.6
Elmer Lach 102.6 101.7 94.2 80.6 78.3 75.8 69.6 68.2 67.2 53.7 86.1 79.2
Sergei Fedorov 100.0 89.2 79.8 75.6 74.7 74.1 71.9 71.4 68.7 66.0 80.8 77.1
Brian Leetch 87.9 82.3 76.5 71.6 70.8 65.8 61.1 58.6 58.6 54.9 73.7 68.8
Bill Gadsby 71.8 67.2 64.8 61.4 53.2 50.7 44.0 38.9 38.8 36.1 59.0 52.7
Borje Salming 74.3 69.7 62.9 59.7 48.9 47.9 42.9 38.1 36.3 35.5 58.0 51.6
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Remember that Sturminator's benchmarks include "fudge factors" for WWII, so Lach's results are probably reasonably accurate.

Note that this excludes Stewart's 1926 campaign (pre consolidation) when he led the league in goals and points by comfortable margins.

Finally some of the backlog of non-modern centers appear.

Elmer Lach - great two-way player - probably not as good defensively as Fedorov, but his offensive results are quite a bit higher. Keep in mind that (as HO says), the current VsX model already discounts war years, so we don't have to make a mental fudge like we did in the centers project.

Lach seems to have played a "bigger than his size" style similar to Forsberg, and like Forsberg, was often injured. So end of season metrics like VsX probably underrate him a bit. On the other hand, Lach regularly centered Maurice Richard, However Hart voting shows Lach was a finalist 3 times (1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes), so voters had a lot of respect for his overall game.

Lach will definitely be in my top 5 this round.

Nels Stewart - Great comparison to Brett Hull. As noted above, his best season came before 1926, yet his offense still looks tops this round. As a regular season goal scorer, Stewart is easily #1 this round.

Stewart was great in the 1926 playoffs as a rookie (Retroactive Conn Smythe), and generally poor afterwards.

Seems to have been a decent all-round player as a rookie too, then gotten lazy and started letting his teammates do the hard work to get him the puck in scoring position.

Still, if there is any player who should get in based on regular season goal scoring alone:

Goals
1925-26 NHL 34 (1st)
1926-27 NHL 17 (8th)
1927-28 NHL 27 (3rd)
1928-29 NHL 21 (2nd)
1929-30 NHL 39 (4th)
1930-31 NHL 25 (4th)
1931-32 NHL 22 (7th)
1932-33 NHL 18 (9th)
1933-34 NHL 22 (3rd)
1934-35 NHL 21 (6th)
1936-37 NHL 23 (1st)
1937-38 NHL 19 (8th)
1938-39 NHL 16 (9th)
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Stewart has a pretty good shot at my top 5 this round.
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,811
762
Helsinki, Finland
Too bad a player like Maltsev and/or Martinec isn't available; not that I would rank them above Mikhailov, but they'd still be relevant contemporaries (and at least Maltsev would have a decent case vs Mikhailov).
 
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Elmer Lach's all-round game

In 1948, Canadiens coach Dick Irvin called Lach "the perfect 4 way center" - not only could he score goals and backcheck, but he was also adept at going to both sides of the ice. I assume this is contrasting Lach's creativity with the kind of center who would mostly stay in his lane. (@ehhedler posted this in the centers project)

The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

Irvin loved Lach:

During the past couple of weeks, we have listened to a (???) of talk about great centres and their style of play. Dick Irvin declares that only two in recent years had the capacity to "make" wings. "One was Bill Cowley, and the other was Elmer Lach," said Dick. "Cowley was the better playmaker, but he wasn't as good a hockey player as Elmer because he was weak defensively."

Dink Carroll, The Montreal Gazette - March 10, 1952
The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search

More sources on Lach's all-round game:

Legends of Hockey said:
Most observers were particularly impressed with (Lach's) blinding speed and devotion to defensive play. He was brash and confident but quickly earned the respect of the coaching staff and his peers through his dogged work ethic, which was evident on every shift.

Legends of Hockey: One on One said:
The rookie scored 7 goals and 14 assists that season, but impressed with his dogged determination; battling in the corners, backchecking and pursuing the puck at all costs.

Few NHL'ers have been able to match the determination to return to the ice after suffering a major injury like Lach did throughout his extraordinary career.

