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.

1955 Red Kelly Moved to Forward

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-21-2013, 12:48 PM
  #1
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,478
vCash: 500
1955 Red Kelly Moved to Forward

Note in the Gazette about Red Kelly being moved to forward in 1955 on a line with Gordie Howe:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...5570%2C1542287

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 01:35 PM
  #2
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,120
vCash: 500
As I understand it, Kelly essentially saw spot duty as a forward on the PP during his waning days in Detroit, as the Wings braintrusts at that time thought, mistakenly obviously, that his best days were done, likely headed into retirement. The guy is a sort of "forgotten superstar" if you will, under-rated by the Leafs Squib Walker when Kelly was with St.Mikes (winning the Memorial Cup in 47) as lacking aggression, skating skills. Well, Kelly was a former Boxing Champion as a kid, heavy duty hockey IQ, and obviously far too sophisticated a player for Toronto. 4X Lady Byng Winner, fore-runner to Orr, contemporary of Harvey. When he was convinced to join the Leafs rather than retire, it was his intelligence & calming effect as a player that enabled the quixotic Mahovlich to take flight on the Wing (Nevin on the other side initially), nurturing his talents, Frank having the confidence to go for it knowing Kelly had his back, one of the sharpest two way players to ever lace em up. One of my favourites all-time. Met the man several times. Very quiet, conservative like most St.Mikes graduates. Completely unassuming, not an ounce of pretension.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 09:28 PM
  #3
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Scoring depth is part of the reason; as the article mentions, the Wings were particularly thin after Lindsay/Reibel/Howe (Delvecchio being the only significant scoring presence after that).

Lindsay would be named to the first team that year, but it's important to note two things:

This article is from December 1955 (early in the 55-56 season), and from 47-78 to 56-57, Lindsay was named to the first team eight times and the second team once. The only time he didn't make it? It was 1954-55, the season before this article was written.

Lindsay's relatively poor scoring those two years (from 47-48 through 56-57, he was top-ten in points every year except 54-55 and 55-56) may also have had an impact in the decision.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 10:02 PM
  #4
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,478
vCash: 500
Ted Lindsay

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Scoring depth is part of the reason; as the article mentions, the Wings were particularly thin after Lindsay/Reibel/Howe (Delvecchio being the only significant scoring presence after that).

Lindsay would be named to the first team that year, but it's important to note two things:

This article is from December 1955 (early in the 55-56 season), and from 47-78 to 56-57, Lindsay was named to the first team eight times and the second team once. The only time he didn't make it? It was 1954-55, the season before this article was written.

Lindsay's relatively poor scoring those two years (from 47-48 through 56-57, he was top-ten in points every year except 54-55 and 55-56) may also have had an impact in the decision.
Ted Lindsay missed 21 regular season games during the 1954-55 season. Healthy for the playoffs the scoring returned:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1955.html

1955-56 Ted Lindsay finished twelfth in scoring, 1 point behind the 9-11th scorers, despite missing three games. The 9 - 11th scorers played the complete season.

In the 1956 playoffs Lingsay out-performed his RS numbers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1956.html

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:06 PM
  #5
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Ted Lindsay missed 21 regular season games during the 1954-55 season. Healthy for the playoffs the scoring returned:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1955.html

1955-56 Ted Lindsay finished twelfth in scoring, 1 point behind the 9-11th scorers, despite missing three games. The 9 - 11th scorers played the complete season.

In the 1956 playoffs Lingsay out-performed his RS numbers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1956.html
I didn't say he didn't do well. I said that he didn't perform as well as he did in other years. It's like people who look at Fedorov's 60-point seasons and say "he's the same as Rod Brind'Amour". Those were Lindsay's two worst seasons from 47-48 through the end of his time in Detroit. Also, with regards to his injury; if he missed the same amount that season as he did (on average) in the other twelve of his first thirteen-season stint in Detroit, he misses two games. Projecting his numbers to 68 GP, he only hits 52.7 points, while the top ten requires 53+. He makes it if he misses one game or plays them all, and that only happened seven times in his seventeen-season career (and only four times in the previous ten seasons).

The injury may have affected his performance, but that doesn't prove my statement (about the move possibly being caused by the lack of scoring) wrong.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:09 PM
  #6
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Interestingly enough Kelly would be a 2nd team all-star on Defense that year although he was 4th in Hart voting, ahead of the 5th place Harvey.

HART: (324/324, 142-146)
1. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 94 (53-41)
2. Tod Sloan, Tor C 86 (14-72)
3. Lorne Worsley, NYR G 72 (55-17)
4. Red Kelly, Det D 25 (14-11)
5. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 11 (6-5)
6. Johnny Wilson, Chi LW 10
7. Gordie Howe, Det RW 8
T8. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 6
T8. Maurice Richard, Mtl RW 6
10. Ted Lindsay, Det LW 5
11. Terry Sawchuk, Bos G 1

NORRIS: (324/324, 130-161)
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)

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)

Kelly would go on to be a 1st team all-star in 57

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)

And then finish 6th in the Norris in the following year, his alst year ever receiving votes as a Dman.

NORRIS: (324/324, 156-153)
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 153 (75-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 119 (55-64)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 17 (13-4)
4. Ron Stewart, Tor 13 (10-3)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 7 (3-4)
T6. Red Kelly, Det 3

We wouldn't see Kelly in the all-star or post season voting again until 61 when he finished 6th in Hart voting, once again interestingly ahead of Harvey

1960-61
HART: (324/324, 152-135)
1. Bernie Geoffrion, Mtl RW 84 (29-55)
2. Johnny Bower, Tor G 71 (48-23)
3. Gordie Howe, Det RW 66 (32-34)
4. Frank Mahovlich, Tor LW 41 (34-7)
5. Glenn Hall, Chi G 25 (9-16)
6. Red Kelly, Tor C 18
T7. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 5
T7. Bert Olmstead, Tor LW 5
T9. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 4
T9. Gump Worsley, NYR G 4
11. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 1

CENTER: (271/324, 162-109)

Jean Beliveau, Mtl 170 (80-90)
Henri Richard, Mtl 51 (32-19)
Norm Ullman, Det (25-)
Red Kelly, Tor (19-)
Don McKenney, Bos (3-)
Alex Delvecchio, Det (3-)

A very interesting career and interesting voting results as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:41 PM
  #7
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,120
vCash: 500
^^^ Ya Red Kelly though on the downslope of his career age-wise when I watched him playing was still extraordinarily effective as a player. Really smart... and I see Bill Gadsby ranking up there as well, another largely forgotten & beyond excellent player. Favourite of mine as a kid.... had a huge pair of oversized ears, massive things Hv... I used to imagine Bill there capable of using them for flight.... tremendous glide capability n' whatnot... aeronautically speaking.... like Dumbo the Elephant... anyhoo, carry on.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-21-2013, 11:50 PM
  #8
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
^^^ Ya Red Kelly though on the downslope of his career age-wise when I watched him playing was still extraordinarily effective as a player. Really smart... and I see Bill Gadsby ranking up there as well, another largely forgotten & beyond excellent player. Favourite of mine as a kid.... had a huge pair of oversized ears, massive things Hv... I used to imagine Bill there capable of using them for flight.... tremendous glide capability n' whatnot... aeronautically speaking.... like Dumbo the Elephant... anyhoo, carry on.
are we talking Tie Domi head stratosphere here?

Gadsby is one guy I find over rated here, and I'm a career guy as well, but I never got to see him play so it's hard to judge the next tier of Dmen from that era.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 01:29 AM
  #9
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Gadsby is one guy I find over rated here, and I'm a career guy as well, but I never got to see him play so it's hard to judge the next tier of Dmen from that era.
I have Gadsby ranked between Coffey and Pronger on my all-time list.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:32 AM
  #10
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
I have Gadsby ranked between Coffey and Pronger on my all-time list.
The case for him over Pronger is pretty weak IMO.

Bill's last post season all star selection comes out of the blue in 65 and his overall Norris/allstar voting is rather weak for a top 20 guy of all time when put into context IMO.

His "defensive play" certainly didn't translate very well into his teams GA and his playoff resume is underwhelming to say the least.

Even in his prime, 53-59 with 6 straight post season all stars has to be taken into context as he was part of the next tier after Kelly/Harvey and it's was a big step down in tiers.

Even then only 2 of his 7 post season all stars were in years when Kelly was viewed as a full time Dman.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 09:09 AM
  #11
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,478
vCash: 500
Relevant Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
I didn't say he didn't do well. I said that he didn't perform as well as he did in other years. It's like people who look at Fedorov's 60-point seasons and say "he's the same as Rod Brind'Amour". Those were Lindsay's two worst seasons from 47-48 through the end of his time in Detroit. Also, with regards to his injury; if he missed the same amount that season as he did (on average) in the other twelve of his first thirteen-season stint in Detroit, he misses two games. Projecting his numbers to 68 GP, he only hits 52.7 points, while the top ten requires 53+. He makes it if he misses one game or plays them all, and that only happened seven times in his seventeen-season career (and only four times in the previous ten seasons).

The injury may have affected his performance, but that doesn't prove my statement (about the move possibly being caused by the lack of scoring) wrong.
Should view newspaper claims by coaches with caution, Researching the same claims offers a clearer picture:

1955-56 Red Wing season scores with summaries below:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

By early December 1955 the Red Wings had played app 25 games.Likewise in 1954.

Comparing to similar points in the season, 1954-55 Red Wings had 60GF / 44GA. 1955-56 Red Wings had 57GF / 52GA the offensive performance was relatively constant - three goal difference while they had given up eight more goals. The increase in goals against was very alarming, projecting to app 22 over the course of the season.

The Red Wings had the deepest defence in the league, Red Kelly, Marcel Pronovost both had played forward, Bob Goldham, Warren Godfrey, Larry Hillman and Gord Hollingworth, two promising prospects.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1956.html

Until the January 17,1956 trade that brought Lorne Ferguson, a period of 17 games with only 28GA, the move brought the necessary defensive results.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 02:04 PM
  #12
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
are we talking Tie Domi head stratosphere here?
... goodness no. No, that was thing with Bill Gadsby. Well proportioned normal sized head but for the ears. Surprised RCA Victor or Electrohome, a TV or Stereo, Radio manufacturer didnt sign him up as official spokesperson. Perfect for the part. Ears like that, gotta figure he'd be a total connoisseur. Great player & guy, totally believable. Id buy whatever he was selling.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2013, 05:38 PM
  #13
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The case for him over Pronger is pretty weak IMO.

Bill's last post season all star selection comes out of the blue in 65 and his overall Norris/allstar voting is rather weak for a top 20 guy of all time when put into context IMO.

His "defensive play" certainly didn't translate very well into his teams GA and his playoff resume is underwhelming to say the least.

Even in his prime, 53-59 with 6 straight post season all stars has to be taken into context as he was part of the next tier after Kelly/Harvey and it's was a big step down in tiers.

Even then only 2 of his 7 post season all stars were in years when Kelly was viewed as a full time Dman.
Glad you added IMO. Agree with Killon &Eva. I have Gadsby ahead of Pronger. He was one of my favorites and certainly his 65 AS selection was well deserved. There was an unjustified hatchet job done on Gadsby in the all time defenseman project which seemed to evolve from a push by TDMM & Hardy to push a couple of modern guys ahead of him.So what that he was a poor third behind Harvey & kelly. Harvey is a top 6 and kelly came in at 16 on the top 70 project(which includes forwards & goalies). The other argument was that in his prime he was a top D on some pretty horrible teams. I can't understand your venom about a guy you have very little knowledge of.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 12:21 AM
  #14
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Glad you added IMO. Agree with Killon &Eva. I have Gadsby ahead of Pronger. He was one of my favorites and certainly his 65 AS selection was well deserved.


The 65 AS may very well have been well deserved, it's just unusual that he barely showed up at all on the Norris or all-star radar the previous 3 years. It could be inconsistency or that he had some poor years and other guys had a poor year in 65 or that it was a reward vote, much like Lidstrom's last Norris, but it sure raises some legitimate questions.


Quote:
There was an unjustified hatchet job done on Gadsby in the all time defenseman project which seemed to evolve from a push by TDMM & Hardy to push a couple of modern guys ahead of him.
I won't speak for TDDM but will add that it's really hard to place a guy that I haven't seen play and was never considered the best Dman in the game ever, and only the 2nd best for really short stretches, ahead of guys who were the best Dmen in the world in fully integrated and larger talent pool leagues.

Quote:
So what that he was a poor third behind Harvey & kelly.
I think it's important because all too often the "well he never won a Norris because he played behind Harvey and Kelly" argument comes up a lot.

Being close and never getting a Norris is one thing, kinda like Potvin never winning a Conn Smythe or Dats only having 1 post season all star berth, but being a distant 2nd at best is a whole other kettle of fish iMO.


Quote:
Harvey is a top 6 and kelly came in at 16 on the top 70 project(which includes forwards & goalies). The other argument was that in his prime he was a top D on some pretty horrible teams. I can't understand your venom about a guy you have very little knowledge of.
It's not venom it's quite simply that any guy in the top 30 of all time over a period of 125 plus years of hockey should at least have a small period of being #1 in the world or a really compelling case of being in the mix of a great group for 2nd or 3rd, like in the mid 90's.

The fact that he was always quite distant behind both Kelly and Harvey in their primes indicates that maybe my opinion on him might be justified.

As it is I'm not absolute about it, it's my best educated guess as I never got to see him play but the fact of the matter is that more often than not the modern player has to reach a higher bar than a guy form the 06 era and this was especially true in the top 60 Dman project IMO.

I have some guesses as to why that is and part of that is keeping the historical in the history section which I get, but while that's the case people should also not get so jumpy about having to defend a position of the rankings of the 06 guys either.

For instance a guy like Phil Housley, most of us saw how poor he was defensively but if in 100 years two people were to look at Gadsby and Houlsey both without the benefit of tape, then most would conclude that Housley was the better player simply by looking at stats (which is what most of us have going here on Gadsby)


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 07-04-2013 at 12:41 AM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 07:04 PM
  #15
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The 65 AS may very well have been well deserved, it's just unusual that he barely showed up at all on the Norris or all-star radar the previous 3 years. It could be inconsistency or that he had some poor years and other guys had a poor year in 65 or that it was a reward vote, much like Lidstrom's last Norris, but it sure raises some legitimate questions.




I won't speak for TDDM but will add that it's really hard to place a guy that I haven't seen play and was never considered the best Dman in the game ever, and only the 2nd best for really short stretches, ahead of guys who were the best Dmen in the world in fully integrated and larger talent pool leagues.



I think it's important because all too often the "well he never won a Norris because he played behind Harvey and Kelly" argument comes up a lot.

Being close and never getting a Norris is one thing, kinda like Potvin never winning a Conn Smythe or Dats only having 1 post season all star berth, but being a distant 2nd at best is a whole other kettle of fish iMO.




It's not venom it's quite simply that any guy in the top 30 of all time over a period of 125 plus years of hockey should at least have a small period of being #1 in the world or a really compelling case of being in the mix of a great group for 2nd or 3rd, like in the mid 90's.

The fact that he was always quite distant behind both Kelly and Harvey in their primes indicates that maybe my opinion on him might be justified.

As it is I'm not absolute about it, it's my best educated guess as I never got to see him play but the fact of the matter is that more often than not the modern player has to reach a higher bar than a guy form the 06 era and this was especially true in the top 60 Dman project IMO.

I have some guesses as to why that is and part of that is keeping the historical in the history section which I get, but while that's the case people should also not get so jumpy about having to defend a position of the rankings of the 06 guys either.

For instance a guy like Phil Housley, most of us saw how poor he was defensively but if in 100 years two people were to look at Gadsby and Houlsey both without the benefit of tape, then most would conclude that Housley was the better player simply by looking at stats (which is what most of us have going here on Gadsby)
Not worth it.


Last edited by pappyline: 07-04-2013 at 08:04 PM. Reason: Delete
pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 08:53 PM
  #16
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 8,925
vCash: 500
I agree with the sentiment that Bill Gadsby is underappreciated in the sense that while not forgotten he doesn't really get a lot of mentions when legends of hockey are talked about. I don't know or care that much about where someone ranks him on a list but he was a hell of a player that's for sure - hence my avatar.

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 09:30 PM
  #17
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,360
vCash: 500
That 1/4 (or so) of a season played at forward in 1955 probably cost him a 1st AST.He was incredibly close to both Harvey and Gadsby but finished third.

One thing I've learned with Red Kelly is that the closer you look at his career the better it gets.It's also noteworthy to mention that he was by far the best goal-scoring defenseman of his era.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 07-04-2013 at 09:38 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 09:34 PM
  #18
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I won't speak for TDDM but will add that it's really hard to place a guy that I haven't seen play and was never considered the best Dman in the game ever, and only the 2nd best for really short stretches, ahead of guys who were the best Dmen in the world in fully integrated and larger talent pool leagues.
My general knowledge of Gadsby isn't as sharp as it used to be when I researched Red Kelly for my ATD2012 team , but you have to take into account who were the defensemen that prevented him from being "the best in the world".

Doug Harvey won 7 Norris Trophies in 8 years starting in 54-55 , Kelly won the first Norris trophy in 53-54 , and the three previous year Kelly would clearly have won the Norris if the trophy existed (based on AST voting http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...19&postcount=6). So you have 2 defensemen winning 11 Norris out of 12 consecutive years with Tom Johnson winning one out of nowhere.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 07-04-2013 at 09:44 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2013, 09:39 PM
  #19
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
I agree with the sentiment that Bill Gadsby is underappreciated in the sense that while not forgotten he doesn't really get a lot of mentions when legends of hockey are talked about. I don't know or care that much about where someone ranks him on a list but he was a hell of a player that's for sure - hence my avatar.
Well, as I mentioned up-page, he was/is one of my all-time favourites. Rangy, excellent reach, strong & rock solid, played the angles brilliantly. Had some surprising short burst speed as well. Though hard to imagine in the prime of his life, 1952 while Captain in Chicago I believe he was struck with Polio. A devastating & crippling disease that he managed to escape from, carrying on professionally. I remember him in his last years with the Rangers, then with the Red Wings of course, and even then, late in his career, this guy was one fine wine in terms of playing defence, along with Pierre Pilote & Harry Howell, couple more guys who's game's I admired very much.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2013, 08:35 PM
  #20
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
My general knowledge of Gadsby isn't as sharp as it used to be when I researched Red Kelly for my ATD2012 team , but you have to take into account who were the defensemen that prevented him from being "the best in the world".

Doug Harvey won 7 Norris Trophies in 8 years starting in 54-55 , Kelly won the first Norris trophy in 53-54 , and the three previous year Kelly would clearly have won the Norris if the trophy existed (based on AST voting http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...19&postcount=6). So you have 2 defensemen winning 11 Norris out of 12 consecutive years with Tom Johnson winning one out of nowhere.
The overlap of both Kelly and Harvey is still less than 5 years, going off of memory and this is Gadsby's total voting history (along with the Big 2).

47 none of the 3 (10 players with votes)
48 none of the 3 (10)
49 none of the 3 (6)
50 Kelly 4th with 17 points (7)
51 Kelly 1st with 90 points, next best were 68,62,50 (4)
52 Kelly 90, Harvey 71, next best 47,38 (4)
53 Kelly 90, (18-0-0); Doug Harveyl 56 (8-5-1); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3); Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9)

So taking Harvey and Kelly out Gadsby has a 2nd place overall so far

In 54 we use the Norris, before it was all-star teams

54

1. Red Kelly, Det 162 (76-86)
2. Doug Harvey, Mtl 57 (22-35)
3. Bill Gadsby, Chi 38 (28-10)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 26 (14-12)

In addition to his 2n we can now add a 1st

55

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 147 (72-75)
2. Red Kelly, Det 95 (40-55)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 32 (17-15)
4. Bob Goldham, Det 16 (7-9)
5. Hugh Bolton, Tor 9 (8-1)
6. Tim Horton, Tor 4
T7. Harry Howell, NYR 3
T7. Bill Gadsby, NYR 3
T7. Marcel Pronovost, Det 3
T7. Jim Thomson, Tor 3
T7. Tom Johnson, Mtl 3

(1,2 tied for 5th)

56
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)

Still a solid 1st after the big 2 (assuming one thinks Kelly should be 2nd due to time at forward)

(1st 2 times and a 2nd and toed for 5th)

57
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 159 (83-76)
2. Red Kelly, Det 42 (20-22)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 35 (16-19)
4. Bill Gadsby, NYR 32 (14-18)
5. Doug Mohns, Bos 23 (17-6)

(1st- 2 times, 2nd two times and a tied for 5th)

58
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 153 (75-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 119 (55-64)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 17 (13-4)
4. Ron Stewart, Tor 13 (10-3)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 7 (3-4)
T6. Red Kelly, Det 3

Kelly is clearly being considered as a forward now so only Harvey is around from the big 2 so it will be a separate list now.

1st

59
1. Tom Johnson, Mtl 92 (38-54)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 67 (31-36)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 58 (34-24)
4. Doug Harvey, Mtl 48 (30-18)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 34 (21-13)

Harvey missed 9 games and was 34 at this point so it's hard to rate as being against the Harvey we all imagine but let's give him a 2nd

1,2

60
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 129 (66-63)
2. Allan Stanley, Tor 42 (15-27)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 39 (19-20)
4. Pierre Pilote, Chi 33 (6-27)
5. Tom Johnson, Mtl 32 (18-14)
6. Bill Gadsby, NYR 22 (20-2)

so we have a 1st, 2nd and 6th

61 Harvey 1st, Gadsby tied for 10th

1,2,6, tied for 7th

62 Harvey 1st, no Bill, 13 guys get votes
63
1. Pierre Pilote, Chi 98 (46-52)
2. Carl Brewer, Tor 81 (34-47)
3. Tim Horton, Tor 37 (14-23)
4. Elmer Vasko, Chi 28 (20-8)
5. Bill Gadsby, Det 25 (16-9) Harvey is 34
6. Doug Harvey, NYR 14 (0-14) Harvey is 37 now


1,2,6, tied for 7th and now a 5th when Harvey is 37 years old and done.

64 Gadsby tied for 14th
65 the surprise year with bill tied for 3rd at age 37 with a 61-012-12 line.

1. Pierre Pilote, Chi 93 (32-61)
2. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 78 (55-23)
3. Bill Gadsby, Det 40 (18-22)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 27 (15-12)

66 tied for 11th

IMO even with Harvey and Kelly taken out (and why would we really do this as they overlapped only 5 seasons) and Bill then is a 1st two times, 2nd 2 times and a tied for 5th. This is all in a 6 team league.

Even adding only against Harvey we have another 1st, 2nd tied for 6th and 7th.

Doesn't add up to a top 25 of all time guy IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 07:32 PM
  #21
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The overlap of both Kelly and Harvey is still less than 5 years, going off of memory and this is Gadsby's total voting history (along with the Big 2).

47 none of the 3 (10 players with votes)
48 none of the 3 (10)
49 none of the 3 (6)
50 Kelly 4th with 17 points (7)
51 Kelly 1st with 90 points, next best were 68,62,50 (4)
52 Kelly 90, Harvey 71, next best 47,38 (4)
53 Kelly 90, (18-0-0); Doug Harveyl 56 (8-5-1); Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3); Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9)

So taking Harvey and Kelly out Gadsby has a 2nd place overall so far

In 54 we use the Norris, before it was all-star teams

54

1. Red Kelly, Det 162 (76-86)
2. Doug Harvey, Mtl 57 (22-35)
3. Bill Gadsby, Chi 38 (28-10)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 26 (14-12)

In addition to his 2n we can now add a 1st

55

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 147 (72-75)
2. Red Kelly, Det 95 (40-55)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 32 (17-15)
4. Bob Goldham, Det 16 (7-9)
5. Hugh Bolton, Tor 9 (8-1)
6. Tim Horton, Tor 4
T7. Harry Howell, NYR 3
T7. Bill Gadsby, NYR 3
T7. Marcel Pronovost, Det 3
T7. Jim Thomson, Tor 3
T7. Tom Johnson, Mtl 3

(1,2 tied for 5th)

56
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)

Still a solid 1st after the big 2 (assuming one thinks Kelly should be 2nd due to time at forward)

(1st 2 times and a 2nd and toed for 5th)

57
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 159 (83-76)
2. Red Kelly, Det 42 (20-22)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 35 (16-19)
4. Bill Gadsby, NYR 32 (14-18)
5. Doug Mohns, Bos 23 (17-6)

(1st- 2 times, 2nd two times and a tied for 5th)

58
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 153 (75-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 119 (55-64)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 17 (13-4)
4. Ron Stewart, Tor 13 (10-3)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 7 (3-4)
T6. Red Kelly, Det 3

Kelly is clearly being considered as a forward now so only Harvey is around from the big 2 so it will be a separate list now.

1st

59
1. Tom Johnson, Mtl 92 (38-54)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 67 (31-36)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 58 (34-24)
4. Doug Harvey, Mtl 48 (30-18)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 34 (21-13)

Harvey missed 9 games and was 34 at this point so it's hard to rate as being against the Harvey we all imagine but let's give him a 2nd

1,2

60
1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 129 (66-63)
2. Allan Stanley, Tor 42 (15-27)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 39 (19-20)
4. Pierre Pilote, Chi 33 (6-27)
5. Tom Johnson, Mtl 32 (18-14)
6. Bill Gadsby, NYR 22 (20-2)

so we have a 1st, 2nd and 6th

61 Harvey 1st, Gadsby tied for 10th

1,2,6, tied for 7th

62 Harvey 1st, no Bill, 13 guys get votes
63
1. Pierre Pilote, Chi 98 (46-52)
2. Carl Brewer, Tor 81 (34-47)
3. Tim Horton, Tor 37 (14-23)
4. Elmer Vasko, Chi 28 (20-8)
5. Bill Gadsby, Det 25 (16-9) Harvey is 34
6. Doug Harvey, NYR 14 (0-14) Harvey is 37 now


1,2,6, tied for 7th and now a 5th when Harvey is 37 years old and done.

64 Gadsby tied for 14th
65 the surprise year with bill tied for 3rd at age 37 with a 61-012-12 line.

1. Pierre Pilote, Chi 93 (32-61)
2. Jacques Laperriere, Mtl 78 (55-23)
3. Bill Gadsby, Det 40 (18-22)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 27 (15-12)

66 tied for 11th

IMO even with Harvey and Kelly taken out (and why would we really do this as they overlapped only 5 seasons) and Bill then is a 1st two times, 2nd 2 times and a tied for 5th. This is all in a 6 team league.

Even adding only against Harvey we have another 1st, 2nd tied for 6th and 7th.

Doesn't add up to a top 25 of all time guy IMO.
Boy, you really have a thing about Bill Gadsby don't you.

I think the stuff you threw out there actually supports his case. Take Kelly & harvey out of the picture and he has 2 firsts & 2 seconds. Leave Kelly in & take out harvey, Gads has 3 firsts and 3 seconds. This is pretty good IMO. Keep the following in mind.

All 3 came into the league at roughly the same time.

It took each of them a few years to gain recognition.

Gadsby mainly played for bad teams. Harvey & Kelly played for powerhouses.

Gadsby had the misfortune to play at the same time as 2 of the greatest dmen of all time. Harvey was ranked #2 of Dmen & #7 of all players. Kelly was #6 of dmen and # 16 of all players. The consensus had Gadsby at #21 among Dmen.

Gadsby broke his leg at his peak.

People that saw him play rate Gadsby very high including Killion & myself.

IMO, it was tougher to get recognition in the original 6. You were competing with the top 24 dmen in the world.

Anyway, you are going against the consensus here and have heaped ridicule on Gadsby being being in the top 25. So where do you have him & who do you have ahead of him?

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 08:46 PM
  #22
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,051
vCash: 500
Honestly I would have him in around the 40ish range, the competition outside of Harvey and Kelly isn't overly impressive and maybe the best 24 Dmen in the world were in the league then but the best Canadians have always been in the league and a guy like Nieds also has to compete against the best of the rest of the world, in terms of competition.

the pros for Bill are

1) a long peak, prime and career
2) the all star selections and voting, although it's a pro and a con so maybe a bit neutral given the competition of a guy like Nieds and never being a true #1 Dman in the world.
3) coming along in the 06 era (most of us tend to do these lists chronologically)

some not so strong points about Bill's case

1) not a great playoff record or resume, in part to
2) not playing on great teams but we don't have enough advanced information to tell if he was really that good or not, even the all-star or Norris voting has him a clear step down from both Kelly and Harvey

I just have a hard time giving him some kind of credit of playing when Harvey and Kelly played, it's not like we should do the same for guys who played while Orr and Park and Potvin were around or Chelios, Bourque and that era.

I know it's not a popular thing here but the guys playing in a fully integrated league tend to be downgraded while the guys in the late 60's and 70's especially tend to be treated with the benefit of the doubt all too often.

Guys like Vasiliev and Savard come to mind here.

I for one would have guys like Chara and Nieds ahead of him due to a couple of reasons.

1) Chara has been at times the best and near the best Dman in the world, in a larger and more competitive filed.

2) Chara at his best simply dominated more and had more to do with his team fortunes that Bill did IMO.

the reason they both fell in the top 60 project is 3 fold IMO.

1) the large number of ATD participants and the ATD criteria of taking players from all eras, thus in 06 times less top end players to choose from than in post 30 team NHL for instance

2) The "historical" taking precedent over the "better" when cases come close. This is closely related to a weird interpretation of the sticky where all eras are treated more or less the same or the best are always the best is brought up as well sometimes.

to be fair this would ahve more legitimacy if the NHL had remained an almost exclusive Canadian fed league but given the rise of non Canadian players and their quality in terms of elite players then this notion is really unfair to the modern player.

3) #2 is further compounded by the 3rd one which is way more information, which is often used to downgrade current players when compared to past ones where information is largely in the form of 2nd hand eye witness reports written Joe Pelletier style (which is a great resource but has to acknowledged as more of a cheer leading style of documenting players rather than a complete and critical look at them).

Most of the newspaper clipping are the same as free food and even beer was available in the press boxes and why would reporters bite the hand that feeds them eh. So negative information about most players was either missing or not mentioned for the most part.

There is ample evidence of this in journalistic journals with presents and ball players having affairs with Munroe but it wasn't in the press nor the public eye, Watergate changed all of that.

Personally I think one of the ways to get around the problems presented above and over the length of the NHL is to separate different eras when making comparisons as the farther players get apart in time the more difficult it is to fairly and accurately compare them without a bias towards either of them.

The conditions in the NHL and the player makeup has changed too radically, especially in the last 20-30 years to fairly compare them to a totally Canadian NHL pre late 1970's.

It might not be a popular opinion here but the simple numbers have told us how the league has changed and how dramatic it has been.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 09:04 PM
  #23
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Honestly I would have him in around the 40ish range, the competition outside of Harvey and Kelly isn't overly impressive and maybe the best 24 Dmen in the world were in the league then but the best Canadians have always been in the league and a guy like Nieds also has to compete against the best of the rest of the world, in terms of competition.

the pros for Bill are

1) a long peak, prime and career
2) the all star selections and voting, although it's a pro and a con so maybe a bit neutral given the competition of a guy like Nieds and never being a true #1 Dman in the world.
3) coming along in the 06 era (most of us tend to do these lists chronologically)

some not so strong points about Bill's case

1) not a great playoff record or resume, in part to
2) not playing on great teams but we don't have enough advanced information to tell if he was really that good or not, even the all-star or Norris voting has him a clear step down from both Kelly and Harvey

I just have a hard time giving him some kind of credit of playing when Harvey and Kelly played, it's not like we should do the same for guys who played while Orr and Park and Potvin were around or Chelios, Bourque and that era.

I know it's not a popular thing here but the guys playing in a fully integrated league tend to be downgraded while the guys in the late 60's and 70's especially tend to be treated with the benefit of the doubt all too often.

Guys like Vasiliev and Savard come to mind here.

I for one would have guys like Chara and Nieds ahead of him due to a couple of reasons.

1) Chara has been at times the best and near the best Dman in the world, in a larger and more competitive filed.

2) Chara at his best simply dominated more and had more to do with his team fortunes that Bill did IMO.

the reason they both fell in the top 60 project is 3 fold IMO.

1) the large number of ATD participants and the ATD criteria of taking players from all eras, thus in 06 times less top end players to choose from than in post 30 team NHL for instance

2) The "historical" taking precedent over the "better" when cases come close. This is closely related to a weird interpretation of the sticky where all eras are treated more or less the same or the best are always the best is brought up as well sometimes.

to be fair this would ahve more legitimacy if the NHL had remained an almost exclusive Canadian fed league but given the rise of non Canadian players and their quality in terms of elite players then this notion is really unfair to the modern player.

3) #2 is further compounded by the 3rd one which is way more information, which is often used to downgrade current players when compared to past ones where information is largely in the form of 2nd hand eye witness reports written Joe Pelletier style (which is a great resource but has to acknowledged as more of a cheer leading style of documenting players rather than a complete and critical look at them).

Most of the newspaper clipping are the same as free food and even beer was available in the press boxes and why would reporters bite the hand that feeds them eh. So negative information about most players was either missing or not mentioned for the most part.

There is ample evidence of this in journalistic journals with presents and ball players having affairs with Munroe but it wasn't in the press nor the public eye, Watergate changed all of that.

Personally I think one of the ways to get around the problems presented above and over the length of the NHL is to separate different eras when making comparisons as the farther players get apart in time the more difficult it is to fairly and accurately compare them without a bias towards either of them.

The conditions in the NHL and the player makeup has changed too radically, especially in the last 20-30 years to fairly compare them to a totally Canadian NHL pre late 1970's.

It might not be a popular opinion here but the simple numbers have told us how the league has changed and how dramatic it has been.
A lot of words to repeat what you say in every post. Which by the way, almost everyone disagrees with. But I am tolerant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong or misguided it is.

Doesn't it bother you that almost everyone disagrees with you, Do you really think everyone is wrong and only you are right. most people don't even bother debating with you anymore and this is the last time for me to do so.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 09:29 PM
  #24
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,478
vCash: 500
1957 Red Kelly

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
A lot of words to repeat what you say in every post. Which by the way, almost everyone disagrees with. But I am tolerant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how wrong or misguided it is.

Doesn't it bother you that almost everyone disagrees with you, Do you really think everyone is wrong and only you are right. most people don't even bother debating with you anymore and this is the last time for me to do so.
Pappyline,

The following Dink Carroll column features a 1957 interview with Jimmy Skinner, Red Wings coach. Various players are discussed including Red Kelly whose play on defense had declined:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...6626%2C5452441

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2013, 10:08 PM
  #25
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 23,120
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I just have a hard time giving him some kind of credit of playing when Harvey and Kelly played, it's not like we should do the same for guys who played while Orr and Park and Potvin were around or Chelios, Bourque and that era.
Ya, Id have Bill Gadsby ranked a whole higher than 40th and well above Chara Hv. Bill Gadsby broke into the league after only a handfull of minor-league games and right out of the box was a menacing force on the ice with Chicago, a rock solid defenceman, soon appointed Captain of the team. Much has been said & written about Tim Horton, another brilliant defenceman who early in his career was a rusher, jumping well into the play, carrying the puck, nicknamed Clark Kent because of his off-ice Coke Bottle thick glasses & Superhuman strength. Well, it was a clean check by Bill Gadsby that broke Hortons leg & jaw, nearly ending his career, and when he came back, about 70% of the player he'd been before. Now, that right there should give you some idea as to just how rock solid Bill Gadsby was. He took out Superman with a perfectly legal heads up check. Not a hit, didnt run at him, just a Bill Gadsby check.

Offensively, Gadsby was dangerous & smart, one year wracking up 46 or 47 Assists, more points than most forwards at that time, Assists being more important than actual goals, as without them, no ones scoring any goals but for the occasional end to enders, mis-directs, bad passes etc, Gadsby well within range of Harvey or Red Kelly but as he played it "stay at home", wasnt as prolific as either points wise. Indeed, Gadsby & Eddie Shack while with the Rangers were about to be traded to Detroit, Gadsby for Red Kelly, Shack for McNeill (I think thats who it was) straight up. Id have made that trade no problem as Gadsby was easily on par with Red Kelly, preferable to me actually as I prefer a pure Defenceman to a smaller utility-type like Kelly anyway, and we all know how great Red Kelly was so thats saying something. Kelly however didnt want to report to NY so the trade was cancelled, though Gadsby a year later did finally wind up in Motown. Now, its too bad Gadsby never played on a Stanley Cup winning team, never won a Hart or whatever, but tell ya what? He would have had he the surrounding cast, maybe played for Montreal or Toronto. He was the Defence in Chicago & then in New York, and critical on the blue-line while in Detroit helping little Roger Crozier take home all that Silverware, Calder in 65, Conn Smythe in 66 when the Wings had a couple of good seasons, and that at the end of his playing career. No Gadsby, no deep runs for Detroit, no Silverware for Roger Crozier. Thats how good he was. Hell of a Defenceman, proto-typical, everything you want in one really. The guy played with his heart, lead with his face. Tremendous player...


Last edited by Killion: 07-06-2013 at 10:16 PM.
Killion 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 03:08 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.