HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Jim Robson Division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-03-2013, 04:16 PM
  #51
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I also thought Thomson's competition in the late 40s was basically crap; am I wrong there?
Quackenbush, Stewart, Reardon, Kelly for most of his prime, with Harvey and Gadsby for the last couple years. Crap would be a strong word.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:19 PM
  #52
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think it's somewhat arrogant to totally dismiss the HHOF committee and their picks, rather than trying to figure out why they picked who they did. We have a pretty good idea of why they picked Duff - he was the only player who was part of both the Montreal and Toronto dynasties of the 60s, and he was a good soldier, etc.

I just find it curious that when they were specifically looking for players to induct from the 1940s (after Don Cherry among others whined that there weren't enough players from the 1940s in the Hall - perhaps unaware that maybe there was a reason that the 40s had less than their share of players), that Thomson wasn't one who was inducted.

Maybe the Vet's committee is totally full of crap, but the actual HHOF voters who saw them play didn't vote for them, either.

Edit: I mean, Thomson does seem above average as a #3 and perhaps he's even "high end," but I do still see him a step down from the Flaman/Howell/White trio who themselves seem to be in the 60-65 range of defensemen and by definition the cut off for "low end #2s." I also thought Thomson's competition in the late 40s was basically crap; am I wrong there?
I agree it's somewhat arrogant, but I'm not asking to completely dismiss it. It's easy to nitpick Dick Duff, but how about Leo Boivin for example, there's more than a few examples? If they would be transparent in their elections, perhaps it would be easier to accept some of those choices at face value, but sometime the HoF committee looks more like a 'boy club' than anything else (to be honest, I read an article that also put Sid smith in contention for a Hof spot, but Thomson name was not mention. Offense bias?). However, when we look at the evidence in support of Thomson, they're very strong IMO. Most have been said by Sturminator and the numbers speak for themselves.

Edit: if we're debating with the ranking between #65 & #75, Idon't think you'll see much resistance for me, especially that I consider that group to be tightly close to each other.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:26 PM
  #53
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Maybe I was underrating them offensively - I guess they're pretty good on a second PP. I still don't really buy Thomson as a low-end #2 though - that would put him on par with Harry Howell, Bill White, and Fern Flaman; is he really on their level?
Jimmy Thomson: 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6 ~ [ASG: 1952-53]

Bill White_______: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 7, 9

Fern Flaman____: 3, 3, 4, 5, 6

----------------------------------------------------

There's a reasonable argument that Flaman wasn't as good as Thomson. He definitely had a short peak for his or any era, his best years were only marginally better than Thomson's and he wasn't nearly as important to a team that was actually good. Thomson was easily the better player when they were teammates in Toronto, and they were only one year apart in age. To be honest, I think Thomson was probably the better player.

edit: ack! Flaman was actually a year older than Thomson.


Last edited by Sturminator: 04-03-2013 at 04:46 PM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:33 PM
  #54
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think it's somewhat arrogant to totally dismiss the HHOF committee and their picks, rather than trying to figure out why they picked who they did.
Here you go:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...n+smythe&hl=en

Smythe didn't leave the HHOF committee until 1971 when Jackson was finally inducted, and after Thomson's chance had come and gone, probably largely thanks to Smythe. And yes, the veterans' committee is crap.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:48 PM
  #55
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
You really like Stanley, TDMM, and call him a steal just a bit after Thomson was drafted. You evidently think Stanley was a #2 defenseman who could have been drafted a round earlier. Tell me why Stanley was better than Thomson.
I don't "really" like Stanley - I think he's a below average #2. The difference between Stanley and Thomson is basically longevity as a top player - Thomson was basically done at the age of 30, while Stanley was an impact player until he was 40. Stanley was in a lot of ways the Larry Murphy of the O6 (not in style of play) - never really a superstar but an impact player for a really long time. I think longevity as an impact player does matter matter when two guys are probably close at their peaks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Here you go:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...n+smythe&hl=en

