Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

[ted2019]

Iginla vs Gilmour is an interesting comparison. Both have tremendous longevity, and very strong prime/career numbers.

Does Iginla get the overall edge offensively on Gilmour? Because without it - I don't see a case for him above Gilmour. Gilmour has:

- Better peak (Iginla may have done better vs peers, but Gilmour had tougher competition at peak)
- Better playoffs (clearly)
- Better defensively (clearly)

I know Iginla is clearly better goal-scorer, but to me that's a component of overall offense.

Iginla AS: 1,1,1,2,3,5,5
Gilmour AS: 3,3,5,7

Iginla Hart: 2,2,3,10
Gilmour Hart: 2,4,5

Iginla Pearson: 1
Gilmour Selke: 1,2,5,6,6

Iginla also had a Richard & Art Ross.

 

[ted2019]

Bill Quackenbush and Drew Doughty interest me here. They are the only two candidates of this group of 14 that was not eligible in the final round of the previous project (which had 21 names). So they did some leapfrogging with this group of voters.

Big fan of Quackenbush and think that he might Gerard as my top defenseman. My defensemen will probably be as of now:
Quackenbush
Savard
Gerard
Vasiliev
Doughty/Karlsson

 

[Professor What]

For defensemen, my initial stance is that Kalrsson, Quackenbush, and Vasliev are my top three defensemen, and I think they're probably pretty well locked into my vote. Gerard is in contention for my ballot, but it's a bit early for Doughty and Savard for me personally.

All of the forwards look potentially viable to me, though I'm interested in arguments selling Bowie at this point of the project since he was the lowest of the current forwards on my list.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Big fan of Quackenbush and think that he might Gerard as my top defenseman. My defensemen will probably be as of now:
Quackenbush
Savard
Gerard
Vasiliev
Doughty/Karlsson

I get a bad vibe about a defenseman (Quakenbush) who wins the Lady Byng trophy.

The Quaker also played in an era of weak defensive competition. Though he did grab a 2nd team all-star berth when Harvey, Kelly and Gadsby were in the league in 1952-53.

 

[bobholly39]

Iginla AS: 1,1,1,2,3,5,5
Gilmour AS: 3,3,5,7

Iginla Hart: 2,2,3,10
Gilmour Hart: 2,4,5

Iginla Pearson: 1
Gilmour Selke: 1,2,5,6,6

Iginla also had a Richard & Art Ross.

How relevant are even the AS selections in this comparison though? Right wing vs Center - and Center in a league with Lemieux, Gretzky, Lindros...and peaks of guys like Yzerman, Fedorov, Lafontaine and others. In Iginla's best season, his competition was Guerin, Kovalev and Hossa. Not exactly the same thing.

Iginla definitely has the advantage in goal-scoring and Rocket (he has 2) - Gilmour on the Selke.

Gilmour gets a big edge on playoffs as well, where Iginla is lacking.

 

[Professor What]

I get a bad vibe about a defenseman (Quakenbush) who wins the Lady Byng trophy.

The Quaker also played in an era of weak defensive competition. Though he did grab a 2nd team all-star berth when Harvey, Kelly and Gadsby were in the league in 1952-53.

Well, he never won it, but Lidstrom was a five-time runner-up for the Byng. Even if there's disagreement on where he lands in the top five, it's generally well agreed that St. Nick is one of the top five all-time defensemen. I'm not going to penalize Quackenbush for that.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Well, he never won it, but Lidstrom was a five-time runner-up for the Byng. Even if there's disagreement on where he lands in the top five, it's generally well agreed that St. Nick is one of the top five all-time defensemen. I'm not going to penalize Quackenbush for that.

There was a bit more premium placed on physicality when Quackenbush played.

That said, Red Kelly also won a Byng. But I don't think Quackenbush was on the same level as Kelly and Lidstrom.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

For defensemen, my initial stance is that Kalrsson, Quackenbush, and Vasliev are my top three defensemen, and I think they're probably pretty well locked into my vote. Gerard is in contention for my ballot, but it's a bit early for Doughty and Savard for me personally.

All of the forwards look potentially viable to me, though I'm interested in arguments selling Bowie at this point of the project since he was the lowest of the current forwards on my list.

There is an article by Bill Schoeninger, a write for the Flyers, that's titled, "Russell Bowie: The Pre-NHL Wayne Gretzky". That title alone should give you an idea about how good Bowie was.