The toughness and talent of the Punch Line led the Canadiens.

But the points, as impressive as they are, reflect but one aspect of an outstanding career. The skilled centre was master of the faceoff and was effective defensively as he was in the offensive zone.

Who's Who in Hockey said:
(In 1942) Lach elevated to first-line status, where the aggressive forward took a regular shift, skated on the power play, and killed penalty as well.

_____________________________

Lach's runner up Hart finish in 1951-52 was largely due to his performance with Maurice Richard out of the lineup

In the center's project, @overpass noted how strong Lach's performance was in 1951-52 when Maurice Richard was injured:

overpass said:
Re: Lach playing with Richard, consider his 1951-52 season. He increased his scoring rate with Richard out for 22 games, carried the Habs to a winning record over that time, and was a strong second in Hart voting (to Gordie Howe).

Compare to, say, Ron Francis' s scoring record with Jagr out of the lineup (not good). Lach didn't entirely rely on his superstar winger for his offence.

Here's a contemporary source on Lach's play during the season:

Bruins coach Lynn Patrick said:
When a player gets older and begins to slow up he gets smarter. I always thought he was a good playmaker, but not a great one in the sense that Bill Cowley was great. Now he's making plays that I never saw him make before. He's better than ever in that respect.

The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,880
13,671
Disappointed in no Eddie Gerard or Serge Savard.

To posters who saw all of them play: Wasn't Bill Gadsby a good notch above Salming and Leetch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadiens1958

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
13,450
7,989
NYC
www.hockeyprospect.com
I don't think so, no.

I will say that Gadsby may have been hurt statistically - if I'm remembering right - by having to deal with some five-forward power plays in Detroit. Delvecchio and Ullman occupied the points often in Detroit. So - if I'm correct in remembering - Gadsby got older but didn't get a lot of easy minutes or slightly easier points...

Leetch was a better talent, but Leetch wasn't nearly as good defensively of course. Salming was more well-rounded than both for me.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,779
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Disappointed in no Eddie Gerard or Serge Savard.

To posters who saw all of them play: Wasn't Bill Gadsby a good notch above Salming and Leetch?

Gadsby was more physical - 1956 almost ended Horton'scareer with a clean, open ice hit.

Also, Gadsby had a more complete defensive toolbox - shot blocker, better slot control.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,880
13,671
Biggest knock on Gadsby, the so-called "3rd man" behind a supreme duo of competition in Doug Harvey and Red Kelly, is that he lost the Norris to Tom Johnson in 1959, after Tom Johnson got the opportunity to shine in Harvey's absence due to an injury.Kelly was a nonfactor in Norris voting by that point.

Age was not a factor, Gadsby was 31 and Johnson 30.

Maybe that says more about Tom Johnson's hidden abilities than Gadsby's though.
 

K Fleur

Sacrifice
Mar 28, 2014
15,408
25,588
If this post belongs in the previous voting thread I apologize.

A lot of talk about whether Fedorov is romanticized due to his one big season(93-94)

From 94-95 through 02-03 Fedorov was the 21st highest scoring player in the league. He was also 3rd in playoff points during that same stretch. Important to remember that points weren’t the only thing Fedorov brought to the game. Still a relatively unimpressive regular season performer.

I picked that particular stretch of his career because it was immediately post Hart trophy through Fedorov’s last season with Detroit and of significant relevance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VanIslander

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,981
Brooklyn
Compilation of posts on Nels Stewart from the HOH centers project


Link to overpass's thread thread on Nels' rookie season (the best season of his career and one of the best rookie seasons ever): Nels Stewart and the 1926 Montreal Maroons

The information is the thread is quite long and detailed. I'm not going to repost here, but I'd urge voters to at least skim the OP of that thread.

My short response:

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Well done (overpass). The profile of Stewart after his career was big, mean, smart, elite stickhandler, slow, and incredibly lazy. I am not surprised that when he was motivated, he could have been a strong two-way player in an era of no-forward passing (so skating was less important).

Motivation seems key.

