HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 5 (HOH Top Centers)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2013, 12:14 PM
  #101
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Trust you reviewed the Hart voting for the 1954-55 season. Per the AST and Award voting, thanks to BM67.

1954-55
HART: (323/324, 103-119)
1. Ted Kennedy, Tor C 86 (40-46)
2. Harry Lumley, Tor G 61 (23-38)
3. Maurice Richard, Mtl LW 36 (19-17)
4. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 21 (14-7)
T5. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 18 (7-11)
T5. Gordie How, Det RW 18
7. Bernie Geoffrion, Mtl RW 16
8. Red Kelly, Det D 15
T9. Leo Labine, Bos RW 10
T9. Red Sullivan, Chi C 10
T9. Danny Lewicki, NYR LW 10
12. Earl Reibel, Det C 7
T13. Ken Mosdell, Mtl C 4
T13. Alex Delvecchio, Det C 4
T15. Don Raleigh, NYR C 2
T15. Terry Sawchuk, Det G 2
T17. Sid Smith, Tor LW 1
T17. Fern Flaman, Bos D 1
T17. Gump Worsley, NYR G 1

Note that there was a mid-season vote and an end of season vote. In both votes Ted Kennedy and Harry Lumley were first and second.

So how did the writers know by midseason that Ted Kennedy was going to retire? How did they get non- Toronto writers on stream with the voting strategy? Especially the Montreal writers at mid season before Richard's meltdown that cost him the Ross?

The Hart voting from the split voting period is available here:


http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...=145895&page=5

What you suggest simply did not happen and would have been near impossible to organize.
This thread is primarily about Rollins' 1954 Hart Trophy but also touches on Kennedy's 1955 Trophy: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=843647

I don't know why you think the writers have to "organize" something - they are sportswriters and are going to write articles about their opinions all year.

Anyway, this is the most relevant post from the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Never seen anyone claim that Kennedy and Rollins not being on the all-star teams is the mistake rather than their Hart wins.

Kennedy finished tied for 3rd in assists with twice as many as any other Leaf, and 5 of his 10 goals where GTG. With all that he brought to the team besides scoring, he certainly has to be a Hart contender. I would have to think his not being an all-star is a bigger gaff than his winning the Hart.
i have found many newspaper articles from may of 1955 about kennedy's hart, and his retirement and that he had never won an award are mentioned far more than his play in '55. i also found an article that said that winning the hart will not change kennedy's decision to retire.

kennedy said in spring of '54 that he would retire, but he played another season "as a personal favor to Conn Smythe." whether kennedy would retire was a big issue in the NHL, and conn smythe said kennedy could have any salary he wanted if he would play another season.

iirc, conn smythe publicly said (i think in '54, after kennedy said he would retire) that it was a shame that kennedy had never won an award and was missing from the (1st) all star team every season.

windsor daily star from '54:
Quote:
For although his 12 year in the NHL have left their mark on the balding leaf captain, I'd like to see him continue for a few more years and go on to win a few more well-dressed awards like the Hart Trophy and all-star centre on the first team, which for some inexplicable reason he has never received.
part of a column in the val d'or star from may of '55 says:
Quote:
Maybe his threatened retirement had something to do with the voting, but we don't think so.

based on all of those things, it looks very much like it was a career award.


i also wonder if there was another season in which the top 2 in hart voting played for a .500 team.



pappyline may be right about schmidt's '51 hart, since i have also seen the same talk about career in reports, rather than about schmidt's play in the '51 season.
Kennedy has a very good Hart record before 1955, and it would appear he "deserves" it. But actually winning the Hart in his retirement year real does look like something of a career achievement award.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-30-2013 at 02:30 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2013, 12:18 PM
  #102
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPhilly View Post
Does this mean you've reconsidered your previous position as to the Hall-of-Fame worthiness of Vachon? I ask this, not as a "gotcha" question- but because I'm interested in whether your viewpoint on this has evolved...
Are you confusing me with someone else? I don't think I've ever been a strong advocate for Vachon. I think he was probably better than Cheevers and wouldn't mind seeing him in the Hall, but I think Barrasso is a bigger omission. Regardless, in the 6 Team NHL, you had between 4 and all 6 teams with a HHOF goaltender, and in that context, Vachon is probably below average.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-30-2013 at 12:48 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2013, 04:13 PM
  #103
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Common Toronto Captain negotiating ploy - George Armstrong retired a few times. Also coincidental to Jean Beliveau signing a mega contract before the 1953-54 season.

Actually shows the opposite of what you are trying to show since writers did not look kindly on players that leveraged contracts in this fashion.
Well, if you ask the question "how could they know", I'm going to answer simply and accurately "he said so", which is exactly what I was trying to show. And he did retire, so... Whether others had done the "same thing" before or not (surely "common" implies that George Armstrong isn't the only other notable case among contemporaries - forget about the fact that Armstrong would have done it many years after Kennedy), to the best of my knowledge it was the first time Kennedy ever voiced such a thing, so who wouldn't have taken it seriously??

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 12:58 AM
  #104
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,786
vCash: 500
1954-55 Mid Season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This thread is primarily about Rollins' 1954 Hart Trophy but also touches on Kennedy's 1955 Trophy: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=843647

I don't know why you think the writers have to "organize" something - they are sportswriters and are going to write articles about their opinions all year.

Anyway, this is the most relevant post from the thread:



Kennedy has a very good Hart record before 1955, and it would appear he "deserves" it. But actually winning the Hart in his retirement year real does look like something of a career achievement award.
Through modern eyes that is the impression one may get. But let`s look at the 1954-55 season at the time the mid season Hart Trophy voting would have been held;

Standings from the Dec 21, 1954, roughly the 30-34 game point, Gazette show:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...5487%2C4020659

show the Leafs are tied for second with the Red Wings. Both teams are 5 points behind the first place Canadiens, with two games in hand. Plus Toronto has the fewest loses and is leading the league in GA by a comfortable margin.

A brief write-up from the same paper about the scoring race :

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...5916%2C4013382

Mentions that Ted Kennedy, Doug Harvey and George Sullivan are tied for the assist lead.

Quite understandable why at the mid seaon mark Ted Kennedy and Harry Lumley were number 1 and 2 in Hart voting. Nothing to do with the Career Achievement concept put forth or other reasons. Rather clear that at the mid season mark the writers were voting strictly on merit.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 04:20 AM
  #105
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is there really a case for Malone over Crosby or Bentley? I mean, Malone is basically something of a Brett Hull of an earlier era, right?

(I also think Dionne is far from a lock, but that shouldn't surprise you)
Sorry to be so long in answering your question. I think there may be more to Malone than that. There is this article from 1934 which describes Malone's all-around game in quite positive terms.

Quote:
Scoring marks were not the only records Malone that left behind him for future hockey stars to shoot at. In the days of rowdy hockey, when butchery was too often the means towards victory, Malone was a Frankie Boucher type of centre.

...

Tall, rugged and a great stickhandler, he was also a potent defensive unit. He had a fine poke-check, and like Nighbor, used a long stick to break up opposing attacks. He and Odie Cleghorn were probably the outstanding stickhandlers of their day. But unlike Odie, who used a short stick and nursed the puck along almost between his skates, Malone swept through the opposition with long, swinging strides. He was a left hand shot.
Now, this isn't the most substantial of evidence, as it is from after Malone's retirement, and I know of no corroborating sources, but I think it is still meaningful. I think it should be given some weight especially in light of the fact that Malone's golden years were mostly played in Quebec, and hundred-old newspaper sources from that region are notoriously hard to track down in Google Archives. There was probably a whole lot of commentary written on Malone during his career, but thus far, we have found very little of it. Thorough no fault of his own, Joe Malone remains a "phantom" even now.

So at any rate, if we take this single testimony seriously, Joe Malone was no Brett Hull, but rather a player with at least a solid all-around game. I'm not going to try to "sell" the article's legitimacy, but I think it's worth putting out there. Yeah, I do think that Malone deserves top-4 consideration in this round.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 05:33 AM
  #106
ChiTownPhilly
Registered User
 
ChiTownPhilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: S Jersey near Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 312
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ChiTownPhilly
Further to THIS point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
...we can't really do much more than average what [Schmidt] might have lost.
That's one approach- and it calls for some speculation... but another, simpler way of doing it is running "Schmidt vs. X" side-by-side, only omit ages 24-26 for 'X.'

Not saying that this angle is definitive or anything, it's just another perspective that I'd argue would be worth reviewing.

Also have the hypothesis that Schmidt's war-assignments were (how do I put this) less congenial than those of Apps. Am basing this on nothing concrete, just general speculation based on my preliminary internet-rummagings. Can anyone confirm or deny?

[BTW to TDMM: I don't think I confused you with another poster- It's possible that I might have read you saying that Vachon should be in if Cheevers was- and presumed that you judged Vachon HoF-worthy. To the extent that I now see the nuance in your viewpoint, thanks for setting me straight.]

ChiTownPhilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 07:56 AM
  #107
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPhilly View Post
Also have the hypothesis that Schmidt's war-assignments were (how do I put this) less congenial than those of Apps. Am basing this on nothing concrete, just general speculation based on my preliminary internet-rummagings. Can anyone confirm or deny?
As far as I know, the wartime NHL players who served were assigned to army teams and spent their time in uniform mostly traveling to and playing in promotional games for military recruiting drives. None of them spent any time fighting that I am aware of, and the pickup games they played were generally polite, non-physical affairs.

I'd be surprised if there was any substantial difference between the quality of Schmidt and Apps' service, but anything is possible.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 08:11 AM
  #108
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
As far as I know, the wartime NHL players who served were assigned to army teams and spent their time in uniform mostly traveling to and playing in promotional games for military recruiting drives. None of them spent any time fighting that I am aware of, and the pickup games they played were generally polite, non-physical affairs.

I'd be surprised if there was any substantial difference between the quality of Schmidt and Apps' service, but anything is possible.
I had the honour of meeting Milt Schmidt a few years ago and one of the things he talked about was his war time service. In 41-42, along with Bauer & Dumart, he played on a RCAF team that competed for the Allan Cup. Milt says that they were booed by the fans because they were playing hockey whereas other young men were in the front lines. He said that he never played any more hockey while he was in the service. He would have been quite rusty when he came back to the Bruins.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 08:21 AM
  #109
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
I had the honour of meeting Milt Schmidt a few years ago and one of the things he talked about was his war time service. In 41-42, along with Bauer & Dumart, he played on a RCAF team that competed for the Allan Cup. Milt says that they were booed by the fans because they were playing hockey whereas other young men were in the front lines. He said that he never played any more hockey while he was in the service. He would have been quite rusty when he came back to the Bruins.
Interesting, and it explains his poor results in his first season back from the war. Do you know what he was doing if not playing hockey?

I'm sort of surprised that the actual NHL players (at least the ones that were young) didn't get the same treatment from fans at the time. I mean, lots of young guys skated for the Habs during the war, and I've never heard anything about them being booed by fans. Maybe it's something about Quebec that I just don't understand, but considering that France was occupied, one would think the Quebecois would be even more interested in the war than the average Canadian.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 08:34 AM
  #110
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,172
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Interesting, and it explains his poor results in his first season back from the war. Do you know what he was doing if not playing hockey?

I'm sort of surprised that the actual NHL players (at least the ones that were young) didn't get the same treatment from fans at the time. I mean, lots of young guys skated for the Habs during the war, and I've never heard anything about them being booed by fans. Maybe it's something about Quebec that I just don't understand, but considering that France was occupied, one would think the Quebecois would be even more interested in the war than the average Canadian.
He was given some sort of job as a physical training instructor.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 10:46 AM
  #111
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPhilly View Post
That's one approach- and it calls for some speculation... but another, simpler way of doing it is running "Schmidt vs. X" side-by-side, only omit ages 24-26 for 'X.'

Not saying that this angle is definitive or anything, it's just another perspective that I'd argue would be worth reviewing.

Also have the hypothesis that Schmidt's war-assignments were (how do I put this) less congenial than those of Apps. Am basing this on nothing concrete, just general speculation based on my preliminary internet-rummagings. Can anyone confirm or deny?

[BTW to TDMM: I don't think I confused you with another poster- It's possible that I might have read you saying that Vachon should be in if Cheevers was- and presumed that you judged Vachon HoF-worthy. To the extent that I now see the nuance in your viewpoint, thanks for setting me straight.]
Interesting idea but why punish other guys for having great 24-26 age seasons?

also any allowance we make for the war years is speculation and we need to make some for the war years and lockout years as well. The vsX model is also another method but there is more room for variance in a larger league as well. For example a guy competing with 180 top 6 players for PP and top 6 scoring might see more random fluctuations of luck bumping him down than say a guy in a 6 team league with 36 such players.

This is one of the reasons top 10 finishes in a 6 team league don't always correspond very well to top 10 finishes in a 30 team league.

Again here is the before and after for Schmidt for 2 full years around the lost war years.

41 He had a line of 45-13-25-38 good for 11th in the league (5th on the Bruins)
42 He had a line of 36-14-21-35 good for 20th in the league (3rd on the Bruins)
46 He had a line of 48-13-18-31 good for 23rd in the league (4th on the Bruins)
47 He had a line of 59-27-35-62 good for 4th in the league (1st on the Bruins)

In a 6 team league he is just under an aggregate top 15th finish averaged out over those years and alot of that boost is form one of his 2 outlier type of seasons offensively.

15ish in a 36(top 6) forward league really isn't going to add alot to his resume.

If we only average the year before and after it's a 22ish ranking. In a 6 team league that's not very significant.

Feds is playing in a 21 plus team league so all the top 6 forwards in the league are going to be more than 180, thus a lot more room for variance and even more so considering how Scotty used Feds.

I will have a more detailed look at Feds later today but his playoff resume of 15 good to excellent seasons is his strong point, along with excellent defensive play through out his career.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 12-01-2013 at 10:55 AM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 10:57 AM
  #112
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Interesting, and it explains his poor results in his first season back from the war. Do you know what he was doing if not playing hockey?

I'm sort of surprised that the actual NHL players (at least the ones that were young) didn't get the same treatment from fans at the time. I mean, lots of young guys skated for the Habs during the war, and I've never heard anything about them being booed by fans. Maybe it's something about Quebec that I just don't understand, but considering that France was occupied, one would think the Quebecois would be even more interested in the war than the average Canadian.
No doubt many Francophones did feel that way but the government was very English-first in its response to recruitment, training and deployment. This alienated a lot of French Canadians.

Then when conscription was brought in, Quebec viewed it as unfairly targetting the French who didn't want to serve in an all-English army (among other greivances), and that led to this...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consc...Crisis_of_1917

(Off topic, I know)

DisgruntledGoat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 11:27 AM
  #113
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
No doubt many Francophones did feel that way but the government was very English-first in its response to recruitment, training and deployment. This alienated a lot of French Canadians.

Then when conscription was brought in, Quebec viewed it as unfairly targetting the French who didn't want to serve in an all-English army (among other greivances), and that led to this...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consc...Crisis_of_1917

(Off topic, I know)
Did this carry over to how Quebec viewed the second world war, as well?

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 11:40 AM
  #114
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Interesting, and it explains his poor results in his first season back from the war. Do you know what he was doing if not playing hockey?

I'm sort of surprised that the actual NHL players (at least the ones that were young) didn't get the same treatment from fans at the time. I mean, lots of young guys skated for the Habs during the war, and I've never heard anything about them being booed by fans. Maybe it's something about Quebec that I just don't understand, but considering that France was occupied, one would think the Quebecois would be even more interested in the war than the average Canadian.
Quebec's general sentiments toward France were that France had ignored and abandoned Quebec. Which is basically accurate as far as I can tell - France hadn't been very interested in Quebec even when Quebec was a French colony, picked Guadeloupe over Quebec in the Treaty of Paris, and did exactly nothing for Quebec since that day. Quebec wasn't eager to go to war for France.

The war was seen as more of a British Empire war, and Quebecers weren't very excited about the British Empire either. (English-Canadians were considerably less pro-Empire in WWII as compared to WWI, but Canada's participation in both wars was based on our ties to Britain.)

Basically Quebec had little interest in getting involved in European affairs.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 11:50 AM
  #115
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Did this carry over to how Quebec viewed the second world war, as well?
It did, there was another conscription crisis during that war but it was more of a political affair than it was in 1914. Things were better organized for the French by that time but still not ideal.

Quebec's response to both wars created a feeling in English Canada that the French never 'pulled their weight' so to speak.

DisgruntledGoat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 12:01 PM
  #116
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Interesting idea but why punish other guys for having great 24-26 age seasons?

also any allowance we make for the war years is speculation and we need to make some for the war years and lockout years as well. The vsX model is also another method but there is more room for variance in a larger league as well. For example a guy competing with 180 top 6 players for PP and top 6 scoring might see more random fluctuations of luck bumping him down than say a guy in a 6 team league with 36 such players.

This is one of the reasons top 10 finishes in a 6 team league don't always correspond very well to top 10 finishes in a 30 team league.

Again here is the before and after for Schmidt for 2 full years around the lost war years.

41 He had a line of 45-13-25-38 good for 11th in the league (5th on the Bruins)
42 He had a line of 36-14-21-35 good for 20th in the league (3rd on the Bruins)
46 He had a line of 48-13-18-31 good for 23rd in the league (4th on the Bruins)
47 He had a line of 59-27-35-62 good for 4th in the league (1st on the Bruins)

In a 6 team league he is just under an aggregate top 15th finish averaged out over those years and alot of that boost is form one of his 2 outlier type of seasons offensively.

15ish in a 36(top 6) forward league really isn't going to add alot to his resume.

If we only average the year before and after it's a 22ish ranking. In a 6 team league that's not very significant.

Feds is playing in a 21 plus team league so all the top 6 forwards in the league are going to be more than 180, thus a lot more room for variance and even more so considering how Scotty used Feds.

I will have a more detailed look at Feds later today but his playoff resume of 15 good to excellent seasons is his strong point, along with excellent defensive play through out his career.
You continue to subject Schmidt's numbers and scoring finishes to detailed analysis, and then follow this up by praising Fedorov. Fedorov's numbers and scoring finishes are no better than Schmidt's.

And at some point, I'd like to see some evidence to back up this idea that Bowman held Fedorov back. Because my memory of the situation was that Fedorov was always a 20+ minute player on some of the highest-scoring teams of his era. Defensive assignments be damned, there were certainly some offensive advantages there.

But boy, does he get a lot of mileage out of the idea that, 'Bowman held him back'.

DisgruntledGoat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 01:33 PM
  #117
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Interesting, and it explains his poor results in his first season back from the war. Do you know what he was doing if not playing hockey?

I'm sort of surprised that the actual NHL players (at least the ones that were young) didn't get the same treatment from fans at the time. I mean, lots of young guys skated for the Habs during the war, and I've never heard anything about them being booed by fans. Maybe it's something about Quebec that I just don't understand, but considering that France was occupied, one would think the Quebecois would be even more interested in the war than the average Canadian.
Not that I was alive, but...

- Quebec cared much less about France than Canada did about Great Britain by then. I have absolutely no source whatsoever for that.

- That is reflected in the fact that the two most important political parties in Quebec at the eve of the war were opposed to mandatory drafting/conscription. There was also a party whose whole point was opposition to mandatory drafting (Bloc Populaire), which elected a few MP's, both on the federal and on the provincial level.

- Quebec was more rural, and thus a little less exposed to what was happening around the world -- before TV, radio wasn't even THAT mainstream. People working on farms didn't have to go to war if you recall. My parents (actually, my dad) was born during the war, and my mother family had a farm as well by then. That also explain why a guy like Emile Bouchard didn't go to war, as he was a farmer (more accurately, a beekeeper).

- Another thing that is somewhat less known and a little more obscure is that anti-semitism was somewhat rampant in Quebec. Certainly a bit more than everywhere else in Canada. Hitler certainly got a bit more support here than everywhere else, and there was even party who certainly had some (and more than some...) sympathy towards Hitler (for further info : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrien_Arcand). Ironically, Arcand was strongly opposed to any kind of Quebec nationalism (not even talking about Independance here -- that was WAY after its time). In retrospect, the war probably had a great effect in toning down/curbing antisemitism in Quebec.


WAYYYYY off topic, I know....

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 01:36 PM
  #118
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Not that I was alive, but...

- Quebec cared much less about France than Canada did about Great Britain by then. I have absolutely no source whatsoever for that.

- That is reflected in the fact that the two most important political parties in Quebec at the eve of the war were opposed to mandatory drafting/conscription. There was also a party whose whole point was opposition to mandatory drafting (Bloc Populaire), which elected a few MP's, both on the federal and on the provincial level.

- Quebec was more rural, and thus a little less exposed to what was happening around the world -- before TV, radio wasn't even THAT mainstream. People working on farms didn't have to go to war if you recall. My parents (actually, my dad) was born during the war, and my mother family had a farm as well by then. That also explain why a guy like Emile Bouchard didn't go to war, as he was a farmer (more accurately, a beekeeper).

- Another thing that is somewhat less known and a little more obscure is that anti-semitism was somewhat rampant in Quebec. Certainly a bit more than everywhere else in Canada. Hitler certainly got a bit more support here than everywhere else, and there was even party who certainly had some (and more than some...) sympathy towards Hitler (for further info : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrien_Arcand). Ironically, Arcand was strongly opposed to any kind of Quebec nationalism (not even talking about Independance here -- that was WAY after its time). In retrospect, the war probably had a great effect in toning down/curbing antisemitism in Quebec.


WAYYYYY off topic, I know....
That guy sounds like a mad arcand!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 01:56 PM
  #119
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Again here is the before and after for Schmidt for 2 full years around the lost war years.

41 He had a line of 45-13-25-38 good for 11th in the league (5th on the Bruins)
42 He had a line of 36-14-21-35 good for 20th in the league (3rd on the Bruins)
46 He had a line of 48-13-18-31 good for 23rd in the league (4th on the Bruins)
47 He had a line of 59-27-35-62 good for 4th in the league (1st on the Bruins)

In a 6 team league he is just under an aggregate top 15th finish averaged out over those years and alot of that boost is form one of his 2 outlier type of seasons offensively.

15ish in a 36(top 6) forward league really isn't going to add alot to his resume.
Not sure how you got 15th. Schmidt was 5th in scoring during those four years:

RankPlayerGPGAPts
1Max Bentley 182 80 100 180
T2Toe Blake 206 79 98 177
T2Billy Taylor 203 61 116 177
4Syl Apps Sr 173 87 87 174
5Milt Schmidt 188 67 99 166
6Bill Cowley 151 46 105 151
T7Doug Bentley 173 60 89 149
T7Bobby Bauer 181 71 78 149
9Woody Dumart 185 78 70 148
10Clint Smith 197 59 76 135

Depending on what cut-off you use, he's no worse than 7th in points-per-game (100 game cut-off) and could be as high as 4th in points-per-game (150 game cut-off).

If you extend this to include 1940 (the year he won the Art Ross) and 1948, Schmidt is second in scoring (behind Syl Apps) over a six year period that sandwiched the three years he lost to WWII. He was T-7th in points-per-game (100 game cut-off) and could be as high as T-3rd (200 game cut-off; behind only Apps, M. Bentley and Conacher).


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 12-01-2013 at 02:28 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 02:35 PM
  #120
tony d
ATD 2015
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,411
vCash: 500
Surprised Schmidt is not on the final list as being ranked yet. The guy is considered by many to be one of the game's all time great early centres. He's one of my top choices to get put on the list next time.

__________________
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 02:38 PM
  #121
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
You continue to subject Schmidt's numbers and scoring finishes to detailed analysis, and then follow this up by praising Fedorov. Fedorov's numbers and scoring finishes are no better than Schmidt's.

And at some point, I'd like to see some evidence to back up this idea that Bowman held Fedorov back. Because my memory of the situation was that Fedorov was always a 20+ minute player on some of the highest-scoring teams of his era. Defensive assignments be damned, there were certainly some offensive advantages there.

But boy, does he get a lot of mileage out of the idea that, 'Bowman held him back'.
It's not so much Scotty holding him back but he had a specific role for Feds and even used him on defense , or is it just luck that Feds scoring goes up the 1st year with Dave Lewis?

detroit also liked to use a scoring by committee approach, especially on the PP

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 02:43 PM
  #122
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,550
vCash: 500
Here are the top 100 post-consolidation centers by 7-season weighted VsX score:

Rank Player Rank
1 Wayne Gretzky 155.1
2 Phil Esposito 123.4
3 Mario Lemieux 120.4
4 Jean Beliveau 108.9
5 Stan Mikita 108.1
6 Bill Cowley* 103.5
7 Marcel Dionne 103.2
8 Howie Morenz 102.8
9 Joe Sakic 97.9
10 Frank Boucher 95.4
11 Elmer Lach* 95.4
12 Max Bentley* 94.9
13 Steve Yzerman 93.5
14 Bryan Trottier 93.5
15 Joe Thornton 93.3
16 Syl Apps Sr 93
17 Peter Forsberg 90.9
18 Nels Stewart 90.5
19 Adam Oates 90.2
20 Marty Barry 89.9
21 Mark Messier 89.5
22 Norm Ullman 88.7
23 Jean Ratelle 88.5
24 Peter Stastny 88.3
25 Sid Abel 87.8
26 Bobby Clarke 87.6
27 Ron Francis 87.6
28 Milt Schmidt 87.5
29 Henri Richard 86.2
30 Dale Hawerchuk 85.9
31 Denis Savard 85.4
32 Eric Lindros 85.4
33 Alex Delvecchio 84.9
34 Gilbert Perreault 84.6
35 Darryl Sittler 84.1
36 Clint Smith* 82.6
37 Sidney Crosby 82.4
38 Mats Sundin 82.3
39 Doug Gilmour 82.3
40 Pierre Turgeon 82.3
41 Mike Modano 81.7
42 Henrik Sedin 81.7
43 Jeremy Roenick 81.5
44 Ted Kennedy 81.5
45 Sergei Fedorov 81
46 Bernie Nicholls 80.3
47 Cooney Weiland 79.4
48 Pavel Datsyuk 78.9
49 Pat LaFontaine 78.8
50 Hooley Smith 78.8

* = wartime star
# note that the above does not include 2012-13 or 2013-14 season data, so it will underrate Sidney Crosby

I don't feel like getting into an in-depth discussion of the VsX system right now (though you can see one in the original thread) but I'm confident that it is the best cross-era scoring comparative tool we have at present. Whatever the possible inaccuracies of the system, a gap of 6.5 (which is the difference between Schmidt and Fedorov here) is quite substantial. There is very little in the way of sensible argument that I can see which puts Fedorov on Schmidt's level as a scorer in the regular season.

Ultimately, I don't think there should be much of a gap between Schmidt and Henri Richard, and I would like to see them go in on the same vote. They were remarkably similar as scorers, and both brought a lot of defense and intangibles to the table. Henri had the longer career and more Cups, but Milt gets the benefit of the doubt because of the war, and was also a more fiery, physical player who, at least in his Art Ross year, has a legitimate claim to having been the best player in the world for some period of time, which I don't think is true of Henri.

Looking at the players more closely, Henri and Schmidt are probably my 1a/1b this round, with the rest of my top-6 consisting of Dionne, Kennedy, Forsberg and Malone, and the others a step down. This round is easily the hardest for me thus far in the project. I could honestly see an argument for any of the six above players to go 1st in this round. How my top-4 will ultimately look is still very much in the air.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 02:51 PM
  #123
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That guy sounds like a mad arcand!


Ain't where I got the username from, though.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 02:59 PM
  #124
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That guy sounds like a mad arcand!
...Well played"!

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2013, 03:05 PM
  #125
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Not sure how you got 15th. Schmidt was 5th in scoring during those four years:

RankPlayerGPGAPts
1Max Bentley 182 80 100 180
T2Toe Blake 206 79 98 177
T2Billy Taylor 203 61 116 177
4Syl Apps Sr 173 87 87 174
5Milt Schmidt 188 67 99 166
6Bill Cowley 151 46 105 151
T7Doug Bentley 173 60 89 149
T7Bobby Bauer 181 71 78 149
9Woody Dumart 185 78 70 148
10Clint Smith 197 59 76 135

Depending on what cut-off you use, he's no worse than 7th in points-per-game (100 game cut-off) and could be as high as 4th in points-per-game (150 game cut-off).

If you extend this to include 1940 (the year he won the Art Ross) and 1948, Schmidt is second in scoring (behind Syl Apps) over a six year period that sandwiched the three years he lost to WWII. He was T-7th in points-per-game (100 game cut-off) and could be as high as T-3rd (200 game cut-off; behind only Apps, M. Bentley and Conacher).
His average scoring position from the 4 years was 15th, was looking at it from a year by year basis not as a whole, although you do provide another look at it which helps but a lot of it is in his 2nd year back to, is it being too generous than looking directly at the year before and the year after?

Hardyvan123 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 11:27 AM.

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.