 

[MXD]

A random take on Bill Quackenbush :
He did receive a very, very solitary Hart vote (2nd place in 1951) on a year where he was apparently very clearly the second most valuable player on his team (to Milt Schmidt, who did win the Hart). He did lead what looks on paper to be a very underwhelming defensive group (Fern Flaman wasn't yet a regular) playing ahead of a netminder that can definitely be described as "not great" in a league-wide sense (Jack Gelineau). The Bruins finished 4th, barely making the playoffs.

He also finished T3 in scoring for D's (tied with Doug Harvey), behind Jimmy Thomson and way, way behind the man that probably made him expendable with the Wings, Red Kelly.

His lone vote can possibly be dismissed as an homer vote (if Schmidt was also first) or a clueless vote (if Schmidt wasn't anywhere on the ballot), but there's probably something to be said of making that group of D look somewhat NHL worthy. He was also deemed better than the higher scoring Thomson, who did feature on a much more deeper team and D-squad.

But there's something that annoys me quite a bit with Quackenbush (and not his Byng support) : it seems like Detroit exploded just as he left. There's no shame in being not as good as Red Kelly, but for a player that apparently logged a ton of minutes for teams that usually could score, his numbers are a bit underwhelming.

 

[Professor What]

There was a bit more premium placed on physicality when Quackenbush played.

That said, Red Kelly also won a Byng. But I don't think Quackenbush was on the same level as Kelly and Lidstrom.

Agreed on all points, but defensemen were also once generally expected to stay back and cover their own end first, second, and third. You have to have players that foster the changes that take place in the style of the game over the years, and I think it could be argued that Quackenbush was a player that demonstrated that playing strong defense didn't have to be the violent affair it once was. It also wasn't too many years after Quackenbush that Stan Mikita made the transition between being the kind of guy that would knock your block off for looking at him the wrong way to being a gentlemanly player. So far from that complete shift meaning he was viewed as less impactful player, it can be argued that his best play came after that, as he won his two Harts in the two full seasons he amassed the fewest penalty minutes. So, ultimately, I'd argue that Quackenbush might have been key player in the beginning of a long term paradigm shift.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Something to consider regarding Doug Gilmour: his 1984-1986 are virtually all even-strength numbers. Just 27 total powerplay points spread across those three years (9, 11, 7).

It took Gilmour leading the 1986 playoffs in scoring for the Blues to give him a consistent role on the powerplay in 1986-87, and he immediately finished 2nd in powerplay scoring with 42 points to Gretzky’s 46. He added another 44 the following season.

So while he comes across as a slow-starter, there is a very obvious issue of opportunity at play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bill Quackenbush and Drew Doughty interest me here. They are the only two candidates of this group of 14 that was not eligible in the final round of the previous project (which had 21 names). So they did some leapfrogging with this group of voters.

Here are a couple of posts from the defensemen project, where Quackenbush finished tied with Mark Howe:

Bill Quackenbush - Arguably the best defenseman of the late 1940s, Quackenbush played a style similar to Nicklas Lidstrom - near-perfect positional defense without relying on physical play, a rarity for defensemen at the time. Despite playing excellent defense, Quack once went 131 consecutive games without recording a penalty, becoming the first defenseman in history to win the Lady Byng award. Credited with teaching Red Kelly (the only other defenseman to win the Lady Byng) how to play defense. He was also one of the best offensive defensemen of the era, but it was an extremely weak era for offensive defensemen. Lack of playoff success might be a concern. LOH = "He was among the NHL's elite rushing blueliners. More significantly, he was a superior defender in his own end who relied on positioning and discipline rather than physical intimidation for his success."

Link to an @overpass post on how Quack played (primarily a stick checker, but got away with some things too): Round 2, Vote 6 (HOH Top Defensemen)

Here's an old ATD profile on Quackenbush: ATD2011 Bio Thread
______________________________

Here are how the available defensemen compare to defensemen who are already ranked in Norris/All-Star voting (my methods described above):

Zdeno Chara (ranked 89th): 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3 ,4, 5, 7, 8
Bill Gadsby (ranked 90th): 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11
Duncan Keith (ranked 94th): 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 7, 9, 11, 11
Mark Howe (ranked 95th): 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11
Brian Leetch (ranked 97th): 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, 8, 11, 11
______________
Bill Quackenbush: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 7
Drew Doughty: 1, 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 9
Erik Karlsson: 1, 1, 2, 2, 7
Serge Savard: 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 8

(I removed Quack's 10th place finish in a war year for what should be obvious reasons. All his listed finishes now were after the war years, though the competition was likely still a little weaker than for any of the other defensemen mentioned in this post)

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

First impressions:

• I have no idea what to do with Bowie, but first impression is to make him wait a couple of rounds until we add some of the true stars of stronger eras.

