HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 6 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-31-2009, 06:17 PM
  #51
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
[/B]

I'm not sure how it can be considered an embarrassment when no one voting ever saw him play.
Well nobody here ever saw Shore or Morenz play, but I think most would consider it embarrassing if either was out of the top 20. By all accounts, Nighbor is Milt Schmidt with better goal scoring ability. Very few, if any, of the voters in here are old enough to remember Schmidt playing, but had no problem ranking him at #34 (a ranking which suits me just fine, not knocking Schmidt). The bias against pre-consolidation players is still persistent (or at least it was when the original lists were being submitted) if Nighbor won't even have an opportunity to make the top 60. Just my opinion though, I'll argue his case when he does come up.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:26 PM
  #52
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
That's the thing...
As a forward, Clapper ranks IMO slightly below Dillon (and his stint a F spanned pretty much the whole Dillon's career). And considers that Dillon scored much of his goals while playing second fiddle to Bill Cook.

Then, Clapper was outperformed by Seibert during their relative stint at D... and that doesn't take in consideration that Seibert was an elite D before Clapper was switched. (and more an elite D than Clapper being an elite winger, I might add). Unless you think two all star berths in 41-42 fills a gap between 200th and 60th, go ahead, but please, insert Jack Crawford in your list next time.
I'm not following here.

What happen to Dillon compared to Clapper?
Who's all star berths in 41-42?
What's Jack Crawford got to do with anything?

Seem like you're comparing Clapper as a forward to Dillon, Clapper as a Dman to Seibert. Its possible that Clapper wasn't as good as either at their positions, but was still a better hockey player than both because of his versatility.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:29 PM
  #53
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I'm not following here.

What happen to Dillon compared to Clapper?
Who's all star berths in 41-42?
What's Jack Crawford got to do with anything?

Seem like you're comparing Clapper as a forward to Dillon, Clapper as a Dman to Seibert. Its possible that Clapper wasn't as good as either at their positions, but was still a better hockey player than both because of his versatility.
Wait, is Ebbie Goodfellow eligible for voting next round?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:40 PM
  #54
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Wait, is Ebbie Goodfellow eligible for voting next round?
I can see that you think Seibert is better than Clapper, but comparing him to Dillon and Goodfellow is silly. Clapper played twice as long as Dillon. Being an 1st AST-level defenseman for several years probably does close the gap of 200 to 60. Goodfellow's career at forward falls well short of Clapper's, and their contributions as defensemen are roughly equal, so I fail to see why that is a valid comparison.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:46 PM
  #55
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I can see that you think Seibert is better than Clapper, but comparing him to Dillon and Goodfellow is silly. Clapper played twice as long as Dillon. Being an 1st AST-level defenseman for several years probably does close the gap of 200 to 60. Goodfellow's career at forward falls well short of Clapper's, and their contributions as defensemen are roughly equal, so I fail to see why that is a valid comparison.
Well... actually, they ain't that far (as far as offense is concerned). Both weren't elite for sure.

I was comparing Clapper with Dillon as far as their stats as forwards are concerned, and looking at them, I came to the conclusion that Dillon was the better offensive player (and Dillon wasn't a 1-way forward, far from that). Dillon, as Clapper, ranks in the "very good" category.

Don't worry, Clapper is a better player than Dillon and Goodfellow (and I might pretty well vote in Clapper next round), but the ones that make him an elite forward should compare his career (at F, only at F!) to Cecil Dillon (and considering he played the majority of his career as a forward, that is certainly relevant...), and the ones that make him an elite player because of his versatily should closely take a look at where they ranked Goodfellow, if they ranked him at all.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 06:51 PM
  #56
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Good to see some others standing up for Henri Richard this year.

I allowed people to chip away at me and convince me to move him lower on my list after a bunch of different conversations. But right after I sent my master list in, I ended up just shooting him back up a bunch of spots.


Again, great to see him getting support.


First of all let me say, I agree with you. I personally had Stastny a fair bit higher than Kurri.

However, must you always try to insult other players in order to give props to another player?

Gretzky was a freak of Nature, and I do agree that Kurri likely does not have that monster season without him. Guys like Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr transcended the norm in their ability to elevate teammates. However, I still think Kurri would have consistently been a strong scoring threat for 50+ goals and 100+ points no matter who he played with.

Kurri's last year with Gretzky: 43 goals, 96 points in 80 games
Kurri's first year without Gretzky: 44 goals, 102 points in 76 games.

One would think losing a 180-200 point producing greatest playmaker of all time would have negatively impacted Kurri if he mattered so much. Given that he was replaced by Jimmy Carson and on occasion, Messier(Who was still had Anderson as his RW more often than not).

And in the end, only focusing on PPG is going to overlook a huge part of Kurri's game. His stellar defensive play. A guy who was reading the play, covering and backchecking while his primary Defenseman pinched in deep, confusing opposing forwards as to who to cover and take out of the play, and the guy who was staying in deep when the other team was attacking while a few of his teammates were hovering around the blueline waiting to attack.

And again, I agree with you about rating Stastny higher. But you are taking the slagging of other players on the list too far. Why not compare Stastny favorably to some guys already on the list instead?
I didnt say Kurri sucks without gretzky, i just said his numbers were inflated, the same way how francis had inflated numbers in pittsburgh. 1989 is probably one of kurri's best seasons because he scored 102 without gretzky, but i'm ranking Kurri 13th or 14th in this group of players. Stastny and Makarov were better.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 07:04 PM
  #57
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,573
vCash: 500
Here are the Vs#2 numbers for the D up this time.