I found this article where one writer gave his All-Star selections for the 1928-29 season. It was during a brief period in Stewart's career when he played left wing:

He chose Nels Stewart as his All Star LW, followed by Joliat closely over George Hay

About Stewart:
a big man, dangerously rough at times, a very hard man to check, and one of the most finished players around the goal. In one game at Montreal I saw Stewart back-check like a most enthusiastic rookie, but after his team had scored two goals, he assumed his careless manner, merely standing around until someone brought the puck up to him... must drive a manager frantic... but when bearing down, he is the best left wing in the game.
The Morning Leader - Google News Archive Search

SO by 1928-29, Stewart's "careless manner" of standing around letting his teammates do all the work was already well established, though he was still a strong backchecker when he wanted to be.

Then there's this passage from Eddie Shore and that Old Time Hockey, quoted in Dreakmur's ATD profile:

The Maroons center, Nels Stewart, had it in for Shore all night. He managed a stiff check, but otherwise could not get the Bruin. As Boston scored more unanswered goals, Stewart’s frustration grew, and in the third period he took it out on Frank Frederickson, caught off balance from just having shot the puck near the boards. Stewart was known to be so lazy that he bothered to move his hefty frame only to take a shot on net or to hit somebody, and on this occasion, true to form, he leisurely shifted his bulk over a few inches to connect with Frederickson. The Bruin went up into the air, hitting his head off the wire fence above the back boards, bounced off, and landed back on the ice, face down. He didn’t move. Fans leapt into the ice and Frederickson was carried off, comatose, by the faithful to the dressing room.

But that book was written well after Stewart's career.

My take is that Stewart was capable of being a force all over the ice (at least prior to the forward pass), but that as his career went on, he got lazier and lazier, letting his linemates do all the hard work. The famous "S Line" (Babe Siebert, Nels Stewart, Hooley Smith) basically turned the two wingers (who were good enough to be HHOFers when not playing with Stewart) into glorified grinders who would do all the puck retrieval and backchecking for the line, while Stewart's slow ass cherrypicked.

This is consistent with Stewart's awards recognition. He won his second Hart Trophy in 1929-30, but barely factors into the awards voting in the 1930s, despite still racking up the goals.
____________________-

One minor factoid about Stewart: He was the second center of his generation enshrined in the HHOF. Morenz (1945) then Stewart (1952), then Frank Boucher (1958).

_____________________-

Posts on Stewart's brief stint as a defenseman early in his career:

The game story from February 7, 1927 sheds some light on how Nels Stewart was used on defense by Eddie Gerard with the Montréal Maroons. The game story itself is a great read offering insight into pre forward pass NHL hockey:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4XwuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5osFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=6544,844175

The paragraph above the team rosters and summary détails how Eddie Gerard moved Nels Stewart back to defense in an effort to catch-up from a one goal deficit. Cecil Hart countered by playing Sylvio Mantha at right wing.

Nels Stewart was a LHS so playing a defenseman like Sylvio Mantha would put him opposite Nels Stewart playing LD as a checker.

The game story also raises questions about Nels Stewart and speed. From the article it is clear that the Canadiens held a speed advantage over the Maroons, especially at center. Yet the speed that Nels Stewart brought when positioned on defense was such that a regular winger was not sufficient to cover him. An extra defenseman had to be used


This tends to indicate that Nels Stewart did not have the elite Howie Morenz speed but he definitely had at least typical center speed that required special attention.

TheDevilMadeMe said:
I think the most interesting part of the article is that the motivation for moving Stewart back to D was to get an extra forward in the lineup to try to come back from a deficit. I didn't see anything in the article referring to Stewart's speed though, and we have several other sources that refer to his lack of speed, even as a fairly young player.

Nels Stewart vs Joe Malone as goal scorers

I'm burying the bulk of this in a quote, as Malone went a few rounds ago.

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Why just goal scoring and not points? 2 reasons:

1) The recording of assists at the time was relatively spotty, especially when Joe Malone played. Assists were recorded for Stewart's career, but at a lower level than today. For a good portion of Malone's career, they were not officially recorded.

2) Neither player was known as much of a playmaker, so focusing on goals is focusing on what each man did best.

I'm treating the NHA the same as the NHL, since it was basically the same league under a different name.

