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

[quoipourquoi]

The one I saw was in the Detroit Free Press on March 17 1946. (technically he was 24 by then, being a March 2 birthday). So it sounds like a win in 46 and a tie in 47.

Of all of the years, 1946 would be the strangest, right? With Lumley and Stewart taking a not insignificant amount of Hart votes, and the defensive All-Star voting of:

DEFENSE: Jack Crawford, Bos (6-3-3-3); Butch Bouchard, Mtl (5-6-0-1); Ken Reardon, Mtl (2-0-4-1); Jack Stewart Det (3-8-3-3); Bill Quackenbush, Det (0-0-2-4); Leo Lamoureux, Mtl (1-0-1-1); Bob Goldham, Tor (0-0-1-3); Babe Pratt, Tor (0-0-2-1); Pat Egan, Bos (0-0-1-0)

I agree, he and Stewart were both #1s. Ironically, Quackenbush eventually fell victim to Detroit being too stacked on D when Kelly came into the picture. With solid depth building up behind the trio, someone had to go. The choice to make it Quackenbush is the reason we're talking about him now... if they had dealt Stewart instead, Quack would have been around for the Red Wings semi-dynasty and his story would look very different. Alas.

On the flip side, if Jack Stewart didn’t miss 1944 and 1945 - two seasons bookended by a 1st place finish in All-Star voting in 1943 (even though his votes were split across left and right D) and that 5th place Hart finish in 1946, we’re probably looking at Stewart building on his 3x 1st Team, 2x 2nd Team record that already matches Quackenbush. Ken Reardon missed three years and still had 2x/3x.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Of all of the years, 1946 would be the strangest, right? With Lumley and Stewart taking a not insignificant amount of Hart votes, and the defensive All-Star voting of:

DEFENSE: Jack Crawford, Bos (6-3-3-3); Butch Bouchard, Mtl (5-6-0-1); Ken Reardon, Mtl (2-0-4-1); Jack Stewart Det (3-8-3-3); Bill Quackenbush, Det (0-0-2-4); Leo Lamoureux, Mtl (1-0-1-1); Bob Goldham, Tor (0-0-1-3); Babe Pratt, Tor (0-0-2-1); Pat Egan, Bos (0-0-1-0)

This is a case where we get some interesting insight on All Star voting. The local Detroit press voted a 23(ish) year old over an established 28 year old star. The national press turned around and not only voted for the established star, but threw him some Hart votes as well.

The easy explanation would be stat-watching, but Quackenbush outscored Stewart by quite a bit that year. Could it be reputation inertia? Hard to say... certainly there's a divide between the local and national perception of who "drove" that pairing, especially considering they followed it with a tie result the following season.

Stashing away a piece of info for later -- a 19-year-old Lumley was 3rd in that local vote, which also conflicts noticeably with his Hart finish.

On the flip side, if Jack Stewart didn’t miss 1944 and 1945 - two seasons bookended by a 1st place finish in All-Star voting in 1943 (even though his votes were split across left and right D) and that 5th place Hart finish in 1946, we’re probably looking at Stewart building on his 3x 1st Team, 2x 2nd Team record that already matches Quackenbush. Ken Reardon missed three years and still had 2x/3x.

If it's of any use, Syd Howe won the team MVP in '45. Not sure about '44.

If Stewart had played in those seasons, it would have been because WWII didn't happen. This is probably a question for another thread, but one of these days we should "reconstruct" the war years according to who should have been in the league and who was on the ascendance to potentially win awards. Stewart would be on the short-list of guys whose trophy case likely took a hit.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The easy explanation would be stat-watching, but Quackenbush outscored Stewart by quite a bit that year.

Could also be stat-watching the other way. Quackenbush scored 11 goals in 49 games - easily the top mark of his career (and then 0 in 5 playoff games, but those likely weren’t factored in).

Could be the hometown media saying in a year when Lumley and Stewart were getting attention, Hey! We have another star too!

Could also be dependent on how the team vote was held. If it was only 1st place votes, Lumley and Stewart could have split votes (having gone back-to-back in Hart voting) and opened the door for Quackenbush to take a plurality.

Small league though, so it’s not like the other cities’ media didn’t see a lot of Lumley and Stewart when they voted for them more strongly than they did Quackenbush.

 

[quoipourquoi]

To throw in a modern (and perhaps relevant) example, Ron Francis was team MVP of the Pittsburgh Penguins in 1997-98 *alongside Hart runner-up Jaromir Jagr.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Could be the hometown media saying in a year when Lumley and Stewart were getting attention, Hey! We have another star too!

I doubt they’d have done that as a collective. The press awards were a pretty in-house affair and barely noted in the media. It wasn’t really a platform for hype, especially since very few people outside of Michigan would read the sports pages of the Free Press.

Could also be dependent on how the team vote was held. If it was only 1st place votes, Lumley and Stewart could have split votes (having gone back-to-back in Hart voting) and opened the door for Quackenbush to take a plurality.

This seems a lot more likely to me.

Small league though, so it’s not like the other cities’ media didn’t see a lot of Lumley and Stewart when they voted for them more strongly than they did Quackenbush.

True, but again we come back to a very quiet unassuming player vs a young stud goalie and the physical terrorizer of the league.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To throw in a modern (and perhaps relevant) example, Ron Francis was team MVP of the Pittsburgh Penguins in 1997-98 *alongside Hart runner-up Jaromir Jagr.

Also consider Lidstrom and Konstantinov’s Norris finishes that year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Also consider Lidstrom and Konstantinov’s Norris finishes that year.

1996-97?

 

[quoipourquoi]

very few people outside of Michigan would read the sports pages of the Free Press.

Not a Mitch Albom fan, eh?

Also consider Lidstrom and Konstantinov’s Norris finishes that year.

You mean the year before (1996-97) in terms of a Stewart/Quackenbush parallel?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Not a Mitch Albom fan, eh?



You mean the year before (1996-97) in terms of a Stewart/Quackenbush parallel?

Yep, my mistake. Konstantinov #2 and Lidstrom #6 with a dynamic that was a lot like Stewart/Quack, stylistically speaking.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure how much we can parallel awards voting in the O6 era to modern times. In the O6 era, every team played each other 14 times, so the voters would be much more familiar with every player in the league, and less stat reliant (though stats obviously mattered too).

Of course "narratives" can take hold in any era.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yep, my mistake. Konstantinov #2 and Lidstrom #6 with a dynamic that was a lot like Stewart/Quack, stylistically speaking.

Not to get too deep into it because I genuinely don’t feel like talking to Red Wings fans about Lidstrom on a weekend (that’s quoipourquoi’s time!) but Konstantinov outscored Lidstrom at even-strength in 1996-97 and was on the ice for just 39 ESGA to Lidstrom’s 58 ESGA. Voters didn’t necessarily get that one wrong just because they chose a bruiser.

If Lidstrom had a team MVP in 1997, I could see the parallel to Stewart/Quackenbush in 1946.

I’m not saying there isn’t value in a team MVP, but when the team MVP’s teammates have significant Hart support (like in 1946 and 1998), I think it’s more of a but also this guy award.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not sure how much we can parallel awards voting in the O6 era to modern times. In the O6 era, every team played each other 14 times, so the voters would be much more familiar with every player in the league, and less stat reliant (though stats obviously mattered too).

Of course "narratives" can take hold in any era.

It’s not so much about lack of exposure, but about what causes a player to be recognized with awards. Quackenbush isn’t even mentioned in playoff game articles during his prime, so it’s not a stretch to imagine he had an uphill battle to get national recognition against a highlight reel hitter who was on the ice at the same time. We see that dynamic over and over with this type of player in a variety of eras.

 

[blogofmike]

I'm not sure how much we can parallel awards voting in the O6 era to modern times. In the O6 era, every team played each other 14 times, so the voters would be much more familiar with every player in the league, and less stat reliant (though stats obviously mattered too).

Of course "narratives" can take hold in any era.

This is true, but they seemed to really notice stats, which is why it’s presented as earth shattering when the GAA leader is not the 1st team AS goalie. Quackenbush was 1st team AS in 1948. The AS forwards were 5 of the 6 guys in the top 5 in points, with goal scoring leader Ted Lindsay taking a spot as an LW over Centre and Hart winner Buddy O’Connor.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Trying to think of other examples of teams with team MVP awards, but most of the recent ones with multi-time Hart nominees don’t have one.

Dionne was a Hart nominee in 1981 and lost team MVP to Mario Lessard. Crosby finished 5th in Hart voting in 2015 and lost team MVP to Fleury (and that wasn’t even a year Fleury had a top-10 save percentage!).

I just don’t know that the 1946 team MVP should override Jack Stewart being 5th in Hart voting.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Dionne was a Hart nominee in 1981 and lost team MVP to Mario Lessard. Crosby finished 5th in Hart voting in 2015 and lost team MVP to Fleury (and that wasn’t even a year Fleury had a top-10 save percentage!).