PlayerTGHGH3GCAGTAHAH3ACAATPHPH3PCAP
King Clancy5.0630.6191.3190.3167.12411.80.4456.8460.6961.6240.428
Dit Clapper8.15812.2330.4087.7960.6671.6800.399.5090.9842.3890.475
Dit Clapper F5.79512.2330.5794.0280.6671.6080.4035.9790.9842.3890.598
Dit Clapper D2.3630.5421.3300.2363.7680.6431.6800.3773.5300.6511.8330.353
Tim Horton3.0320.3080.7260.1267.9050.6491.4580.3296.0100.4631.0940.25
Pierre Pilote2.110.3590.7550.1518.4610.9572.6050.6045.9240.7111.8220.423
Earl Seibert3.3530.4810.9570.2245.5570.6141.6580.375.1940.5321.3820.346

Dit Clapper F is the first 10 years of his career, 27-28 to 36-37.

Here are the numbers comparing to only the other defensemen each year.

PlayerTGHGH3GCAGTAHAH3ACAATPHPH3PCAP
King Clancy12.9821.6253.4580.81111.6981.3083.1110.73112.6461.2903.1730.79
Dit Clapper5.9361.33.30.5946.1411.0592.7430.6146.38621.0833.0830.639
Tim Horton10.90212.90.45412.18612.350.50812.3870.8442.4830.516
Pierre Pilote7.9881.1673.0100.57113.5031.6674.2840.96512.7451.6864.1870.91
Earl Seibert8.6461.1822.7140.5769.53812.6320.6369.56712.4240.638

Dit Clapper covers ten years from 37-38 to 46-47.

Here are a couple other guys that split their career between forward and defense.

PlayerTGHGH3GCAGTAHAH3ACAATPHPH3PCAP
Ebbie Goodfellow4.8330.8331.6900.3456.5190.8522.0350.4666.86312.1480.49
Ebbie Goodfellow F3.0660.8331.6900.5113.3650.8521.8850.5613.93412.1480.656
Ebbie Goodfellow D1.7670.51.0420.2213.1540.6921.5440.3942.9290.6511.5150.366
Doug Mohns6.4520.7142.0020.2938.8730.7141.8810.4038.1670.752.0090.371
Doug Mohns F3.8100.7142.0020.4763.5570.7141.8810.4453.8530.752.0090.482
Doug Mohns D2.6420.5131.2480.1895.3160.6671.50.384.3140.5361.4650.308

And the D vs D numbers.

PlayerTGHGH3GCAGTAHAH3ACAATPHPH3PCAP
Ebbie Goodfellow4.5731.12.5250.5724.9761.1252.3790.6225.2171.0952.5320.652
Doug Mohns9.5241.6674.60.688.3450.9582.5110.5969.06312.9430.647

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 07:08 PM
  #58
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Well... actually, they ain't that far (as far as offense is concerned). Both weren't elite for sure.

I was comparing Clapper with Dillon as far as their stats as forwards are concerned, and looking at them, I came to the conclusion that Dillon was the better offensive player (and Dillon wasn't a 1-way forward, far from that). Dillon, as Clapper, ranks in the "very good" category.

Don't worry, Clapper is a better player than Dillon and Goodfellow (and I might pretty well vote in Clapper next round), but the ones that make him an elite forward should compare his career (at F, only at F!) to Cecil Dillon (and considering he played the majority of his career as a forward, that is certainly relevant...), and the ones that make him an elite player because of his versatily should closely take a look at where they ranked Goodfellow, if they ranked him at all.


Its not just his versatility. He was a first team all-star 3 straight years on D. He was an all-star at forward and at defense. How many players in the history of the NHL have done that? In my opinion he was an elite player.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 07:28 PM
  #59
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
[/B]

Its not just his versatility. He was a first team all-star 3 straight years on D. He was an all-star at forward and at defense. How many players in the history of the NHL have done that? In my opinion he was an elite player.
...But that doesn't make him a better player than somebody making the AST 10 straight years, who also made the 1st AST on D three times in a row.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 07:38 PM
  #60
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
One would ask the same question about Ted Lindsay, when looking at Hart consideration right? I know you support him, and think he is far more than the sum of his statistics and awards.
Yes, but unlike Richard he has far more statistical numbers to support his case. Also, he was from a different era in Hart voting where the award criteria was very different from that during Richard's time. My primary point here really was a couple of the most vocal critics of Lindsay's Hart record before are some of the biggest supporters of Richard now so I was trying to use their own arguments against them to point out their hopefully unintended bias. If you are gonna bag on players before for that reason, how can you ignore it now?