With regards to Russell Bowie, I did a bunch calculations in tarheelhockey's thread here. I just assumed that the de facto strongest league until circa 1903 (CAHL) was drawing from the same shaped distribution as the current much larger NHL. Just looking at the top-10 scorers of 1900-01,

1901	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	24	3.91	72	63
Lorne Campbell	Montreal	7	10	3.75	72	27
Arthur Farrell	Shamrocks	8	10	4.13	82	25
Harold Henry	Ottawa	8	8	4.28	82	19
Blair Russel	Victorias	8	8	3.91	82	21
Arthur Sixsmith	Ottawa	7	7	4.28	72	17
Harry Trihey	Shamrocks	7	7	4.13	72	17
Charlie Liffiton	Montreal	8	6	3.75	82	16
Harry Westwick	Ottawa	7	6	4.28	72	14
Edward Stuart	Victorias	5	6	3.91	51	16
Jack Smith	Ottawa	4	6	4.28	41	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Everything is adjusted to an environment similar to that of 2018-19. (For those wondering, that means that I'm adjusting to opponent GA/GP of 3.00, to an 82-game regular season, and to 18-skater rosters as opposed to 6-skater rosters.)

Frankly, I don't think that the results are out of line. An adjusted 14-goal season making the top-10 with the runner-up season being an adjusted 27-goal season would seem to reflect the relative shallowness of that era fairly well. By way of comparison, in 2019 the 10th place goal-scorer had 41 goals, and the runner-up had 50. Furthermore, in 2019, 14 goals lands you at 186th in scoring while 27 goals lands you at 59th. Is the NHL currently roughly 19-30 times deeper than the CAHL of 1901? Yeah, probably.

For the rest of Bowie's career (to 1907-08):

Spoiler

1902	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Archie Hooper	Montreal	8	17	4.25	82	41
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	13	3.94	72	34
Jack Marshall	Montreal	8	11	4.25	82	27
Rat Westwick	Ottawa	8	11	4.25	82	27
Bruce Stuart	Ottawa	8	9	4.25	82	22
Blair Russel	Victorias	8	9	3.94	82	23
Charlie Liffiton	Montreal	8	8	4.25	82	19
Harold Henry	Ottawa	8	6	4.25	82	14
Edward Stuart	Victorias	6	6	3.94	62	16
Percy Lemesurier	Quebec	4	5	3.66	41	14
Hod Stuart	Quebec	8	5	3.66	82	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1903	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	22	4.88	72	46
Frank McGee	Ottawa	6	14	5.1	62	28
Herb Jordan	Quebec	7	12	4.49	72	27
Billy Gilmour	Ottawa	7	10	5.1	72	20
Archie Hooper	Montreal	6	9	5.05	62	18
Jack Marshall	Montreal	7	8	5.05	72	16
Blair Russell	Victorias	8	7	4.88	82	15
Dave Gilmour	Ottawa	4	7	5.1	41	14
Suddy Gilmour	Ottawa	7	7	5.1	72	14
Harry Bright	Shamrocks	8	7	4.17	82	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1904	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	8	27	6.87	82	40
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	6	19	7.86	62	25
Russell, Blair	Victorias	8	17	6.87	82	25
Howard, Cavie	Victorias	6	16	6.87	62	24
McGee, Frank	Ottawa	4	12	7.39	41	17
Sargent, Grover	Montreal	6	11	7.03	62	16
Power, Joe	Quebec	6	10	7.86	62	13
Coulson, Herbert	Montreal	6	8	7.03	62	12
Smith, Alf	Ottawa	4	8	7.39	41	11
Foulis, Colin	Shamrocks	6	7	6.01	62	12

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1905	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	8	27	6.22	73	40
Russel, Blair	Victorias	8	19	6.22	73	28
Power, Joe	Quebec	9	15	6.48	82	21
Foulis, Colin	Westmount	7	13	6.21	64	19
Russell, Ernie	Montreal	8	11	6.55	73	15
Ross, Art	Westmount	8	10	6.21	73	15
Hogan, Eddie	Quebec	9	10	6.48	82	14
Church, Tom	Westmount	9	9	6.21	82	13
Howard, Cavie	Victorias	8	9	6.22	73	13
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	8	9	6.48	73	13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1906	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Smith, Harry	Ottawa	8	31	6.68	66	38
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	9	30	6.06	74	41
McGee, Frank	Ottawa	7	28	6.68	57	34
Power, Joe	Quebec	10	21	6.12	82	28
Russell, Ernie	Wanderers	6	21	6.76	49	25
Smaill, Walter	Montreal	10	17	6.26	82	22
Patrick, Lester	Wanderers	9	17	6.76	74	21
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	8	16	6.12	66	22
Smith, Alf	Ottawa	10	13	6.68	82	16
Johnson, Ernie	Montreal	10	12	6.26	82	16

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1907	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell, Ernie	Wanderers	9	42	8.30	74	42
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	10	38	7.68	82	41
Russell, Blair	Victorias	10	25	7.68	82	27
Smith, Harry	Ottawa	9	21	8.00	74	22
Sargent, Grover	Montreal	10	20	7.42	82	22
Hale, Chandler	Victorias	7	18	7.68	57	19
Smith, Alf	Ottawa	9	17	8.00	74	17
Shore, Hamby	Ottawa	10	17	8.00	82	17
Johnson, Ernie	Montreal	10	15	7.42	82	17
Constantine, Charles	Quebec	7	15	7.32	57	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1908	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell Bowie	Victorias	10	31	6.62	82	38
Marty Walsh	Ottawa	9	28	7.16	74	32
Tommy Phillips	Ottawa	10	26	7.16	82	30
Charles Power	Quebec	10	23	6.70	82	28
Herb Jordan	Quebec	8	22	6.70	66	27
Ernie Russell	Wanderers	9	21	7.14	74	24
Jack Marshall	Shamrocks	9	19	7.20	74	22
Joe Eveleigh	Montreal	8	16	6.08	66	22
Joe Power	Quebec	10	13	6.70	82	16
Alf Smith	Ottawa	9	13	7.16	74	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Using 2018-19 as a rough guide, Bowie would have top-20 goal-scoring finishes of 1, 4, 10, 10, 12, 12, 14. I would estimate Bowie's 7-year VsX (goals) to be 44.1, which would sandwich him between Andy Bathgate and Joe Sakic. (Jarome Iginla's VsX for goals is 46.5.) If one treats goals as points (since assists weren't recorded), then Bowie's 7-year VsX (points) would be 88.3, which puts sandwiches him between Peter Stastny (88.4) and Jari Kurri (88.1). (Iginla's VsX for points is 86.7.)

So the good news is that I think Bowie is actually in the ballpark of at least two of this round's contenders (Iginla and Stastny).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

With regards to Russell Bowie, I did a bunch calculations in tarheelhockey's thread here. I just assumed that the de facto strongest league until circa 1903 (CAHL) was drawing from the same sample as the current much larger NHL. Just looking at the top-10 scorers of 1900-01,

1901	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	24	3.91	72	63
Lorne Campbell	Montreal	7	10	3.75	72	27
Arthur Farrell	Shamrocks	8	10	4.13	82	25
Harold Henry	Ottawa	8	8	4.28	82	19
Blair Russel	Victorias	8	8	3.91	82	21
Arthur Sixsmith	Ottawa	7	7	4.28	72	17
Harry Trihey	Shamrocks	7	7	4.13	72	17
Charlie Liffiton	Montreal	8	6	3.75	82	16
Harry Westwick	Ottawa	7	6	4.28	72	14
Edward Stuart	Victorias	5	6	3.91	51	16
Jack Smith	Ottawa	4	6	4.28	41	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Everything is adjusted to an environment similar to that of 2018-19. (For those wondering, that means that I'm adjusting to opponent GA/GP of 3.00, to an 82-game regular season, and to 18-skater rosters as opposed to 6-skater rosters.)