Smythe didn't leave the HHOF committee until 1971 when Jackson was finally inducted, and after Thomson's chance had come and gone, probably largely thanks to Smythe. And yes, the veterans' committee is crap.
Okay, that pretty much says he had no shot to get in the normal way, you're right. I don't know; I guess I do think that when guys have similar awards records that the HHOF nod means something. I don't think it means all that much, but it means more than nothing.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:54 PM
  #56
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So why did the HHOF Veteran's Committee induct Harry Watson over either of the Gold Dust Twins when they wanted to get another representative from the 40s dynasty? I guess there's an argument for Thomson close to 70 but I don't see him in the high 60s. I remember the project well, and Howell/Flaman/White were the next in line to be added after the top 60 was completed.

I mean, Thomson maybe should have come up compared to some of the guys who did.
I had Thomson at 55 in that project. I figured it would be higher than most but I was surprised when 55 turned out to be his highest ranking.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:19 PM
  #57
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't "really" like Stanley - I think he's a below average #2. The difference between Stanley and Thomson is basically longevity as a top player - Thomson was basically done at the age of 30, while Stanley was an impact player until he was 40. Stanley was in a lot of ways the Larry Murphy of the O6 (not in style of play) - never really a superstar but an impact player for a really long time. I think longevity as an impact player does matter matter when two guys are probably close at their peaks.
Thomson had a normal length peak for his era, and his 6th and 7th best seasons are pretty clearly better than Stanley's. Overall, I would say their peaks are similar, but Thomson's was a bit better. Stanley has more longevity in the sense that he played for longer, but how much of his non-peak was as an "impact player"?. He didn't get a single all-star vote until the 1955-56 season, his 8th in the NHL. There's no evidence that Stanley was anything more than a depth player up to that point. His last all-star vote came in the 1965-66 season. So there are nine seasons in between those years when Stanley seems to have been at his peak, and an impact player.

Jimmy Thomson was an impact player starting at the age of 19 in his rookie year in Toronto when he played on the top pairing of a Cup winner. One of the reasons he burned out relatively early is that he got a very early start, much like Ted Kennedy. Reen's bio of him this year is not well put together (I'm working with Dreak to package this material better for posterity), but there is at least one article that I've seen talking about how well Thomson played even as a rookie. By his second year in the league, Conn Smythe was already calling him "just about the best defensive defenseman Toronto Maple Leafs have ever had" (this link from BBS's research).

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...key+star&hl=en

Thomson's last all-star votes came in the 1956-57 season, eleven years after he won his first Cup in Toronto. Was Stanley an impact player for longer, or did he just play for longer?

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:28 PM
  #58
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,447
vCash: 500
Here's the competition when Mortson and Thomson received significant All-Star votes:

1948:

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)

1949:

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);

1950:

DEFENSE: (89/108, 11-6-2) Gus Morton, Tort 21 (3-2-0); Ken Reardon, Mtl 20 (4-0-0); Leo Reise, Det 17 (2-2-1); Red Kelly, Det 17 (2-2-1); Jack Stewart, Det 8; Jimmy Thomson, Tor 6; Bill Quackenbush, Bos; Fern Flaman, Bos;

1951:

Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 68 (9-7-2); Jim Thomson, Tor 62 (8-6-4); Leo Reise, Det 50 (0-16-2);

1952:

DEFENSE: (246/324, 33-22-14) Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Doug Harvey, Mtl 71 (12-3-1); Hy Buller, NYR 47 (1-13-3); Jim Thomson, Tor 38 (2-6-10);

1953:

DEFENSE: (220/324, 33-14-13) Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0); Doug Harvey, Mtl 56 (8-5-1); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3); Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9);

1954:

DEFENSE: (564/648, 324-240) Red Kelly, Det 177 (87-90); Doug Harvey, Mtl 130 (57-73); Bill Gadsby, Chi 84 (51-33); Tim Horton, Tor 83 (39-44); Bob Goldham, Det (21-); Jim Thomson, Tor (17-); Gus Mortson, Chi (13-); Butch Bouchard, Mtl (11-); Tom Johnson, Mtl (11-); Bob Armstrong, Bos (7-); Leo Reise, NYR (4-); Hy Buller, NYR (1-); Ray Gariepy, Bos (1-); Hal Laycoe, Bos (1-); Frank Martin, Bos (1-); Bill Quackenbush, Bos (1-); Fern Flaman, Tor (1-)

1955:

DEFENSE: (436/648, 89-85) Doug Harvey, Mtl 174 (89-85); Red Kelly, Det 151 (-); Bob Goldham, Det 64 (-); Fern Flaman, Bos 47 (-); Hugh Bolton, Tor ();

1956:

DEFENSE: (579/648, 322-257) Doug Harvey, Mtl 177 (89-88); Bill Gadsby, NYR 116 (46-70); Red Kelly, Det 114 (55-59); Tom Johnson, Mtl 81 (41-40); Jim Morrison, Tor (15-); Fern Flaman, Bos (15-); Harry Howell, NYR (14-); Bob Goldham, Det (10-); Frank Martin, Chi (9-); Allan Stanley, Chi (6-); Marcel Pronovost, Det (4-); Leo Boivin, Bos (4-); Bob Armstrong, Bos (3-); Gus Mortson, Chi (3-); Dollard St-Laurent, Mtl (2-); Hugh Bolton, Tor (2-)

1957:

DEFENSE: (546/648, 314-232) Doug Harvey, Mtl 172 (90-82); Red Kelly, Det 98 (46-52); Fern Flaman, Bos 79 (25-54); Bill Gadsby, NYR 77 (33-44); Doug Mohns, Bos (43-); Marcel Pronovost, Det (21-); Tom Johnson, Mtl (13-); Bob Armstrong, Bos (11-); Gus Mortson, Chi (10-); Allan Stanley, Bos (10-); Pierre Pilote, Chi (4-); Jim Thomson, Tor (3-); Jack Evans, NYR (2-); Jim Morrison, Tor (2-)

Hugh jump in the quality of competition between 1950 (which still looks very weak with Kelly not yet hitting his stride) and 1952 (Kelly in his prime, Harvey on his way up). Gadsby is first a factor in 1953.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:30 PM
  #59
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,090
vCash: 500
I want to announce that I've convinced Sturminator to be my co-gm for these playoffs given that I'm not capable of being around as much as I would like.I will still be active but Sturminator's presence, knowledge and debating skills will be a major plus for our team.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:32 PM
  #60
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Thomson had a normal length peak for his era, and his 6th and 7th best seasons are pretty clearly better than Stanley's. Overall, I would say their peaks are similar, but Thomson's was a bit better. Stanley has more longevity in the sense that he played for longer, but how much of his non-peak was as an "impact player"?. He didn't get a single all-star vote until the 1955-56 season, his 8th in the NHL. There's no evidence that Stanley was anything more than a depth player up to that point. His last all-star vote came in the 1965-66 season. So there are nine seasons in between those years when Stanley seems to have been at his peak, and an impact player.
Stanley made the 1955 ASG on merit.
Quote:
Jimmy Thomson was an impact player starting at the age of 19 in his rookie year in Toronto when he played on the top pairing of a Cup winner. One of the reasons he burned out relatively early is that he got a very early start, much like Ted Kennedy. Reen's bio of him this year is not well put together (I'm working with Dreak to package this material better for posterity), but there is at least one article that I've seen talking about how well Thomson played even as a rookie. By his second year in the league, Conn Smythe was already calling him "just about the best defensive defenseman Toronto Maple Leafs have ever had" (this link from BBS's research).

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...key+star&hl=en

Thomson's last all-star votes came in the 1956-57 season, eleven years after he won his first Cup in Toronto. Was Stanley an impact player for longer, or did he just play for longer?
That's a great find, but I'm still skeptical of players who got their starts at a young age in the era immediately after WW2. Once the O6 had recovered from the war, it was pretty much impossible for a 19 year old to make the NHL, but in the time immediately after the war, it was the norm.

Anyway, it's been a long time since I thought about Allan Stanley; I'm pretty sure there was compelling information presented in the HOH Defenseman project that he was an impact player for a very long time, his owning GM can find it if he wishes.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:41 PM
  #61
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hugh jump in the quality of competition between 1950 (which still looks very weak with Kelly not yet hitting his stride) and 1952 (Kelly in his prime, Harvey on his way up). Gadsby is first a factor in 1953.
While I agree that the competition for the #1 spot wasn't at a particularly high level, competition for the all-star spots, themselves, was not soft. The only season in that span where there are less than three future hall of famers in the top-5 is 1951, when Thomson lost a 1st all-star berth by a slim margin to Quackenbush, and I don't think you can fault him for that.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:44 PM
  #62
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Stanley made the 1955 ASG on merit.
Ok, so ten seasons.

Quote:
That's a great find, but I'm still skeptical of players who got their starts at a young age in the era immediately after WW2. Once the O6 had recovered from the war, it was pretty much impossible for a 19 year old to make the NHL, but in the time immediately after the war, it was the norm.
I think Thomson's career proves pretty clearly that he was the exception to this rule. That Toronto team with Thomson on the top defensive pairing beat the defending champion Habs in the finals in his rookie year. If that's not compelling evidence that he belonged in the NHL at a young age, I don't know what is.

Quote:
Anyway, it's been a long time since I thought about Allan Stanley; I'm pretty sure there was compelling information presented in the HOH Defenseman project that he was an impact player for a very long time, his owning GM can find it if he wishes.
I'd like to see whatever is out there.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 05:48 PM
  #63
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
I want to announce that I've convinced Sturminator to be my co-gm for these playoffs given that I'm not capable of being around as much as I would like.I will still be active but Sturminator's presence, knowledge and debating skills will be a major plus for our team.
Ok, I accept. I just can't scratch the old itch often enough. My first act will be to fire you...just kidding. I think you drafted a very strong team, Reen, and I'm happy to help.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 06:41 PM
  #64
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post

I think Thomson's career proves pretty clearly that he was the exception to this rule. That Toronto team with Thomson on the top defensive pairing beat the defending champion Habs in the finals in his rookie year. If that's not compelling evidence that he belonged in the NHL at a young age, I don't know what is.
Well, I think that Cup (and the others of the 40s dynasty) had more to do with Toronto's superior coaching, depth at C, and playoff goaltending than their other roster spots. Obviously Thomson deserved to be in the NHL and had to have played very well, but would a 19 year old even get a chance to be a top pairing guy by the time the 1950s rolled around and the talent pool had recovered from the war? I doubt it.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 08:50 PM
  #65
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
I want to announce that I've convinced Sturminator to be my co-gm for these playoffs given that I'm not capable of being around as much as I would like.I will still be active but Sturminator's presence, knowledge and debating skills will be a major plus for our team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Ok, I accept. I just can't scratch the old itch often enough. My first act will be to fire you...just kidding. I think you drafted a very strong team, Reen, and I'm happy to help.
What does this mean in terms of voting?

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 09:15 PM
  #66
Rob Scuderi
Moderator
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,938
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well, I think that Cup (and the others of the 40s dynasty) had more to do with Toronto's superior coaching, depth at C, and playoff goaltending than their other roster spots. Obviously Thomson deserved to be in the NHL and had to have played very well, but would a 19 year old even get a chance to be a top pairing guy by the time the 1950s rolled around and the talent pool had recovered from the war? I doubt it.
It's relative to the team that owned you though. Thomson was a touted junior and better than anyone Toronto had on the backend coming out of the war. If you fast forward to the 1950s the Leafs had young guys like Horton, Brewer, Baun, Boivin, and Jim Morrison break in. I agree they didn't have the same opportunity for team success as young players, but Thomson and Mortson certainly did their part even if they were in an advantageous situation.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 09:55 PM
  #67
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
What does this mean in terms of voting?
we'll split our votes like every co-gms?

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 09:57 PM
  #68
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 10,090
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
My first act will be to fire you...
I'm the owner of the ATD Montreal franchise , you can't fire me

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 11:01 PM
  #69
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
It's relative to the team that owned you though. Thomson was a touted junior and better than anyone Toronto had on the backend coming out of the war. If you fast forward to the 1950s the Leafs had young guys like Horton, Brewer, Baun, Boivin, and Jim Morrison break in. I agree they didn't have the same opportunity for team success as young players, but Thomson and Mortson certainly did their part even if they were in an advantageous situation.
The thing is that coming out of the war, teams just didn't have the entrenched veterans who made it difficult for young players to earn ice time, like the absolutely brutal competiton 10 years later.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:13 AM
  #70
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well, I think that Cup (and the others of the 40s dynasty) had more to do with Toronto's superior coaching, depth at C, and playoff goaltending than their other roster spots. Obviously Thomson deserved to be in the NHL and had to have played very well, but would a 19 year old even get a chance to be a top pairing guy by the time the 1950s rolled around and the talent pool had recovered from the war? I doubt it.
So Thomson got an opportunity that others might not have, and took it. NHL history is full of exactly this kind of thing. So what? It's highly unlikely that guys like Baun, et al were as good as Thomson as 19 year olds. Most defensemen take into their early 20's, at least, to develop into impact players. Thomson was strong coming right out of juniors. Those later guys may not have had quite the same opportunity, but it's also highly unlikely that they were as good at a young age. Thomson was definitely an impact player even as a rookie. He is kind of a rare bird.

I have looked through the Top-60 defensemen discussion to see what was presented on Allan Stanley, and besides this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
In the spirit of comparing Stanley, Flaman and Johnson.

The stats below are from 1944-1965. This cuts off 4 seasons from the end of Stanley's career. It's worth keeping in mind that he has some extra compilation, a 2nd AS and a 7th place Norris finish not represented here.

Howell appears on the list, but played a whole decade beyond these numbers including a Norris and a 1st AS.


RkNameFirstLastGPGAPPIMPPGHOH RankNorris finishesAll-Star
1 Bill Gadsby1947 19651190 125 426 5511467 0.46 21  
2 Doug Harvey 1948 1964 1041 86 432 518 1186 0.50 2  
3 Red Kelly 1948 1959 796 156 298 454243 0.57 7  
4 Allan Stanley 1949 1965 1004 90 281 371 693 0.37 eligible2,3,8,8,8,10,120/2
5 Pierre Pilote 1956 1965 626 68 284 352 986 0.56 14  
6 Tim Horton 1950 1965 843 77 239 316 963 0.3717  
7 Marcel Pronovost 1951 1965 983 80 217 297717 0.30 34  
8 Tom Johnson 1948 1965 978 51 213 264 960 0.27 eligible1,4,5,6,9,11,12,141/1
9 Jimmy Thomson 1947 1958 782 19 214 233916 0.30 n/a  
10 Harry Howell 1953 1965 890 57 175 232 903 0.26 eligible5,6,9,9,130/0
11 Leo Boivin 1952 1965 808 50 179 229 918 0.28 n/a  
12 Bill Quackenbush 1947 1956 623 39 183 222 69 0.36 26  
13 Jean-Guy Talbot 1955 1965 664 32 190 222 783 0.33 n/a  
14 Fern Flaman 1947 1961 908 34 174 208 1370 0.23 eligible3,3,3,5,50/3
15 Gus Mortson 1947 1959 797 46 152 1981380 0.25 n/a  


Notes

The order is determined by raw points and is not a ranking. Keep playing styles and team situations in mind.

I'm open to correction, but I think the raw PPG numbers are somewhat useful here. Goals-per-game leaguewide averaged about 5.5 during this time period, with a dip to below 5 in the early 50s and a rise to just beyond 6 in the early 60s. All three players shared all of these years, though Flaman is perhaps slightly disadvantaged by having some prime years during the lowest-scoring period.

As a whole, the above looks pretty friendly to Stanley and Johnson. Flaman comes out looking slightly weaker.

I had kind of forgotten about Howell, to be honest. Does he have a case at this point?
...which is nothing but the crudest form of career points counting, the only person calling Stanley an impact player for a long time is you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I voted Allan Stanley ahead of Flaman last time - Flaman has a really impressive 5 year prime, but I feel Stanley was an impact player for a much longer time and contributed to so much team success. That's one ranking I'm not entirely sure I'll keep, but that's how I leaned last time. Lots of similarities between Pulford, Mantha, and Stanley, I think.

It seems strange voting George Boucher in without voting in Harry Cameron, but will there be room? What about Mike Grant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's similar to the argument for Allan Stanley - played forever, was always very good, and contributed to a lot of championships. I'm leaning for both Mantha and Stanley over Flaman and White, who were really impact players for only about 5 years each.
It sort of looks like you talked yourself into the bolded without ever looking very deeply at whether or not it was really the case. No, there was nothing like compelling evidence presented that Stanley was an impact player for a particularly long time, which is not surprising, because it does not appear that he actually was. In fact, Stanley got demoted to the minor leagues for most of the season in his 6th year in the NHL, and this from the Rangers, who sucked at the time. No way was he an "impact player" in New York, which covers the first six years of his career. It looks like he turned it around after the trade (made the all-star game his first year as a Blackhawk), and was an impact player for 10 seasons after that, before winding down over his last few years.

aside: this is a really common mistake that we see a lot here - that is, the assumption that a certain level of performance was sustained over a long period of time without ever taking a critical look at whether or not we have reason to believe that is the case. We run into this same thing with Hod Stuart, for whom there are (probably false) arguments made that he was considered one of the best players in the world for eight years when we only have evidence that he held this status for four seasons.

I hate sniping at the good work done in the top-60 defensemen project after the fact, but it definitely had its warts, especially towards the bottom of the list. I wish I could have taken more active part in the discussions, but I just can't sustain this level of effort in hockey stuff year-round. My wife tolerates it in the winter, but if I did it all the time, she would kill me. Jimmy Thomson not making it into the discussion in that project when names like Flaman, Howell, Stanley, Zubov, Stapleton, etc. (nevermind Konstantinov...) were being kicked around is an indictment of the system, not of Thomson's career. I'm sure you understand this.

Thomson sneaks into the bottom of my own personal top-60 ahead of guys like Flaman, Howell and Stanley (and Pulford...), and I think there is a very good reason for this. I don't have him quite as high as overpass does, but it's close. Beside the fact that I think his career was objectively slightly better than theirs, Thomson played a much bigger role than these guys in the success of a lot of great teams. I think putting him ahead of the Zubov/Stapleton set is pretty much a slam dunk.


Last edited by Sturminator: 04-04-2013 at 04:35 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:44 AM
  #71
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
we'll split our votes like every co-gms?
I suppose so. The only thing I regret in this is that I have tried thus far to be fair and impartial to all teams, but not I have to play the partisan. But such is life, and I do like getting my hands dirty in the playoff debates. We really need to get the roster post up to snuff. Not providing links to profiles of the players (though I don't think it is necessary for Roenick and Doan, at least) is foolish.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 09:57 AM
  #72
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,872
vCash: 500
Going to re-post this so I can work on it. myself

MONTREAL CANADIENS





GMs: Jafar / Sturminator
Captain: Mikhailov
Assistant: Bourque
Assistant: Coulter


HEAD COACH

Tommy Gorman

ROSTER

#9 Busher Jackson - #7 Frank Boucher - #13 Boris Mikhailov
#91 Shane Doan - #27 Jeremy Roenick - #19 Helmut Balderis
#17 Joe Klukay - #14 Don Luce - #10 Tony Amonte
#8 Sergei Kapustin - #33 Troy Murray - #41 Mario Tremblay

#77 Raymond Bourque - #2 Art Coulter
#3 Gus Mortson - #5 Jimmy Thomson
#4 Bobby Rowe - #18 Mathieu Schneider

#1 Georges Vézina
#23 Al Rollins

#39 Jason Spezza, #26 Rick Ley, #12 Steve Thomas, #71 Patrik Sundstrom

PP1: Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Schneider - Bourque

PP2: Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Thomson - Mortson

PK1: Klukay - Luce
Bourque - Coulter

PK2: Murray - Boucher
Mortson - Thomson

PK3: Roenick - Mikhailov
Rowe

Forward Minutes
PlayerES PP PK Total
Jackson 14.5 4 0 18.5
Boucher 14.5 4 2.5 21
Mikhailov 14.5 4 1 19.5
Doan 12.5 0 0 12.5
Roenick 12.5 3 1 16.5
Balderis 12.5 3 0 15.5
Klukay 10.5 0 3.5 14
Luce 10.5 0 3.5 14
Amonte 10.5 0 0 10.5
Kapustin 8.5 3 0 11.5
Murray 8.5 0 2.5 11
Tremblay 8.5 0 0 8.5
TOTAL 138 21 14 173

Defense Minutes
PlayerES PP PK Total
Bourque 19 5 4 28
Coulter 19 0 4 23
Thomson 17 2 3 22
Mortson 17 2 2 21
Rowe 15 0 1 16
Schneider 5 5 0 10
TOTAL 92 14 14 120


Last edited by Sturminator: 04-10-2013 at 01:42 PM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 11:54 AM
  #73
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
MONTREAL CANADIENS





GMs: Jafar / Sturminator
Captain: Mikhailov
Assistant: Bourque
Assistant: Coulter


HEAD COACH

Tommy Gorman

ROSTER

Busher Jackson - Frank Boucher - Boris Mikhailov
Shane Doan - Jeremy Roenick - Helmut Balderis
Joe Klukay - Don Luce - Tony Amonte
Sergei Kapustin - Troy Murray - Mario Tremblay

Raymond Bourque - Art Coulter
Gus Mortson - Jimmy Thomson
Bobby Rowe - Mathieu Schneider

Georges Vézina
Al Rollins

Jason Spezza, Rick Ley, Steve Thomas, Georges Laraque

PP1: Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Schneider - Bourque

PP2: Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Thomson - Mortson

PK1: Klukay - Luce
Bourque - Coulter

PK2: Murray - Boucher
Mortson - Thomson

PK3: Roenick - Mikhailov
That's a very strong team you've put together Sturm.

I like your 1st line as feel as though you did a great job flanking Boucher.

First pairing is obviously above average Ray Bourque is a top end #1.


markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 11:58 AM
  #74
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,406
vCash: 500
Selling this 2nd line will be the difference between a good run and a championship run. No doubt Jafar's team is a serious contender.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-04-2013, 01:12 PM
  #75
BubbaBoot
Registered User
 
BubbaBoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Fenway
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 11,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
That's a very strong team you've put together Sturm.

I like your 1st line as feel as though you did a great job flanking Boucher.

First pairing is obviously above average Ray Bourque is a top end #1.

Jeez, he has Mathieu Schneider as the #6 and Ric Ley as a sub....very nice.

BubbaBoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:07 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.