I just don’t know that the 1946 team MVP should override Jack Stewart being 5th in Hart voting.

Just to clarify (because this is bound to come up again when we see Stewart) I’m not saying it should completely override the Hart vote, but it’s a meaningful factor when we think about what that Hart finish means.

Lessard is a great example of a guy who was overshadowed on the national stage by a superstar teammate, but quietly had a hell of a year in front of a hot-garbage defense and influenced the team’s bottom-line results at least as much as Dionne (this would end very quickly as he came back to earth in the playoffs and subsequent seasons). Is Lessard as good a hockey player as Dionne, not even close, but it’s not crazy to give him the team MVP that year given his actual performance.

This is one of those things where “league MVP” and “team MVP” can truly mean two different things.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It’s not so much about lack of exposure, but about what causes a player to be recognized with awards. Quackenbush isn’t even mentioned in playoff game articles during his prime, so it’s not a stretch to imagine he had an uphill battle to get national recognition against a highlight reel hitter who was on the ice at the same time. We see that dynamic over and over with this type of player in a variety of eras.

I don’t know that we should use the history of physical/non-physical defensemen as a tax on the voting results of the physical ones.

If anything, we’re already cutting Quackenbush a break on the 1948 voting by considering it a Norris-equivalent on a narrow (4-1-0) to (3-2-0) edge over Stewart when we know 1-1-2-2-3-3 ballots don’t translate perfectly to 5-3-1 or 10-7-5-3-1 ballots.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don’t know that we should use the history of physical/non-physical defensemen as a tax on the voting results of the physical ones.

Not blindly, no. Your response to the ‘98 Wings comparison is a good example of how that can backfire.

I do think it’s a reasonable line of questioning, though. Non-physical defensemen have routinely been underrated outside their home markets, all throughout history. If we know that’s the case, it makes sense to look closely at those cases and verify whether the non-physical guy was simply overlooked.

I can’t think of a better example of overlooking the contributions of a non-physical defenseman than a Byng-winning Hall of Famer playing a decade’s worth of playoff games apparently without ever being highlighted, positively or negatively, by a game summary. Even when that same guy was winning postseason awards at both the team and national level.

 

[overpass]

Stan Fischler wrote in Boston Bruins: Greatest Moments and Players: “It is a measure of the influence of Quackenbush 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.”

And of course some writers have suggested in recent years that the NHL put Rod Langway’s name on a trophy for best defensive defenseman.

 

[MXD]

Due to severe depression, I'm stepping away from the board at least for now.

Been there (and at least a few people here can guess when). Take it easy. Don't tackle huge projects and follow what the experts tell you.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don’t know that we should use the history of physical/non-physical defensemen as a tax on the voting results of the physical ones.

If anything, we’re already cutting Quackenbush a break on the 1948 voting by considering it a Norris-equivalent on a narrow (4-1-0) to (3-2-0) edge over Stewart when we know 1-1-2-2-3-3 ballots don’t translate perfectly to 5-3-1 or 10-7-5-3-1 ballots.

To add to this, from 1946-47 to 1949-50, the 6 NHL coaches voted for the All-Star teams and coaches couldn't vote for players on their own team, which means 5 votes is the most a player could get. These are the full results in the two years Quackenbush led all defensemen in All-Star votes:

In other words, these All-Star teams represent the opinions of the 5 NHL coaches who coached against each of these players 14 times per season.

1947-48:

DEFENSE: (108/108, 12-12-12) Bill Quackenbush, Det 23 (4-1-0); Jack Stewart Det 21 (3-2-0); Ken Reardon, Mtl 19 (2-3-0); Neal Colville, NYR 14 (2-1-1); Jim Thomson, Tor 12 (1-2-1); Butch Bouchard, Mtl 7 (0-2-1); Jack Crawford, Bos 7 (0-1-4); Frank Eddolls, NYR 2 (0-0-2); Gus Mortson, Tor 2 (0-0-2); Murray Henderson, Bos 1 (0-0-1)

Two ways to look at this.

1) Narrow "win" for Quackenbush over Stewart.
2) Quackenbush was a single second place vote away from being a unanimous 1st Teamer.

1948-49:

DEFENSE: (96/108, 12-10-6) Bill Quackenbush, Det 25 (5-0-0); Jack Stewart Det 17 (2-2-1); Glen Harmon, Mtl 15 (2-1-2); Ken Reardon, Mtl 15 (2-1-2); Pat Egan, Bos 14 (1-3-0); Jim Thomson, Tor 10 (0-3-1);

No ambiguity here - Quackenbush ran away with the top spot as a unanimous 1st Team All-Star.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Stan Fischler wrote in Boston Bruins: Greatest Moments and Players: “It is a measure of the influence of Quackenbush 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.”

And of course some writers have suggested in recent years that the NHL put Rod Langway’s name on a trophy for best defensive defenseman.

Who would want to win a Quackenbush?

 

[BenchBrawl]

General manager Jack Adams comments on the day of the Quackenbush trade to Boston:

 

[BenchBrawl]

More Adams comments on the Quackenbush trade:

Observe his "plus a hard-hitting defenseman" comment, which could be interpreted in many ways. Quackenbush had just won the Lady Byng trophy, so the contrast was in the spotlight. It might just be a generic description of the player, or some indirect comment that he needed something else than a Lady Byng defenseman. I'm probably reading too much into it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

More Adams comments on the Quackenbush trade:

Observe his "plus a hard-hitting defenseman" comment, which could be interpreted in many ways. Quackenbush had just won the Lady Byng trophy, so the contrast was in the spotlight. It might just be a generic description of the player, or some indirect comment that he needed something else than a Lady Byng defenseman. I'm probably reading too much into it.

Doesn't seem like they got much for Quackenbush.

 

[quoipourquoi]

1947-48:

DEFENSE: (108/108, 12-12-12) Bill Quackenbush, Det 23 (4-1-0); Jack Stewart Det 21 (3-2-0); Ken Reardon, Mtl 19 (2-3-0); Neal Colville, NYR 14 (2-1-1); Jim Thomson, Tor 12 (1-2-1); Butch Bouchard, Mtl 7 (0-2-1); Jack Crawford, Bos 7 (0-1-4); Frank Eddolls, NYR 2 (0-0-2); Gus Mortson, Tor 2 (0-0-2); Murray Henderson, Bos 1 (0-0-1)

Two ways to look at this.

1) Narrow "win" for Quackenbush over Stewart.
2) Quackenbush was a single second place vote away from being a unanimous 1st Teamer.

It’s hard to really translate it to a typical 5-3-1 or 10-7-5-3-1 Norris the way we can probably assume for Quackenbush in 1949 or Reardon in 1947 or Stewart in 1943.

Under 5-3-1
Quackenbush: (4x 1st) 12-20 points, (1x 2nd) 0-1 points
Stewart: (3x 1st) 9-15 points, (2x 2nd) 0-2 points
Reardon: (2x 1st) 6-10 points, (3x 2nd) 0-3 points

So Quackenbush could have had 12-21 points, Stewart from 9-17 points, and Reardon from 6-13 points a typical Norris system.

Under 10-7-5-3-1
Quackenbush: (4x 1st) 28-40 points, (1x 2nd) 3-5 points
Stewart: (3x 1st) 21-30 points, (2x 2nd) 6-10 points
Reardon: (2x 1st) 14-20 points, (3x 2nd) 9-15 points

So Quackenbush could have had 31-45 points, Stewart could have had 27-40 points, and Reardon could have had 23-35 points in a post-1996 Norris system.

I just don’t see the separation to be all that definitive.

If two coaches thought Reardon was the best and three more thought he was the 3rd best, while four coaches thought Quackenbush was 2nd best while one coach thought Quackenbush was 4th best - a scenario that could have played out from the 5 votes...

Reardon: 13 points (2-0-3)
Quackenbush: 12 points (0-4-0)

Reardon: 35 points (2-0-3-0-0)
Quackenbush: 31 points (0-4-0-1-0)

If three coaches thought Stewart was the best and two more thought he was 3rd best, while four coaches thought Quackenbush was 2nd best and one more said 4th best...

Stewart: 17 points (3-0-2)
Quackenbush: 12 points (0-4-0)

Stewart: 40 points (3-0-2-0-0)
Quackenbush: 31 points (0-4-0-1-0)

It’s also possible Quackenbush could have blown them out; the point is we don’t know. We saw Rob Blake (a Jack Stewart bruiser) lose an All-Star vote even with a (27-12-8) to (15-22-10) edge in top-3 Norris placements over a non-physical defenseman (like Quackenbush).

I just don’t think we can say 1948 is a Norris equivalent. The voting was close enough that two other players (who made the HOF a decade quicker) could have finished above him in either Norris voting system. On top of that, it was just a weak era (even in the early-40s, defensemen were a stronger fixture in Hart races), so it should already be taken with a grain of salt.