Frankly, I don't think that the results are out of line. An adjusted 14-goal season making the top-10 with the runner-up season being an adjusted 27-goal season would seem to reflect the relative shallowness of that era fairly well. By way of comparison, in 2019 the 10th place goal-scorer had 41 goals, and the runner-up had 50. Furthermore, in 2019, 14 goals lands you at 186th in scoring while 27 goals lands you at 59th. Is the NHL currently roughly 19-30 times deeper than the CAHL of 1901? Yeah, probably.

For the rest of Bowie's career (to 1907-08):

Spoiler

1902	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Archie Hooper	Montreal	8	17	4.25	82	41
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	13	3.94	72	34
Jack Marshall	Montreal	8	11	4.25	82	27
Rat Westwick	Ottawa	8	11	4.25	82	27
Bruce Stuart	Ottawa	8	9	4.25	82	22
Blair Russel	Victorias	8	9	3.94	82	23
Charlie Liffiton	Montreal	8	8	4.25	82	19
Harold Henry	Ottawa	8	6	4.25	82	14
Edward Stuart	Victorias	6	6	3.94	62	16
Percy Lemesurier	Quebec	4	5	3.66	41	14
Hod Stuart	Quebec	8	5	3.66	82	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1903	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	22	4.88	72	46
Frank McGee	Ottawa	6	14	5.1	62	28
Herb Jordan	Quebec	7	12	4.49	72	27
Billy Gilmour	Ottawa	7	10	5.1	72	20
Archie Hooper	Montreal	6	9	5.05	62	18
Jack Marshall	Montreal	7	8	5.05	72	16
Blair Russell	Victorias	8	7	4.88	82	15
Dave Gilmour	Ottawa	4	7	5.1	41	14
Suddy Gilmour	Ottawa	7	7	5.1	72	14
Harry Bright	Shamrocks	8	7	4.17	82	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1904	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	8	27	6.87	82	40
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	6	19	7.86	62	25
Russell, Blair	Victorias	8	17	6.87	82	25
Howard, Cavie	Victorias	6	16	6.87	62	24
McGee, Frank	Ottawa	4	12	7.39	41	17
Sargent, Grover	Montreal	6	11	7.03	62	16
Power, Joe	Quebec	6	10	7.86	62	13
Coulson, Herbert	Montreal	6	8	7.03	62	12
Smith, Alf	Ottawa	4	8	7.39	41	11
Foulis, Colin	Shamrocks	6	7	6.01	62	12

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1905	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	8	27	6.22	73	40
Russel, Blair	Victorias	8	19	6.22	73	28
Power, Joe	Quebec	9	15	6.48	82	21
Foulis, Colin	Westmount	7	13	6.21	64	19
Russell, Ernie	Montreal	8	11	6.55	73	15
Ross, Art	Westmount	8	10	6.21	73	15
Hogan, Eddie	Quebec	9	10	6.48	82	14
Church, Tom	Westmount	9	9	6.21	82	13
Howard, Cavie	Victorias	8	9	6.22	73	13
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	8	9	6.48	73	13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1906	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Smith, Harry	Ottawa	8	31	6.68	66	38
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	9	30	6.06	74	41
McGee, Frank	Ottawa	7	28	6.68	57	34
Power, Joe	Quebec	10	21	6.12	82	28
Russell, Ernie	Wanderers	6	21	6.76	49	25
Smaill, Walter	Montreal	10	17	6.26	82	22
Patrick, Lester	Wanderers	9	17	6.76	74	21
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	8	16	6.12	66	22
Smith, Alf	Ottawa	10	13	6.68	82	16
Johnson, Ernie	Montreal	10	12	6.26	82	16

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1907	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell, Ernie	Wanderers	9	42	8.30	74	42
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	10	38	7.68	82	41
Russell, Blair	Victorias	10	25	7.68	82	27
Smith, Harry	Ottawa	9	21	8.00	74	22
Sargent, Grover	Montreal	10	20	7.42	82	22
Hale, Chandler	Victorias	7	18	7.68	57	19
Smith, Alf	Ottawa	9	17	8.00	74	17
Shore, Hamby	Ottawa	10	17	8.00	82	17
Johnson, Ernie	Montreal	10	15	7.42	82	17
Constantine, Charles	Quebec	7	15	7.32	57	17

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1908	Club	GP	G	Oppo. GA	Adj. GP	Adj. G
Russell Bowie	Victorias	10	31	6.62	82	38
Marty Walsh	Ottawa	9	28	7.16	74	32
Tommy Phillips	Ottawa	10	26	7.16	82	30
Charles Power	Quebec	10	23	6.70	82	28
Herb Jordan	Quebec	8	22	6.70	66	27
Ernie Russell	Wanderers	9	21	7.14	74	24
Jack Marshall	Shamrocks	9	19	7.20	74	22
Joe Eveleigh	Montreal	8	16	6.08	66	22
Joe Power	Quebec	10	13	6.70	82	16
Alf Smith	Ottawa	9	13	7.16	74	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Using 2018-19 as a rough guide, Bowie would have top-20 goal-scoring finishes of 1, 4, 10, 10, 12, 12, 14. I would estimate Bowie's 7-year VsX (goals) to be 44.1, which would sandwich him between Andy Bathgate and Joe Sakic. (Jarome Iginla's VsX for goals is 46.5.) If one treats goals as points (since assists weren't recorded), then Bowie's 7-year VsX (points) would be 88.3, which puts sandwiches him between Peter Stastny (88.4) and Jari Kurri (88.1). (Iginla's VsX for points is 86.7.)

So the good news is that I think Bowie is actually in the ballpark of at least two of this round's contenders (Iginla and Stastny).

That competition is just so bad though, especially in his early years.

Not just the lack of "star power," - all those guys were born in just a few eastern Canadian cities. Also, in the amateur era (which was already starting to come to an end near the end of Bowie's career with Tommy Phillips in particular known as a "mercenary")you pretty much had to be born wealthy enough to be ok with playing competitive hockey as an adult for no money.

___

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll probably vote for Bowie in the next few rounds, I just think we need to be clear about just how much weaker his generation was than the following one that drew from a much wider talent pool.

 

[ted2019]

There was a bit more premium placed on physicality when Quackenbush played.

That said, Red Kelly also won a Byng. But I don't think Quackenbush was on the same level as Kelly and Lidstrom.

I see Quackenbush as a Mark Howe type of player. Would you rather have Quackenbush/Blackjack Stewart or Howe/Stevens ?

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

That competition is just so bad though, especially in his early years.

Not just the lack of "star power," - all those guys were born in just a few eastern Canadian cities. Also, in the amateur era (which was already starting to come to an end near the end of Bowie's career with Tommy Phillips in particular known as a "mercenary")you pretty much had to be born wealthy enough to be ok with playing competitive hockey as an adult for no money.

I don't disagree with that. By the mid 1900's, there's already multiple scorers from the Silver Seven plus Phillips and Marty Walsh closing in on Bowie.

The flip side of being wealthy, though, was that they could afford better diets and see better doctors, etc.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll probably vote for Bowie in the next few rounds, I just think we need to be clear about just how much weaker his generation was than the following one that drew from a much wider talent pool.

Rat Westwick was tied for 10th in scoring in 1901 with 14 adjusted goals. Blair Russel was 4th in scoring with 21 adjusted goals. Both are Hall of Famers putting up 3rd line and 2nd line numbers respectively (relative to 2018-19). I'm honestly not sure how much "weaker" I would need to make that era. If it's 10% weaker, that would mean Westwick would have 13 adjusted goals and Russel would have 19 adjusted goals (still barely 3rd and 2nd line numbers respectively). Bowie would have a 7-year VsX for goals of ~40 instead of 44 (putting him in the range of Lindros, Kane, Kariya, and Mogilny for goals) and a 7-year VsX for points of ~80 (putting him in the range of Kucherov and ahead of guys like Tkachuk, LaFontaine, Shanahan, Kopitar, etc.).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Agreed on all points, but defensemen were also once generally expected to stay back and cover their own end first, second, and third. You have to have players that foster the changes that take place in the style of the game over the years, and I think it could be argued that Quackenbush was a player that demonstrated that playing strong defense didn't have to be the violent affair it once was. It also wasn't too many years after Quackenbush that Stan Mikita made the transition between being the kind of guy that would knock your block off for looking at him the wrong way to being a gentlemanly player. So far from that complete shift meaning he was viewed as less impactful player, it can be argued that his best play came after that, as he won his two Harts in the two full seasons he amassed the fewest penalty minutes. So, ultimately, I'd argue that Quackenbush might have been key player in the beginning of a long term paradigm shift.

Its very hard for me to make much of an argument for a player I never saw play. Its quite possible I am underrating him. It did surprise me that he was in our first group of players to be voted on.

What I do know is he once went 130 games without taking a penalty and did quite a bit of rushing the puck.

 

[seventieslord]

Bowie is going to test everyone's calibration for how they weigh degree of dominance vs. strength of competition. It's completely defensible that he be ranked #1 here on the basis that his degree of dominance is off the charts, and it's also defensible that he's ranked last on the basis that his strength of competition is off the other end of the chart. And I don't mean just because of how long ago it was - it's more that it was a transitional time where almost no players lasted beyond their own generation and were frequently overtaken by the next. It wasn't until the Lalonde/Taylor/Nighbor generation that we saw stars emerge who made the case as a true all-time great by being excellent into old age.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Starting this round with Karlsson and Gerard ahead of the pack, and Vasiliev behind it.

Bowie is obviously interesting. I value longevity a lot for pre-consolidation players. I think it's sort of a gauge of how good a player actually was if they could sustain a high level of play with how quickly and frequently there were changes to rules, conditions, teams, leagues, travel, etc. in those times. Bowie had pretty strong longevity for the era, even up until his retirement. Makes me more confident that he could hack it in a strong era.

Still not sure how high that would get him, though, since I don't want to venture too far into the realm of conjecture.

 

[VanIslander]

I never received a single PM reminder so i am not an eligible voter. (My bad for not sniffing the thread regularly over the holidays.)

That said. My two cents. Head & shoulders above:

• Alex Maltsev
• Eddie Gerard
• Norm Ullman
• Jarome Iginla (remember his multiple Olympics heroics)

 

[tarheelhockey]

Disclaimer: Just because something happened in the top-100 list, doesn't mean it needs to set a template for the top-200 list.

That said, here's how the list looks so far when it comes to the consensus best player of a significant period:


1910-1920 - Taylor #33
1920-1935 - Morenz #11
1935-1945 - Apps #45
1945-1950 - Richard #9
1950-1965 - Howe #2
1965-1970 - Hull #5
1970-1980 - Orr #3
1980-2000 - Gretzky #1
2000-2005 - Jagr #16
2005-present - Crosby #12

So to sum it up, "best player in the world" has resulted in rankings of 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 33, 45.

Bowie is the next guy on that list, as the 1900-1910 entry.

At this point, the gap between Apps and Bowie is larger than the gap between Gretzky and Apps. We have already assigned a very heavy penalty to the pre-professional era.

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to continue to penalize Bowie -- @TheDevilMadeMe is correct that competition was ludicrously soft during Bowie's era compared even to Taylor's -- but we should be conscious of just how much we've already done so. At some point, it almost becomes silly to include him on the list at all if we're basically saying he's a Tony Hand sort of character who played in a context that has little-to-no value.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Russell Bowie should go soon, out of respect for his era which paved the way for future generations. His inclusion is a tribute to the complete representation of hockey history, more than it is about his intrinsic worth as a hockey player.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Eddie Gerard, Serge Savard and Drew Doughty are my Top 3 candidates. Classic #1 defensemen on multiple Stanley Cup winners with a defense-first focus, with multiple great performances in key games. Savard is a special case, but his generalship in big moments predates the late-1970s dynasty.

Essentially, they represent the sort of building blocks from which championship teams are build.

Gerard is the favorite for my #1 spot, as he's the only one who created a winning culture almost from scratch, and one that survived his stay with the team, through his mentorship of young defensemen like George Boucher and King Clancy who themselves became leaders.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Doughty's tendency to take off-years should be taken into account. Particularly the last two years it doesn't really seem like he has given a shit.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Eddie Gerard, Serge Savard and Drew Doughty are my Top 3 candidates. Classic #1 defensemen on multiple Stanley Cup winners with a defense-first focus, with multiple great performances in key games. Savard is a special case, but his generalship in big moments predates the late-1970s dynasty.

Essentially, they represent the sort of building blocks from which championship teams are build.

Gerard is the favorite for my #1 spot, as he's the only one who created a winning culture almost from scratch, and one that survived his stay with the team, through his mentorship of young defensemen like George Boucher and King Clancy who themselves became leaders.

Also noteworthy that Gerard is the most multi-positional player on the list. That positional flexibility is part of what he passed on to Clancy and Boucher, who in turn passed it to their own protégés.