Top 10 goal finishes

Malone: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 4, 4, 6
Stewart: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9

Doing it this way is something of an apples to oranges comparison because half the talent was in the Western Leagues during Malone's career, while only one of Stewart's goal scoring titles (and his only Art Ross) occurred before the last Western League folded.

An attempt to equalize the competition = Vs2 for pre-consolidation seasons and Vs4 for post-consolidation seasons

I dislike the use of Vs1, because it makes it impossible to score over 100. Basically, Vs2 is the player's percentage of the 2nd best scorer, and Vs4 is the percentage of the fourth best scorer.

Rationale = when only about half the world's talent was in the NHA/NHL, the 2nd best NHA/NHL scorer was approximately equal to the 4th best NHA/NHL scorer after consolidation. Remember this is goals only.

Joe Malone is being compared to the 2nd best goal scorer in the NHA/NHL for his career. Nels Stewart is being compared to the 2nd best in 1925-26, 4th best for all seasons after that.

Malone Vs2/4 goal scoring scores: 148, 122, 105, 100, 100, 82, 77, 77, 75
Stewart Vs2/4 goal scoring scores: 124, 121, 117, 110, 100, 100, 100, 95, 90, 89, 85, 82, 76, 74

I'll leave my conclusions outside the quote:
  • Joe Malone's 1913 NHA season (when he score 43 goals vs 29 for second place) is the most impressive goal scoring season between the two players.
  • Overall, their best 5 years as goal scorers are too close to call (a 575-572 margin for Malone is easily within the margin of error for something like this)
  • Nels Stewart had significantly more longevity as an elite goal scorer, easily beating Malone in every season past the 5 year mark, and having an overall 14-8 advantage in relevant seasons.
I don't think that, as a group, players of Malone's generation had longevity that was any worse than Stewart's generation (see Newsy Lalonde), so I think a straight up comparison of their longevity as elite players is fair.

New 2019 comment: 2 factors in Joe Malone's favor that weren't originally present in my OP:

1) While Stewart certainly seemed capable of driving the play in the late 1920s, for the bulk of his goal scoring prime in the 1930s, he seemed to lazily stand or skate around as a pure finisher and let teammates do all the hard work. How much of this was due to laziness and how much of it was due to the greater role of speed in game after the forward pass was allowed in 1930 (Stewart was a notorious slow skater).

2) Malone seems to have been "ok" defensively. Stewart was actually pretty good as a rookie, but was a floater for most of his career.

That said, I don't think Stewart should go too far below Malone.

Relevant to this round, I'd like to compare Stewart to Brett Hull. @Hockey Outsider , do you have the VsX equivalent for just goal scoring between Hull and Stewart?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,353
A quick and dirty argument for Bill Durnan...(I won't repost a bunch of stuff from previous discussions, it's all there for everyone to see).

When Durnan finished his career, it is not outlandish that he might have been considered the best ever at his position. This was an argument that was successfully made for Vezina, who has been on the list for a while. The contemporary challenger to Vezina's claim, Clint Benedict, also got elected two rounds ago. Charlie Gardiner was the next goaltender who could possibly make this claim, and he topped voting last round. Finally, Durnan's contemporary Frank Brimsek has a solid case for retiring as the game's greatest netminder, and he too was listed ages ago.

This will apply to Broda's candidacy as well, but there seems to be a peculiar gap forming between the WWI era of goaltenders and the WWII era. Questions were raised, reasonably so in my opinion, about the importance and quality of goaltending in the pre-forward pass era on back. It seems to be generally accepted that the position evolved continuously and grew in importance as the years went on. The high rankings of Plante, Hall, and Sawchuk would indicate that the position had definitely "arrived" by the early 1950s, and unless evidence to the contrary is presented, it seems reasonable to assume this growth was fairly linear.

Yet here we stand with Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner now listed, while Brimsek is the lone goaltender from a pretty broad expanse (1935-1950 or so) to make the list. At this point, keeping Durnan or Broda out again would be hard to fathom. Unless somebody wants to argue that the quality of goaltending circa 1920 was superior to the quality circa 1950. Because the second-best goaltender from the WWI era (deemed to be Benedict by our panel) is already going to be at least a handful of spots better than the second-best from the WWII era (be it Durnan or Broda), despite apparent universal agreement that the goaltender position improved considerably between the two time periods.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad