Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[quoipourquoi]

I fail to grasp the relevance of the bolded. There are twice as many defensemen in a starting hockey lineup - as any other position - why wouldn't there be twice as many spots for them on an All-Star team?

Because if there are twice of them on a ballot, they are more likely to pick up fringe down-ballot support (the thing you’re using as supporting evidence).

If no Center, Left Wing, Right Wing, or Goaltender can get a 3rd or 4th place vote in 1946, using a Defenseman’s voting support in those spots on a ballot gives 1946 Defensemen an advantage in a cross-positional comparison.

He had two 3rd place votes. Of all of the 5-3-1 All-Star ballots we’ve seen in the last 70 years - something that still exists today - how many times would we look at a (0-0-2) and care? Like... maybe 1989 when choosing someone other than Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman said something?

But this is a 5th behind guys who aren’t on our list. And his 1sts? Ahead of guys who aren’t on our list.

Quackenbush coming in 1st over Harmon, Reardon, and Stewart... or Bower coming 3rd behind Plante (in his Hart year) and Hall? Kinda lean Bower on that one. So did the Hart voters. And that’s really the only major difference between their All-Star records once you account for fringe voting being not as informative.

And then we can get into their respective playoff resumes, which you glossed over in my point about Blake/Bower relative to Quackenbush.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Because if there are twice of them on a ballot, they are more likely to pick up fringe down-ballot support (the thing you’re using as supporting evidence).

If no Center, Left Wing, Right Wing, or Goaltender can get a 3rd or 4th place vote in 1946, using a Defenseman’s voting support in those spots on a ballot gives 1946 Defensemen an advantage in a cross-positional comparison.

He had two 3rd place votes. Of all of the 5-3-1 All-Star ballots we’ve seen in the last 70 years - something that still exists today - how many times would we look at a (0-0-2) and care? Like... maybe 1989 when choosing someone other than Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman said something?

But this is a 5th behind guys who aren’t on our list. And his 1sts? Ahead of guys who aren’t on our list.

Quackenbush coming in 1st over Harmon, Reardon, and Stewart... or Bower coming 3rd behind Plante (in his Hart year) and Hall? Kinda lean Bower on that one. So did the Hart voters. And that’s really the only major difference between their All-Star records once you account for fringe voting being not as informative.

And then we can get into their respective playoff resumes, which you glossed over in my point about Blake/Bower relative to Quackenbush.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument cut both ways?

In the 06, for simplicities sake there are 24 top 4 defensemen and 6 starting goaltenders, so wouldn't it be easier for a goalie to rack up voting support unless the defenseman was truly ahead of his peers?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mean, is our disagreement that you think there should be roughly equal numbers of goaltenders and defensemen on our list, while I think it makes sense to have roughly double the number of defensemen?

I think our disagreement is that Quackenbush is a worse player than Bower. A quota shouldn’t dictate one going before the other.

Bower should go first because they have comparable All-Star records but with Bower having stronger competition (and depressed finishes from less opportunities and the transition to a tandem system). And a significant playoff resume with a retro Conn Smythe.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this argument cut both ways?

In the 06, for simplicities sake there are 24 top 4 defensemen and 6 starting goaltenders, so wouldn't it be easier for a goalie to rack up voting support unless the defenseman was truly ahead of his peers?

Not if the goaltender has a harder time getting into the league.

 

[Batis]

In short, Holeček in his best form was in my opinion more impactful and more highly regarded player than Vasiliev at his peak. But Vasiliev's prime lasted longer. I prefer Vasiliev from these two, though neither choice is bad in itself.

I definitely agree on that Holecek was the more impactful player at their best. Regarding the lenght of their primes I would say that while Vasiliev's prime did last longer than Holecek's the difference is still rather small right? I would say that Vasiliev's prime lasted 10 seasons from 72/73 to 81/82 as he never recieved a single Soviet player of the year vote before or after that time frame. Holecek's prime lasted 8 seasons from 70/71 to 77/78. But it is worth noting that Vasiliev had two relatively speaking weak seasons during his prime where he only finished 12th (75/76) and 14th (77/78) in the Soviet player of the year voting so I would say that he at most have 8 truly elite seasons. Correct me if I am wrong but during Holecek's prime the 76/77 season is the only one which we can say the same about as that was the only time during those 8 years when he finished outside of the top 5 in the Czechoslovak golden stick voting. That would make it 8 elite seasons from Vasiliev against 7 elite seasons from Holecek so I really don't see that much of a gap in elite longevity here.

 

[blogofmike]

The thing about Quack is that I think he’s here because people looked at AS finishes without looking at how strong his competition was.

Two 1st place AS finishes means he’s roughly equivalent to a 2-time Norris winner. Hey! There’s Rod Langway!

A 3 from Bower 62 comes in competition with 1962 Hart-winner Jacques Plante, and Glenn Hall, which might be more valuable than the top defender from 1948, especially if you count a strong playoff run.

Quackenbush may be getting a lot of mileage from twice beating his defensive partner Black Jack Stewart in voting points 23-21 and 21-17, instead of from his actual impact.

Langway won the Norris by being a huge part of a turnaround in Washington that didn’t happen with 1950 Quackenbush in Boston (they got worse) that coincided with higher GA in Montreal where he left (Quack’s Wings were unaffected). Langway’s rep was being an uncannily strong defender who you sent out to protect a lead. And it seems that Washington did hang on to 85% of the points from 2nd period leads from Langway’s arrival until the end of the decade.

Quackenbush doesn’t have a turnaround like Langway despite leaving at his presumed peak, and doesn’t have any Serge Savard Conn Smythe-y playoff series (that I know of) where you look back and say “Quackenbush shut them down,” or “Quackenbush was all over the ice,” or perhaps even “I noticed that Quackenbush was in that game.”

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Quackenbush

This is a cut-and-paste of a profile I made on Quackenbush some time back. I linked to it last round near the end, but for easy reference:

Bill Quackenbush aka "Lidstrom-lite"

Defenseman Hubert "Bill"Quackenbush excelled at both offensive and defensive aspects of the game. During 14 seasons, 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. Consequently, his penalty minute totals were remarkably low considering his role on the ice.

Summary

- 5'11", 190 lbs
- Inducted into the HHOF (1971)
- Stanley Cup Finalist (1945, 1948, 1949, 1953)

- NHL 1st All-Star Team (1948, 1949, 1951)
- NHL 2nd All-Star Team (1947, 1953)
- NHL "3rd" All-Star Team (1944)
- In total, was 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th in All-Star Voting (this would be two Norrises if the Norris existed)

-7th in Hart Voting (1951)
-Named the Red Wings MVP in 1946-47

He's one of the best all-around players I've ever played with

Quackenbush was one of the top blue-liners in the NHL, controlling the puck in a way not unlike the Montreal Canadiens' Doug Harvey. Quackenbush was an unique specimen, especially for his time. Not a body-thumper, he liked to poke- and stick-check enemy rushers. He was the single biggest influence in the development of Red Kelly's style of play.

Quackenbush is considered the best all-around defenseman in the game today. yet, the 27-year old last year won the Lady Byng Trophy - a rare feat among defensemen who usually emphasize their ruggedness with rough play. Quackenbush was also a unanimous choice for the all-star team last season.

Offense

- Top-10 in scoring by defensemen 11 times (2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 7th, 7th, 9th, 10th)
- Top-6 in Playoff Scoring among defensemen 5 Times (1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th)

Quack's rushes with the puck helped endear him to the Beantown supporters who hadn't seen this type of daring play from the blue line since the days of Eddie Shore.

By the end of 1946, he had established himself as one of the most effective rushing defenseman in the game....
He could control the puck, in much the same way as Doug Harvey, until he spotted one of his forwards in the clear or took off on one of his end-to-end rushes. His assist record indicates how well he performed as a playmaker.

Perhaps the smoothest rushing defenseman the game has ever known

-When he retired, Red Kelly was the only defenseman with more assists in his entire career than Quackenbush

Defense

- Named the best poke-checker of the 1950's by Ultimate Hockey

To many observers, he was the prototype of efficiency and finesse in defensive zone coverage. Quackenbush was also considered a master at diffusing any forward's attempt to generate offense from behind his opponent's net.

The 5'11" 180lb blueliner was not only one of the best defensive blueliners, but also, much like Niklas Lidstrom in the modern NHL, was as gentlemanly as he was efficient.

Instead of using violence and brute strength, he would use a clean, pure version of defense. He seemingly knew what the opposing team would do before it would happen and he'd break-up the play without having to resort to physically manhandling the player. His positioning was perfect, his defense as elegant as it was disciplined

Quackenbush was an extraordinary thinker. To play NHL defense and to do it without taking many penalties requires an incredibly intelligent level of hockey sense. That being the case, Quackenbush certainly would have to qualify as one of the games most intelligent players ever.

he played tactically clever defense and manoeuvered players off the puck with a minimum of effort. This allowed him to play upwards of 40 minutes a game and, it kept him out of the penalty box.

Although the temptation to join the brawlers was quite apparent, Quackenbush resisted the lure and played a pure defense. In doing so, he made a greater impact on the game than some of his more violent teammates... It is a measure of his influence that some hockey writers have suggested that the NHL name a trophy in his honour to be given to the league's best defensive defenseman... known for his sturdy, inconspicous, mistake-free play...

He was an excellent checker, which he learned to do without holding or tripping. He was not a body checker and his big attribute was the ability to stop a rush without thumping an opponent into the boards.

-''He wasn't a bodychecker, but he was a great standing pokechecker. Defensively, he was as good as they come.

He analyzed players (to learn their tendencies)

He was always there defensively, but kind of never heard from. He'd come in close and get that stick out somehow. He was very productive in terms of getting the puck and getting it out of your end.

He grabbed a lot of people and was very cagey at holding in the corners.

Discipline

- Named the cleanest player of the 1950's by Ultimate Hockey

-Won the Lady Byng in 1949 with 52 of 54 1st place votes (also finished 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th in voting)
-Only defenseman other than Red Kelly to win the Byng

-Quackenbush managed 131 games without drawing a penalty, from 1948 to 1950
- He only draw one major penalty in all his career, a result of a quick wrestling match with Gaye Stewart
- With a ratio of 0.12 minute of penalty per game, Quackenbush is far and away the cleanest defenseman of history

He taught me how to play the game without taking penalties'

Despite being a Byng Winner, Quack was no Shrinking Violet

Quackenbush, despite the fact that he continued to play, sustained a very severe face injury and lost a section of his dental crockery.

He can hand out a jarring body check along with the rest of them but seldom resorts to illegal use of hands or stick.

(Most of this profile is a cut and paste from the excellent profiles made by seventieslord and EagleBelfour)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jiri Holecek Repost (I think it's useful for future readers of these threads to repost big info posts for guys who might go this round)

@Sprague Cleghorn's excellent ATD bio (ATD 2018 Bio Thread):

• 5x Best Goalie at World Championships (1971, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1978)
  • #1 all-time for goalies
  • Tied with Fetisov for most best X position awards

• 5x World Championships All Star Team (1971, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978)
  • #1 all-time for goalies

• Golden Hockey Stick voting (Czech MVP):
  • 1st (1974), 2nd (1975), 2nd (1976) 2nd (1978), 5th (1971), 5th (1972), 5th (1973)

• 3x World Championships Gold Medalist (1972, 1976, 1977)

• 5x World Championships Silver Medalist (1966, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1978)

• World Championships Bronze Medalist (1973)

• Olympic Silver Medalist (1976)

• Olympic Bronze Medalist (1972)

_________________________________________

Here is my mega-post on Holecek from the the non-NHL Euros project:

All of this has been posted elsewhere during the goalie project, but now that Holecek is up for voting, it's time to collect it all in one post. Holecek didn't do much outside the eight season stretch from 1971 to 1978, but what an eight years it was!

When Holecek was the primary starter for Czechoslovakia (1971-1978), they performed almost as well as the (on paper) superior USSR team in the World Championships

USSR: 5 golds, 2 silvers, 1 bronze
CSSR: 3 golds, 4 silvers, 1 bronze
Sweden: 0 golds, 2 silvers, 5 bronze
Canada: 0 goals, 0 silvers, 1 bronze

Holecek was the dominant Czechoslovakian goalie during this high point of Czechoslovak hockey, based on awards voting

Via Sanf, TIP magazine considered Holecek the best goalie in the domestic league for 7 of 8 years. Holecek was selected the All-Star goalie in the Extraliga in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976. Dzurilla was selected the All-Star goalie in the Extraliga in 1969, 1970, and 1977: Extraliga :: Statshockey. All Star Teams were replaced by a "best goalie" awarded by TIP magainze after 1977. Holecek was selected best goalie in 1978, his final year on the national team. TOP :: Statshockey.

Holecek led all goalies in Golden Stick voting for the best player in Czechoslovakia 6 of 8 seasons, including 1 win and 2 2nd place finishes to Vladimir Martinec, often considered the 2nd best Czech forward after Jagr. Via Theokritos, Here are all the goalies who placed in Golden Stick voting during this time frame:
1969: 5 Dzurilla, 14 Miroslav Lacky, 15 Miroslav Termer.
1970: 4 Dzurilla, 12 Holeček, 13 Lacky, 16 Pavel Wohl.
1971: 5 Holeček, 12 Dzurilla, 15 Jiri Crha, 17 Vladimir Nadrchal, 21 Marcel Sakač.
1972: 3 Dzurilla, 5 Holeček, 25 Nadrchal, 26 Crha, 28 Jiřà KralÃk and Miroslav Krása, 34 Sakač, 36 Termer.
1973: 5 Holeček, 11 Crha, 22 Sakač, 29 Krása, 39 Wohl.
1974: 1 Holeček, 15 Crha, 22 Pavol Svitana, 31 Dzurilla, 33 Termer, 39 Krása, 41 Miroslav Kapoun.
1975: 2 Holeček, 14 Crha.
1976: 2 Holeček, 9 Dzurilla, 20 Svitana, 23 Crha, 30 Sakač.
1977: 6 Dzurilla, 8 Holeček, 17 KralÃk, 23 Crha, 29 Sakač, 32 Svitana.
1978: 2 Holeček, 15 Dzurilla, 17 KralÃk, 19 Crha, 37 Ivan Podešva, 42 Petr Ševela, 46 Milan KolÃsek.

Holecek, not Tretiak, was considered the best goalie in Europe in the mid 1970s

The World Championships of Ice Hockey at the time featured all the best players in Europe and were held every year. Therefore, they are the largest sample size of competition against Europe as a whole. In the 1970s, when they were both at their peak's, Jiri Holecek generally outperformed Tretiak at the World Championships

Tretiak (USSR)
•World Championships Best Goalie (1974, 1979, 1983)
•World Championships All Star (1975, 1979, 1983)

Jiri Holecek (Czech)
World Championships Best Goalie (1971, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978)
•World Championships All Star (1971, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1978)

Tretiak and Holecek overlapped as starters for their national teams from 1972-1978. In that 7 years, Holecek was named best goalie 4 times, and Tretiak just once.

Anecdotes

Anecdotally, Holecek (not Tretiak) was considered the best goalie in Europe, heading into the 1976 Canada Cup. From wikipedia's entry on the 1976 Canada Cup (citing Joe Pelletier's book):

The Czechoslovakian team was predicted to face Canada in the final by most experts as they brought the same team that won the 1976 World Championship a few months prior. Their goaltender, Jiri Holeček, was considered the best in the world outside the NHL
We all know Holecek didn't play well against Canada in the Canada Cup, but the point is that as Tretiak was in the midst of winning his third consecutive "Soviet Player of the Year" award (which he won in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1982, and 1983), the general feeling was that he was not the best goalie in Europe.

An IIHF biography of Tretiak celebrating his 60th birthday indicates that there was a widely held view that Holecek and even Vladimir Dzurilla were better goalies, and that Tretiak wasn't universally considered the best goalie in Europe until his dominant performance in the 1981 Canada Cup:

The somewhat strange thing is that Tretiak was judged differently in Europe and in North America for many years of his career.

Due to his sensational performance in the 1972 Summit Series, Tretiak immediately became a super-hero in Canada and the perception of him as the superior goaltender from Europe – and thus by far the best European at that position – just grew with the 1975 New Year’s Eve game and the 1981 Canada Cup rout.

But back in Europe, during the ‘70s, the European hockey community generally considered the Czechoslovaks Vladimir Dzurilla and Jiri Holecek as stronger goaltenders than Tretiak. And quite often whenever Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union met in many of their epic World Championship games in the 1970s, the Czechoslovaks came up on top in their head-to-head games, although the Soviet team won the gold nine times out of ten.

But it was the 1981 Canada Cup final – and the sensational 8-1 score which would have been something totally different had the CCCP team had a human in net – that cemented Tretiak’s position as not only the best in Europe, but the best in the world.

Sadly, and due to the totalitarian regime of that era, Tretiak played for only three more years before he decided to quit.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not if the goaltender has a harder time getting into the league.

That's the rub with players in the Original 6, especially amplified by goaltending, right? Harder to get into the league, but once you get in, there are fewer players competing for awards / statistical finishes.

 

[blogofmike]

Quackenbush
- Top-6 in Playoff Scoring among defensemen 5 Times (1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th)

Finishes presented like that make some of his playoff runs look historically significant when a couple of them were mundane years.

 

[MXD]

Finishes presented like that make some of his playoff runs look historically significant when a couple of them were mundane years.

His 1st is actually a T-1 (a 3-way tie between Doug Harvey and Dollard St-Laurent) with 3 assists.
Though it might be significant that he achieved that while playing 7 games, while Harvey and St-Laurent played more games by actually beating Quackenbush's team, only to fall to the 52 Wings in 4 games (who gave only 2 goals in 4 games), during which neither Harvey or St-Laurent had a point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Finishes presented like that make some of his playoff runs look historically significant when a couple of them were mundane years.

His 1st is actually a T-1 (a 3-way tie between Doug Harvey and Dollard St-Laurent) with 3 assists.
Though it might be significant that he achieved that while playing 7 games, while Harvey and St-Laurent played more games by actually beating Quackenbush's team, only to fall to the 52 Wings in 4 games (who gave only 2 goals in 4 games), during which neither Harvey or St-Laurent had a point.

I kind of agree that it's chintzy to look at 3 assists as a "1st in playoff scoring among defensemen." On the other hand, it does kind of show that in that era, defensemen as a group just didn't put up significant point totals in the playoffs.

Perhaps relevant is the 1944 addition of the Red Line, the first time the forward pass was allowed between zones. (Canadiens1958 used to bring up the Red Line... a lot). It seems that for a time, defensemen as a group played extremely conservatively

 

[tarheelhockey]

Langway won the Norris by being a huge part of a turnaround in Washington that didn’t happen with 1950 Quackenbush in Boston (they got worse) that coincided with higher GA in Montreal where he left (Quack’s Wings were unaffected).

You make some fair points about Quackenbush relative to Bower, but I really feel that it's unfair to put post-trade team results on him like that. Not calling you out individually for it, because it seems to come up often.

Well, what exactly would we expect to happen? The purpose of the trade was to resolve a backlog of defensemen who needed playing time -- a backlog created by a guy named Red Kelly.

When Quack left Detroit, the Wings had:
20-year-old Gordie Howe
20-year-old Terry Sawchuk
21-year-old Red Kelly
21-year-old Marty Pavelich
22-year-old Harry Lumley, who would soon be dealt for a package that included Metro Prystai
23-year-old Ted Lindsay

Would anyone believe that team could be worse with another year of experience, simply because they replaced Quackenbush with Kelly? And to top it off, they were a highly motivated group that had been on a clear track for the Cup until a Finals upset. A young dynasty getting a reality-check in the playoffs, then coming back on a mission to win it all the next year, is one of the timeless stories in the NHL.

Meanwhile, Boston was headed in the opposite direction. At right around the time of the Quack trade, they had:
33-year-old Frank Brimsek - asked to be moved to Chicago so he could ease into retirement.
32-year-old Jack Crawford - was in his final season before retirement.
32-year-old Woody Dumart - Had already ceased to be relevant.
30-year-old Milt Schmidt - Was in a slump that he wouldn't break out of for a couple of years.
30-year-old Pat Egan - Was shipped out in a youth-movement trade.

Granted, the Bruins did have some youth leadership, on the forward line in the form of names like Paul Ronty and Johnny Peirson and Ken Smith, and on defense with a young Fern Flaman who was still several years removed from being viewed as a key player. They tried to get a spark by trading for Bud Poile mid-season; he was unhappy about his pay rate and retired a few months later.

It says a lot about the 1950 Bruins that they had the top two vote-getters for the Calder -- Brimsek's replacement Jack Gelineau, and center Jack Maloney -- and that neither of them played a complete NHL season after 1951. That speaks to young players being thrown into the deep end without a life preserver.

Would anyone believe that Quackenbush was going to step onto that team and reverse their downward trajectory? That he would bring their GAA down, in front of a rookie goalie with 4 games of prior NHL experience? That he'd take them to playoff heights over the powerhouse Detroit/Montreal/Toronto teams of the early 50s? Of course not. We'd expect him to cushion the blow of the rebuilding phase, keeping the Bruins respectably above the hapless Hawks and Rangers who didn't even have a Quackenbush-level D to build around. And that's exactly what he did.

 

[blogofmike]

I kind of agree that it's chintzy to look at 3 assists as a "1st in playoff scoring among defensemen." On the other hand, it does kind of show that in that era, defensemen as a group just didn't put up significant point totals in the playoffs.

Perhaps relevant is the 1944 addition of the Red Line, the first time the forward pass was allowed between zones. (Canadiens1958 used to bring up the Red Line... a lot). It seems that for a time, defensemen as a group played extremely conservatively

If defenders as a group were less impactful in any era, maybe they should get the same treatment as all these non-Lundqvist bums playing goal the last 20 years. Or those playoff stud goalies from the 80s.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If defenders as a group were less impactful in any era, maybe they should get the same treatment as all these non-Lundqvist bums playing goal the last 20 years. Or those playoff stud goalies from the 80s.

I'm not sure TDMM's post is really implying defensemen were less impactful in Quackenbush's era

 

[quoipourquoi]

That's the rub with players in the Original 6, especially amplified by goaltending, right? Harder to get into the league, but once you get in, there are fewer players competing for awards / statistical finishes.

Unless it’s a tandem goaltender, at which point they could be ignored at the top of the ballot in favor of high-GP goaltenders most years, even if they play better.

Bower had two obstacles in attaining All-Star votes in his career: he couldn’t get an NHL job no matter how obvious it was that he was NHL-caliber (3x AHL MVP) and once he was there, he was old and was kept in a tandem.

Consider his 1964 (3rd), 1965 (3rd), and 1966 (4th).

	Bower	Best Goaltender
vs. Bos	.935	.928 (+.007)
vs. Chi	.936	.910 (+.026)
vs. Det	.926	.925 (+.001)
vs. Mtl	.927	.917 (+.010)
vs. NYR	.926	.932 (-.006)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

He was the leader in GAA and save percentage all three years, and of all of the goaltenders in the NHL, he had the best numbers against 4 of his 5 opponents. He had a .926 compared to the other Toronto goaltenders’ .908 combined.

So should we really entertain the idea that his 1, 3, 3, 3, 4 are somehow less than? If anything, because we have access to numbers the voters did not, we have cause to believe he was better than his record suggests.

But unless you feel Bower was not worthy of a 3rd, 3rd, and 4th in 1964-1966, what exactly are we getting at here? Between that and his 1st (1961) and 3rd (1962 behind Plante and Hall), I see plenty of balance between Bower and Quackenbush strictly on awards voting before we get into their respective playoff records where it is rather lopsided in Bower’s favor.

 

[overpass]

If defenders as a group were less impactful in any era, maybe they should get the same treatment as all these non-Lundqvist bums playing goal the last 20 years. Or those playoff stud goalies from the 80s.

I think every individual player was less impactful when the best players were packed into 6 teams as opposed to 21 teams. You just didn't see one player lead a team turnaround in the Original Six era like Langway did with the Capitals.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Oh, I suppose I left out 1968 (3rd) as well.

	1st Team	2nd Team	Bower
vs. Bos	.887	.889	.925
vs. Chi	.915	.892	.950
vs. Det	.876	.933	.917
vs. Mtl	-	.906	.946
vs. NYR	.922	-	.914

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

It’s not like we don’t acknowledge that Giacomin is worse than his All-Star record, so it shouldn’t be an issue to acknowledge that Bower was better than his.

Honestly, looking at these numbers, the fact that the splits for 1967 (a 27-game season) were cited in the last thread to make Bower’s numbers seem like the product of beating up Boston and New York makes me think that was one hell of a cherry pick.

 

[blogofmike]

I think every individual player was less impactful when the best players were packed into 6 teams as opposed to 21 teams. You just didn't see one player lead a team turnaround in the Original Six era like Langway did with the Capitals.

You didn’t often see it with defenders, though I’ve argued in the past that you could see it with Bill Durnan, and a perennial #1 defence becoming a perennial #3 defense. I’m a little higher on him than most though.

 

[blogofmike]

You make some fair points about Quackenbush relative to Bower, but I really feel that it's unfair to put post-trade team results on him like that. Not calling you out individually for it, because it seems to come up often.

Well, what exactly would we expect to happen? The purpose of the trade was to resolve a backlog of defensemen who needed playing time -- a backlog created by a guy named Red Kelly.

When Quack left Detroit, the Wings had:
20-year-old Gordie Howe
20-year-old Terry Sawchuk
21-year-old Red Kelly
21-year-old Marty Pavelich
22-year-old Harry Lumley, who would soon be dealt for a package that included Metro Prystai
23-year-old Ted Lindsay

Would anyone believe that team could be worse with another year of experience, simply because they replaced Quackenbush with Kelly? And to top it off, they were a highly motivated group that had been on a clear track for the Cup until a Finals upset. A young dynasty getting a reality-check in the playoffs, then coming back on a mission to win it all the next year, is one of the timeless stories in the NHL.

Meanwhile, Boston was headed in the opposite direction. At right around the time of the Quack trade, they had:
33-year-old Frank Brimsek - asked to be moved to Chicago so he could ease into retirement.
32-year-old Jack Crawford - was in his final season before retirement.
32-year-old Woody Dumart - Had already ceased to be relevant.
30-year-old Milt Schmidt - Was in a slump that he wouldn't break out of for a couple of years.
30-year-old Pat Egan - Was shipped out in a youth-movement trade.

Granted, the Bruins did have some youth leadership, on the forward line in the form of names like Paul Ronty and Johnny Peirson and Ken Smith, and on defense with a young Fern Flaman who was still several years removed from being viewed as a key player. They tried to get a spark by trading for Bud Poile mid-season; he was unhappy about his pay rate and retired a few months later.

It says a lot about the 1950 Bruins that they had the top two vote-getters for the Calder -- Brimsek's replacement Jack Gelineau, and center Jack Maloney -- and that neither of them played a complete NHL season after 1951. That speaks to young players being thrown into the deep end without a life preserver.

Would anyone believe that Quackenbush was going to step onto that team and reverse their downward trajectory? That he would bring their GAA down, in front of a rookie goalie with 4 games of prior NHL experience? That he'd take them to playoff heights over the powerhouse Detroit/Montreal/Toronto teams of the early 50s? Of course not. We'd expect him to cushion the blow of the rebuilding phase, keeping the Bruins respectably above the hapless Hawks and Rangers who didn't even have a Quackenbush-level D to build around. And that's exactly what he did.

Langway also came with Engblom, Jarvis, and a new coach who had actually already improved the team a little the year before. Young Scott Stevens showed up too. The turnaround wasn’t ALL him. But looking at what people were saying, and how he played, he does deserve his rep. Just like the Americans weren’t all Worters, but it seems he stood out.

But I haven’t really seen any indication that Quackenbush was a guy who could impact a game like Langway - who also didn’t participate much in the offence - or any of the others available this round. I don’t know, maybe there’s a ton of value in NEVER going to the box as a top defender? But I’d also have Karlsson over Gadsby, so what do I know?

 

[quoipourquoi]

From last round:

The 1966-67 splits in particular show much of an impact QoC can have:

Bower: .939 vs NYR/BOS, .904 vs rest of NHL
Sawchuk: .930 vs NYR/BOS, .911 vs rest of NHL

1967 is the only year from 1964-1968 that shows Bower’s numbers being low against Chicago, Detroit, and Montreal. It’s also the year where his sample size is the lowest. And where he had the worst voting support.

I’ll give the benefit of a doubt that it was just a random year being grabbed from the five that gave us a false impression of the overall data, but still, I can see who liked the post and I can see who I’m getting push back from on Bower in this thread.

If we’re still under the misapprehension that Bower’s save percentage titles were won off of matchups against bad teams, probably shake ourselves of that thought.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

If we’re still under the misapprehension that Bower’s save percentage titles were won off of matchups against bad teams, probably shake ourselves of that thought.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that. I certainly didn't, those stats were brought up in the context of comparing Bower's record to Sawchuk's from 1965-67, when my argument was that the true performance difference between them was roughly .007 instead of the .014 shown by the raw numbers, and I will continue to defend that assessment.

Hockeygoalies.org has a strength of opposition stat, for example, with negative numbers indicating easier opposition. Bower had -2.9%, -4.0%, -4.0% and Sawchuk had +0.3%, +4.8%, -1.6% from 1965-67. Weight by shots against each year, and the bottom line is that as teammates, Bower faced 3.6% easier shots and Sawchuk 1.1% harder shots than average, an effective save percentage difference of .005. Factor in the 0.8 SA/60 gap between the goalies, equivalent to an extra .002 for the goalie facing fewer shots, and that's where the .007 adjustment comes from.

For the record, I agree with you that none of Bower's save percentage titles were won based on weaker strength of schedule. He led the league by a lot in 1966 and even though he had a weaker than average schedule in 1965 and 1967, the Chicago goalies finishing 2nd and 3rd had an even easier time purely in terms of opposition (since they never had to face Hull/Mikita themselves). The primary point of debate with Bower's record is how much he was helped statistically by his strong team defence. But even with a healthy adjustment for that, there are certainly some good arguments for Bower going in this round.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Vasiliev was in the first group we voted for, so a number of voters had to have him ranked very high. But in the second vote he got even more NRs than in the first round. Doesn't sound like he's getting many props now either. Is there a case for him?

 

[Professor What]

Vasiliev was in the first group we voted for, so a number of voters had to have him ranked very high. But in the second vote he got even more NRs than in the first round. Doesn't sound like he's getting many props now either. Is there a case for him?

I'm very high on him. He was definitely a defensive guy, and so he wasn't going to put up huge numbers, but in domestic play, he was somewhat hampered by being a member of Dynamo Moscow instead of CSKA Moscow, like so many other members of the Soviet National Team. But when he got to international play, there was something of an uptick for him. But, regardless of numbers, he was an eight-time Soviet all-star, a five-time world championship all-star, a five-time domestic best defenseman, and a three-time best defenseman in the world championships. He was pretty unusual among the Soviet players for his physicality. To quote @seventieslord from this article, "Before the emergence of Slava Fetisov, Vasiliev was the Soviet Union’s top defenseman, and it wasn’t close." Or, here's what Sergei Gonchar said about him in this article: "He was a mean player, one of those guys who always stood up for his teammates. Very tough guy. I have a lot of respect for that guy. He wasn't scared of anyone." A heart attack couldn't even sideline him in 1978, when he played for and won the 1978 world championship, shortly after suffering one. In fact, he even scored three goals and three assists in that tournament, well above his typical offensive production. I think that epitomizes the toughness Gonchar spoke about. He certainly had guts. We've got three defensive defensemen on the board in this round, and as I stated before, Vasiliev is my top pick of the three. I'm much harder pressed to find the argument against him than the argument for him.

 

[ted2019]

I have the defensemen as such.

Quackenbush. It's a crime that he wasn't in last round. He played a positional game which didn't involve much hitting and I think that his style of play is being penalized a bit in these discussions and voting. I see his game being described as a defensive Mark Howe in terms of style of play. Can't discount his AS Voting. In this article here. Rewind: Who ruled the defensive roost in the pre-Norris days? - The Hockey News on Sports Illustrated, Quackenbush was given 2 Norris Trophies.

Langway had 3 top 3 Norris finishes in a row ( winning 2 of them) (and 2 other top 5 finishes in 6 years ) and will probably the last non-offensive defenseman to win this award. He also had support in the Hart voting with a 2,4,4 in consecutive seasons, which would be unheard of today.

Savard. It's debatable if Savard or Lapointe were the more important player in the Habs machine. Lapointe has the numbers and Norris votes, while Savard was more of the rock that let Robinson & Lapointe play a more rushing type of game.

Vasiliev. The more physical player of the 4 mentioned in this round and he has been called the "Tim Horton" of Russia in regards to his playing style. It has been said that after he retired, that the Russian National Team hadn't been able to fill that position of a defenseman who could play the style that Vasiliev played and that he was sorely missed. He was also called the "Defensive Cornerstone" of the Soviet National Teams of the 1970's.