[QUOTE=Dark Shadows;20940708]Even though a few times he did get 2nd team selections behind Beliveau, I would say there definitely was a bias regarding selecting 2 members of the same team to a 1st and 2nd all star spot at the same position. How often has that happened in History really?[/url]

How often in history can you look at the league and say the two best players at one position were on the same team? Unless you can point to some pattern of this being the case and the voters shunning one of the players I don't see how you can say there was any bias with credibility. I've already proven that the voters of Richard's era were willing to vote him and Beliveau 1/2 on two occasions. Can you point out times that Richard was a victim of bias where he was clearly a top 2 center in a season without earning a spot because Beliveau got one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
I remember you once saying that "Al Macinnis is a guy who has all the right awards, statistics, and selections, but I never saw the greatness when he was playing, so I rate him lower, despite these statistics". Would not the opposite ring true for a player whom you saw greatness from, but did not top the league? Particularly one of the greatest two way forwards ever to play?
Yes that could be true, but there are other excellent two-wat forwards who were far better offensively and equal to slightly worse defensively (Nighbor, Fedorov, D.Bentley, Keon) IMO and they likely won't make this list until the 70s or 80s. Aside from Cup counting I don't really see 20-30 place gap between him and those players. Throw in the comments from posters who watched Richard play from the last discussion who felt he was on the level of a Keon or Ullman and that just reinforces my thoughts. While player and coach quotes are useful, they can also be misleading. As reckoning stated, quotes can be found for any player and more can be found for Richard because he was a dynasty player in the most ravenous hockey market in the world. You can find a slew of quotes on every single player on those teams so the fact that there is a large quantity is nice, but not really relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Here is the breakdown of how many SHG the Canadiens scored over those 12 years.

YearSHG
63-647
64-655
65-662
66-673
67-687
68-692
69-708
70-718
71-7214
72-739
73-7412

Henri wasn't the key PK guy over his entire career, or even over the majority of it, but he certainly was a key guy for much of it.

The story of when Gordie Howe tied the Rockets record for career goals in 63-64 includes the expectation that Henri was expected to kill the entire 2 minute penalty to Ferguson.
I've read that story. Here's a link to one accounting of it:
Henri Richard helps Gordie Howe tie Maurice Richard's all-time goal scoring record

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 07:56 PM
  #61
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
A lot of Dit Clapper's case rests on his three consecutive first team all-star years from 38-39 to 40-41. It seems to me that his competition at defense in those years was relatively weak, with the defensive stars of the 1930s winding down their careers and a lack of young defensemen stepping up.

Here are a list of prominent NHL defensemen born in the 20-year period from 1903 to 1922 (HHOFers in bold).

1903 King Clancy
1904 Babe Siebert
1905 Cy Wentworth
1907 Dit Clapper
1907 Ebbie Goodfellow
1908 Georges Mantha
1909 Art Coulter
1909 Red Horner
1910 Ott Heller
1910 Tom Anderson
1911 Earl Seibert
1912 Flash Hollett
1914 Bucko McDonald
1916 Babe Pratt
1916 Jack Crawford
1917 Jack Stewart
1918 Pat Egan
1919 Wally Stanowski
1920 Butch Bouchard
1921 Ken Reardon
1921 Glen Harmon
1922 Bill Quackenbush
1922 Bob Goldham

In the period from 1938 to 1941, the very strong group of defensemen born between 1907 and 1911 were turning 30 and generally winding down their careers. Among HHOFers, Goodfellow and Coulter were still playing well but would retire soon. Red Horner retired in 1940. Only Seibert was still in the middle of his prime.

After Seibert, only 2 defensemen born from 1912 to 1919 would make the HHOF, meaning that Clapper had very little competition from defensemen in their twenties. Neither Pratt nor Stewart would hit their stride until a couple of years later, so Clapper was basically competing against a group of defensemen that was past their best years, with little young talent coming up to replace them.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 08:04 PM
  #62
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Vote 6 Comments

Andy Bathgate
Still overrated.

Clint Benedict
Posters tend to overlook the 1915 Stanley Cup finals and his 8.66 GAA average. Also a number of questions have to be asked about his play on the Senators.

Max Bentley
Should get in this time.

Walter "Turk" Broda
Great playoff goalie.

Francis "King" Clancy
Top level defenseman who was always supported by elite players.

Aubrey "Dit" Clapper
Paradoxical. Forward and defensemen. Red Kelly without the results.

Bill Durnan
Should get in this round

Peter Forsberg
Injuries held him back.

Tim Horton
Longevity and strength.

Jari Kurri
Best Finnish player.

Boris Mikhailov
First Soviet to play a truly NHL style.

Richard "Dickie" Moore
Underrated. One of the elite left wingers.

Pierre Pilote
Should get in this round.

Henri Richard
Top 20-25 caliber player. Came to play every night.

Earl Seibert
Could be convinced but as things stand he is in the ranks of the very solid without outstanding qualities.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 08:20 PM
  #63
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,490
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
I didnt say Kurri sucks without gretzky, i just said his numbers were inflated, the same way how francis had inflated numbers in pittsburgh. 1989 is probably one of kurri's best seasons because he scored 102 without gretzky, but i'm ranking Kurri 13th or 14th in this group of players. Stastny and Makarov were better.
I don't think Stastny (who's game I loved by the way), is demonstrably better than Kurri at all.

They had contemporaneous careers so it is relatively easy to compare the two.

They both finished top ten in points six times.
Kurri finishing as high as second twice, and Stastny finishing second once.

Stastny was undoubtedly the superior playmaker, he finished top ten in assists seven times, with four of those finishes in the top four. Kurri was in the top ten three times.

But Kurri was obviously the superior goal scorer. Leading the league once and finishing top five three other times. Peter never hit the top ten.

The defensive edge has also clearly got to go to Kurri. I also think Jari has a slight playoff edge.

One can make the Gretzky-effect argument of course. I'm not going to stand here and say that Kurri would have scored 60+ and 70+ without Gretz, but as many have already shown Kurri was a great player with and without the Great One.

All told; giving the playmaking to Peter, and the goal scoring (even without the Gretzky effect), two-way play and playoff edge to Jari I think that it is, (at the very least) a lot closer than than you or Dark Shadows seem to be implying (unless I am mistaken and you are only giving a slight nod to Peter).


Last edited by lextune: 08-31-2009 at 08:28 PM.
lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 08:47 PM
  #64
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lextune View Post
I don't think Stastny (who's game I loved by the way), is demonstrably better than Kurri at all.

They had contemporaneous careers so it is relatively easy to compare the two.

They both finished top ten in points six times.
Kurri finishing as high as second twice, and Stastny finishing second once.

Stastny was undoubtedly the superior playmaker, he finished top ten in assists seven times, with four of those finishes in the top four. Kurri was in the top ten three times.

But Kurri was obviously the superior goal scorer. Leading the league once and finishing top five three other times. Peter never hit the top ten.

The defensive edge has also clearly got to go to Kurri. I also think Jari has a slight playoff edge.

One can make the Gretzky-effect argument of course. I'm not going to stand here and say that Kurri would have scored 60+ and 70+ without Gretz, but as many have already shown Kurri was a great player with and without the Great One.

All told; giving the playmaking to Peter, and the goal scoring (even without the Gretzky effect), two-way play and playoff edge to Jari I think that it is, (at the very least) a lot closer than than you or Dark Shadows seem to be implying (unless I am mistaken and you are only giving a slight nod to Peter).
Stastny was more physical, playoffs are a wash. Kurri played on a dynasty, stastny was on an average team and still ripped it up. On top of that, stastny has 4 elite seasons in the czech league-world championships. He's above kurri.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:11 PM
  #65
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Stastny was more physical, playoffs are a wash. Kurri played on a dynasty, stastny was on an average team and still ripped it up. On top of that, stastny has 4 elite seasons in the czech league-world championships. He's above kurri.
If I might add...
The Nordiques were, in the end, an average team, but their offence was always pretty good, and always had decent (not great) offensive d-mens. Too bad their D and G wasn't very good.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:19 PM
  #66
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
If I might add...
The Nordiques were, in the end, an average team, but their offence was always pretty good, and always had decent (not great) offensive d-mens. Too bad their D and G wasn't very good.
The nordiques also had a good supporting cast with dale hunter too, goaltending was never anything special though. Honestly though, if stastny was in the nhl since 1976, I dont think anyone would compare kurri or perrault to him. 20-23 are crucial years for a forward and he spent those behind the curtain.

As for this round, I feel Max Bentley is overrated, i'm not voting for him. Short career, not much defence to his game. His career doesnt compare to broda, benedict, clancy and sibert.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:21 PM
  #67
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Clint Benedict Counterpoint

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I disagree -- Benedict dominant his era for longer and to a greater extent than Durnan and Broda ever did. I'm likely going to have Durnan and Broda in my top ten for this round, but Benedict will be #1 on my list.

Here's my case for Clint Benedict. I'll start by summarizing his accomplishments in chart form:

Year Games Wins Shutouts GAA Other
1918 1st 2nd 1st
1919 1st 1st 1st 1st
1920 1st 1st 1st 1st Won Stanley Cup
1921 1st 1st 1st 1st Won Stanley Cup
1922 1st 1st 1st 1st
1923 1st 1st 1st 1st Won Stanley Cup
1924 1st 1st 2nd
1925 1st
1926 1st 2nd
1927 2nd 1st
1928 1st 2nd
1929
1390

In his thirteen year career, Clint Benedict led the NHL in the following categories: games played 9 times; shutouts 7 times; GAA 6 times; and wins 6 times. This level of statistical dominance is on par with that of Hasek, Durnan and Dryden. Benedict's record would be even better if you included his NHA seasons (the only reason I haven't done that myself is I don't have access to the data).

Admittedly I don't like using wins, shutouts or GAA (all strongly influenced by a goalie's team) when more accurate data is available. However, there's evidence that Benedict was not just a product of his team.

How do we know that Benedict wasn't a product of his team? Let's consider the 1925 season. Benedict was shipped away from Ottawa (who had won three Cups in the past five years). Ottawa fell from 1st in the league and 2nd in goals against, to 4th in the league in both points and goals against (in a six-team league with two expansion teams). Benedict was sent to the Montreal Maroons, one of the two expansion teams. Benedict's Maroons actually finished 3rd in the league in goals against; not only did they beat the Bruins and the established St. Patricks (Leafs), but they actually surrendered fewer goal's than Benedict's old team, the Senators! The Sens still had a great blueline featuring Clancy, Boucher and Hitchman, not to mention defensive forward Nighbor. Unless you think that playing behind a defense corp of Dunc Munro, Gerry Munro, Geroge Carroll and Frank Cain was the key to Benedict's success, it seems clear that Benedict was the key to the Sens' success.

In short: once Benedict was taken off a dynasty team (that retained the rest of their core players), the team's goals-against and win percentage suffered dramatically. Benedict led an expansion team with a weak blueline to a better defensive record (ie fewer goals against) than his former team.

Benedict was the best playoff performer of his era. In addition to win three Stanley Cups in the NHL, his GAA dropped by 0.46 in the playoffs, falling to under two goals per game. During the span of his career, Benedict was responsible for 30% of all shutouts in the playoffs!

Although there is a tendency to say that Benedict played long ago when goaltending was much different, it's worth emphasizing that Benedict was one of the most innovative and creative goalies of his era. Benedict is generally regarded as the first goalie to routinely fall to the ice to make a save - in fact, the NHL was forced to change the rules that required goalies to always remain standing, to accommodate Benedict's new style. Benedict was also the first goalie in NHL history to wear a mask, beating Plante by 30-something years.

Unfortunately there were few awards in Benedict's era. All-star teams were not introduced until 1931, the year after his retirement. The Hart trophy wasn't introduced until 1924 (towards the end of Benedict's peak) but he still finished 3rd in 1925 (behind Burch and Morenz).

In summary, Clint Benedict was the best goalie in the NHL's first decade. His statistical dominance is on par with Hasek, he was an elite playoff performer, and, as indicated by the 1924 trade, he was the key to his team's success.
This counterpoint will not be limited to the NHL but will look briefly at his NHA effort, specifically the 1915 Stanley Cup Final vs Vancouver. Played in Vancouver. Ottawa had 5 HHOFers inc Clint Benedict yet lost three straight: 6-2,8-3,12-3. Clint Benedict had a 8.66 GAA, hardly Stanley Cup Final quality goaltending - more on a par with the goalies from Maritime League finalists or Dawson City.

Clint Benedict was a member of the dynasty Ottawa Senators 1920-1923, three Stanley Cup Championships in four seasons. In those days teams played with 10 man rosters. A typical Senators roster featured seven HHOFers including Clint Benedict supported by up to three HHOF quality defensemen from Cleghorn,Gerard, Boucher, Clancy and HHOF defensive forwards like Darragh, Cy Dennenny, Frank Nighbour. In terms of a HHOF supporting cast Clint Benedict had a better supporting cast than Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr or Turk Broda.

HO has posted some interesting data but let's look at the details.
Between 1920-23 the NHL played a 24 game regular season Initially divided into first half / second half, 12 game segments. Let's look at Clint Benedict's performance.

1919-20: first half 23 GA, second half 41 GA
1920-21: first half 23 GA, second half 52 GA
1921-22: first half 32 GA, second half 52 GA
1922-23: first half 27 GA, second half 27 GA

significant drop in performance as the season progressed.For a dynasty team and a quality goalie the expectation would be the opposite. This lack of consistency is very revealing.Source, Trail of the Stanley Cup VolI.

The 1926 Montreal Maroons Stanley Cup team featured five HHOFers including Clint Benedict. They were an interesting team as three of the forwards used to play defense as did Nels Stewart. Not exactly an expansion team.

Another telling aspect of Benedict's career is his last season, 1929-30. Forward passing was introduced in the offensive zone and goals increased. Clint Benedict did not adapt well - evidenced by his GAA even though he was on a first place team. Quickly he was replaced by Flat Walsh:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...benedcl01.html

At face value the numbers look attractive but upon scrutiny we see an extremely weak SC final-1915, a lack of consistency despite extremely strong HHOF caliber teammates, especially defensemen and an inability to adapt to new rules despite playing on a first place team. Sorry, not the stuff of an elite goalie.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:25 PM
  #68
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This counterpoint will not be limited to the NHL but will look briefly at his NHA effort, specifically the 1915 Stanley Cup Final vs Vancouver. Played in Vancouver. Ottawa had 5 HHOFers inc Clint Benedict yet lost three straight: 6-2,8-3,12-3. Clint Benedict had a 8.66 GAA, hardly Stanley Cup Final quality goaltending - more on a par with the goalies from Maritime League finalists or Dawson City.

Clint Benedict was a member of the dynasty Ottawa Senators 1920-1923, three Stanley Cup Championships in four seasons. In those days teams played with 10 man rosters. A typical Senators roster featured seven HHOFers including Clint Benedict supported by up to three HHOF quality defensemen from Cleghorn,Gerard, Boucher, Clancy and HHOF defensive forwards like Darragh, Cy Dennenny, Frank Nighbour. In terms of a HHOF supporting cast Clint Benedict had a better supporting cast than Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr or Turk Broda.

HO has posted some interesting data but let's look at the details.
Between 1920-23 the NHL played a 24 game regular season Initially divided into first half / second half, 12 game segments. Let's look at Clint Benedict's performance.

1919-20: first half 23 GA, second half 41 GA
1920-21: first half 23 GA, second half 52 GA
1921-22: first half 32 GA, second half 52 GA
1922-23: first half 27 GA, second half 27 GA

significant drop in performance as the season progressed.For a dynasty team and a quality goalie the expectation would be the opposite. This lack of consistency is very revealing.Source, Trail of the Stanley Cup VolI.

The 1926 Montreal Maroons Stanley Cup team featured five HHOFers including Clint Benedict. They were an interesting team as three of the forwards used to play defense as did Nels Stewart. Not exactly an expansion team.

Another telling aspect of Benedict's career is his last season, 1929-30. Forward passing was introduced in the offensive zone and goals increased. Clint Benedict did not adapt well - evidenced by his GAA even though he was on a first place team. Quickly he was replaced by Flat Walsh:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...benedcl01.html

At face value the numbers look attractive but upon scrutiny we see an extremely weak SC final-1915, a lack of consistency despite extremely strong HHOF caliber teammates, especially defensemen and an inability to adapt to new rules despite playing on a first place team. Sorry, not the stuff of an elite goalie.
Please if anyone was gifted with a supporting cast, it was jacques plante. My grandmother could have been in net from 1956-1960. By the way, you cant say the stats look unimpressive because save% didnt exist back then, using team stats isn't effective.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:29 PM
  #69
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post


At face value the numbers look attractive but upon scrutiny we see an extremely weak SC final-1915, a lack of consistency despite extremely strong HHOF caliber teammates, especially defensemen and an inability to adapt to new rules despite playing on a first place team. Sorry, not the stuff of an elite goalie.
Actually, I wouldn't put TOO MUCH stock on 1915 SC Final for obvious reasons. Did they get there by railroad or by dogsleigh? (..whatever, too lazy to look the exact english word, but you know what i mean...).

But 18-19? Yeah.

Still a top-10 in this round, though. IMO

As for the forward pass... Again, it needs to be mentionned that Benedict was rather old and that we ain't considering the Plantes and the Roys. We're considering the Benedicts and the Brodas and the Durnans at this point. I wouldn't take points away from a guy who has been playing the game for 17 when the rule change occured.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:31 PM
  #70
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Please if anyone was gifted with a supporting cast, it was jacques plante. My grandmother could have been in net from 1956-1960. By the way, you cant say the stats look unimpressive because save% didnt exist back then, using team stats isn't effective.
Well, maybe not, but I don't think you need the save% to judge a 8.66 and a 5.20 GAA.

Jacques Plante never posted such era, barring being 43 years old.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 09:57 PM
  #71
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
On the Verge

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
A lot of Dit Clapper's case rests on his three consecutive first team all-star years from 38-39 to 40-41. It seems to me that his competition at defense in those years was relatively weak, with the defensive stars of the 1930s winding down their careers and a lack of young defensemen stepping up.

Here are a list of prominent NHL defensemen born in the 20-year period from 1903 to 1922 (HHOFers in bold).

1903 King Clancy
1904 Babe Siebert
1905 Cy Wentworth
1907 Dit Clapper
1907 Ebbie Goodfellow
1908 Georges Mantha
1909 Art Coulter
1909 Red Horner
1910 Ott Heller
1910 Tom Anderson
1911 Earl Seibert
1912 Flash Hollett
1914 Bucko McDonald
1916 Babe Pratt
1916 Jack Crawford
1917 Jack Stewart
1918 Pat Egan
1919 Wally Stanowski
1920 Butch Bouchard
1921 Ken Reardon
1921 Glen Harmon
1922 Bill Quackenbush
1922 Bob Goldham

In the period from 1938 to 1941, the very strong group of defensemen born between 1907 and 1911 were turning 30 and generally winding down their careers. Among HHOFers, Goodfellow and Coulter were still playing well but would retire soon. Red Horner retired in 1940. Only Seibert was still in the middle of his prime.

After Seibert, only 2 defensemen born from 1912 to 1919 would make the HHOF, meaning that Clapper had very little competition from defensemen in their twenties. Neither Pratt nor Stewart would hit their stride until a couple of years later, so Clapper was basically competing against a group of defensemen that was past their best years, with little young talent coming up to replace them.
Minor adjustment required. Georges Mantha was mainly a forward. His brother Sylvio - 1902? was the defenseman.

You are on the verge of developing a very interesting point. Your chart contributes to the debate of the forward pass rule changes that came into effect for the 1929-30 season and the impact that these rule changes had on hockey, the way it was taught and played. Add the introduction of the Red Line in 1943 and you will see the significant changes.

Interesting data:
1929-30 saw 4 HHOF caliber players enter the NHL - Charlie Conacher, Busher Jackson, Syd Howe, Ebbie Goodfellow, three forwards, one hybrid.
1930-31 saw zero HHOF caliber players enter the NHL.
1931-32 saw two HHOF caliber players enter the NHL - Art Coulter and Earl Seibert,both defensemen.
1932-33 & 1933-34 saw zero HHOF caliber players enter the NHL.

Source "Debuts" www.hockey-reference.com.

Basically for a stretch of four seasons no HHOF caliber forward entered the NHL and for stretch of five seasons no HHOF goaltenders entered the NHL. Effectively the defensemen like Earl Seibert, Dit Clapper, and others in the late 1930s/early 1940's were not facing many forwards in their prime. Nor was the level of competition on defense very high. The speed game that Maurice Richard and others would introduce had yet to arrive.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 10:11 PM
  #72
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Interesting data:
1929-30 saw 4 HHOF caliber players enter the NHL - Charlie Conacher, Busher Jackson, Syd Howe, Ebbie Goodfellow, three forwards, one hybrid.
1930-31 saw zero HHOF caliber players enter the NHL.
1931-32 saw two HHOF caliber players enter the NHL - Art Coulter and Earl Seibert,both defensemen.
1932-33 & 1933-34 saw zero HHOF caliber players enter the NHL.

Source "Debuts" www.hockey-reference.com.
Factually right, but 29-30 was the year Marty Barry became an NHL regular. He did play 8 games in 27-28 with the NYA, though. Considering how weak that team was, we can nearly assume that Barry would have debuted in 29-30 if he had belonged to any other team.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 10:18 PM
  #73
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,752
vCash: 500
Henri Richard

[QUOTE=FissionFire;20942164]Yes, but unlike Richard he has far more statistical numbers to support his case. Also, he was from a different era in Hart voting where the award criteria was very different from that during Richard's time. My primary point here really was a couple of the most vocal critics of Lindsay's Hart record before are some of the biggest supporters of Richard now so I was trying to use their own arguments against them to point out their hopefully unintended bias. If you are gonna bag on players before for that reason, how can you ignore it now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Even though a few times he did get 2nd team selections behind Beliveau, I would say there definitely was a bias regarding selecting 2 members of the same team to a 1st and 2nd all star spot at the same position. How often has that happened in History really?[/url]

How often in history can you look at the league and say the two best players at one position were on the same team? Unless you can point to some pattern of this being the case and the voters shunning one of the players I don't see how you can say there was any bias with credibility. I've already proven that the voters of Richard's era were willing to vote him and Beliveau 1/2 on two occasions. Can you point out times that Richard was a victim of bias where he was clearly a top 2 center in a season without earning a spot because Beliveau got one?



Yes that could be true, but there are other excellent two-wat forwards who were far better offensively and equal to slightly worse defensively (Nighbor, Fedorov, D.Bentley, Keon) IMO and they likely won't make this list until the 70s or 80s. Aside from Cup counting I don't really see 20-30 place gap between him and those players. Throw in the comments from posters who watched Richard play from the last discussion who felt he was on the level of a Keon or Ullman and that just reinforces my thoughts. While player and coach quotes are useful, they can also be misleading. As reckoning stated, quotes can be found for any player and more can be found for Richard because he was a dynasty player in the most ravenous hockey market in the world. You can find a slew of quotes on every single player on those teams so the fact that there is a large quantity is nice, but not really relevant.



I've read that story. Here's a link to one accounting of it:
Henri Richard helps Gordie Howe tie Maurice Richard's all-time goal scoring record
The Howe goal is an interesting story, a very cute and disingenuous
effort at discrediting Henri Richard by someone who has tried to discredit a player because of his lack of PK goals.Not referring to DS who like me is a Henri Richard fan.

The summary from the Howe goal:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19630020

Notice in the third period immediately after Gordie Howe scores his historic goal, the Canadiens come right back and seconds later Henri Richard gets the first assist on the clinching goal in a 6-4 win.
Champions produce on ice not on paper.

Talk about producing on ice. Henri Richard is one of the rare players to have scored two Stanley Cup winning goals. They were not in blow-out games either. 1966, sixth game, in overtime in Detroit and 1971 in Chicago seventh game, 3-2 win after scoring the 2-2 goal. Notice both goals were scored on the road, breaking a TIE.

That Keon is not being considered reflects more on the process.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-31-2009 at 10:20 PM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 10:38 PM
  #74
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
You need to learn more about this era before you come in here spouting this kind of stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This counterpoint will not be limited to the NHL but will look briefly at his NHA effort, specifically the 1915 Stanley Cup Final vs Vancouver. Played in Vancouver. Ottawa had 5 HHOFers inc Clint Benedict yet lost three straight: 6-2,8-3,12-3. Clint Benedict had a 8.66 GAA, hardly Stanley Cup Final quality goaltending - more on a par with the goalies from Maritime League finalists or Dawson City.
Benedict was 22 and hadn't hit his prime. The Westerners caught them by surprise big-time. And Vancouver had 7 HHOFers - Hugh Lehman, Frank Patrick, Cyclone Taylor, Mickey MacKay, Frank Nighbor, Barney Stanley, and Si Griffis. It was quite possibly the most awesome collection of talent ever assembed in the entire pre-merger era.

Ottawa was very green, too. Broadbent was 22. Darragh was 24. Gerard was 25. The only truly great player in his prime was 29-year old Art Ross.

Of course, the Trail Of the Stanley cup outlines how Nighbor had the Ottawa forwards dumbfounded with his awesome combination of offense and defense, and how tying up Cyclone Taylor and Mickey macKay was Ottawa's primary focus, and they focused on it so hard in game 3, that they allowed Stanley to come out and score 4 goals. Vancouver had so many weapons that there was really little anyone could do.

But yeah, go ahead and put all the blame at Benedict's feet since it suits your agenda. And when picking out info from The Trail, don't forget to omit the part about him being selected as the best goalie of the 1893-1926 period. And of course, Taylor was nowhere near as good as we ended up ranking him, right? And you'll doubt forget how good Nighbor was in the 1915 finals when it comes time to rank him too. Hell, everyone sucked back then!

For someone who owns The Trail, your appreciation of this era of hockey is nothing short of brutal.

Quote:
Clint Benedict was a member of the dynasty Ottawa Senators 1920-1923, three Stanley Cup Championships in four seasons. In those days teams played with 10 man rosters. A typical Senators roster featured seven HHOFers including Clint Benedict supported by up to three HHOF quality defensemen from Cleghorn,Gerard, Boucher, Clancy and HHOF defensive forwards like Darragh, Cy Dennenny, Frank Nighbour. In terms of a HHOF supporting cast Clint Benedict had a better supporting cast than Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr or Turk Broda.
that's a slanted view.

At any point throughout history there has been roughly a constant number of hall of famers in the league at one time. But not always the same number of teams. So in 1923 when there were only four teams, OBVIOUSLY there is likely to be a lot on one team. For example, in 1923, Ottawa had 8 HHOFers including Benedict. the other teams had 5, 4, and 1. Relative to the strength of the league, Benedict's supporting cast, particularly on defense, was right at the level guys like Dryden, Bower, and Brodeur enjoyed.

Oh, and I have something to say about Cy Denneny and Jack Darragh being "defensive forwards"... here it is............

Quote:
HO has posted some interesting data but let's look at the details.
Between 1920-23 the NHL played a 24 game regular season Initially divided into first half / second half, 12 game segments. Let's look at Clint Benedict's performance.

1919-20: first half 23 GA, second half 41 GA
1920-21: first half 23 GA, second half 52 GA
1921-22: first half 32 GA, second half 52 GA
1922-23: first half 27 GA, second half 27 GA

significant drop in performance as the season progressed.For a dynasty team and a quality goalie the expectation would be the opposite. This lack of consistency is very revealing.Source, Trail of the Stanley Cup VolI.
Revealing of what?

- In 1920 scoring rose in the second half of the season, across the board. There were 26 more goals scored in the second half so every team should have allowed an average of 5-6 more goals each. Benedict's senators allowed 18 more. Not sure why. But their W/L record got better even though they only scored 3 more goals.

- When were you planning on telling everyone that the first "half" of the 1921 season was 10 games long and the second "half" was 14 games long: Talk about deceptive! Of course, Benedict's GAA went up from 2.3 in the first section to 3.7 in the second. It's just not the ridiculous collapse you're making it out to be.

What you of course failed to mention is that:

- In three of those four seasons Benedict ultimately ended up as the win leader, as well as leading the NHL in GAA by an average of 20% over the next best goalie each year. So what does it matter that he allowed more goals in the second half?

- Benedict's GAA dropped considerably in the playoffs in each of those four seasons, by 0.46, 1.09, 0.34, and 1.18.

By your logic, this is even more important. The later it is in the season, the more important the games, right? Well, if his GAA rises in the second half of the season you must credit him for dropping it considerably in the playoffs. You might say "significant drop in GAA as the season progressed into the playoffs.For a dynasty team and a quality goalie the expectation would be exactly this. This clutch play is very revealing."

Quote:
The 1926 Montreal Maroons Stanley Cup team featured five HHOFers including Clint Benedict. They were an interesting team as three of the forwards used to play defense as did Nels Stewart. Not exactly an expansion team.
That is not true.

Siebert ended up on defense much later in his career but had never played defense before.

Stewart had never played forward before, he only played D in the playoffs after Munro got injured. Those 7 games were the only games he ever played on D.

Noble started playing defense that season but had only been one briefly for a part of the 1919 season prior to that.

So which three players who played forward on the 1926 Maroons used to play defense? And supposing that there were three such players, what would your point be?

Quote:
Another telling aspect of Benedict's career is his last season, 1929-30. Forward passing was introduced in the offensive zone and goals increased. Clint Benedict did not adapt well - evidenced by his GAA even though he was on a first place team. Quickly he was replaced by Flat Walsh:
Benedict was 37 years old and was hit in the face by shots from Dit Clapper and then Howie Morenz. He was out for a while and then tried coming back with a mask. He didn't like it, and retired. Surely you know this story... But no, make it sound like he got replaced by some scrub we never heard of, because he sucked!

Quote:
At face value the numbers look attractive but upon scrutiny we see an extremely weak SC final-1915, a lack of consistency despite extremely strong HHOF caliber teammates, especially defensemen and an inability to adapt to new rules despite playing on a first place team. Sorry, not the stuff of an elite goalie.
Yes, good for you, you have managed to point out that:

A) Benedict and the whole Ottawa team had a brutal 1915 SCF,

B) Benedict's GAA during his prime went up during the second half of three seasons and he still led the league in wins and GAA each time, and

C) He was not at his best at age 37, then got hit in the head in successive games and retired.

Wow! What a bum he was!!!

Every single goalie has had his bad moments. The only one who was immune was Dryden. Plante was being booed in Montreal and looked awfully human in New York. Hasek would seem to be injured longer than you would think he should be, and of course he lost his job to Chris Osgood in 2008. Roy had these awful long goals, a couple stinkers of semifinals, and of course the Statue of Liberty gaffe. Brodeur has done nothing since losing his elite defense, making everyone else wonder what some of us have all along. Hall couldn't get it done in the playoffs. Sawchuk drank and quit on his team. And so on. The only goalie with a perfectly sparkling resume played only 8 years. EVERY great goalie has minor blemishes on their record! And none of them get to go out on top. Roy didn't. Hall didn't. Sawchuk didn't. Hasek didn't. Plante didn't. At this rate, Brodeur won't. This is nothing new.


Last edited by seventieslord: 08-31-2009 at 10:47 PM.
seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2009, 10:43 PM
  #75
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Okay, it looks like seventieslord beat me to this by about five minutes (and he did a great job at it, too).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
HO has posted some interesting data but let's look at the details.
Between 1920-23 the NHL played a 24 game regular season Initially divided into first half / second half, 12 game segments. Let's look at Clint Benedict's performance.

1919-20: first half 23 GA, second half 41 GA
1920-21: first half 23 GA, second half 52 GA
1921-22: first half 32 GA, second half 52 GA
1922-23: first half 27 GA, second half 27 GA

significant drop in performance as the season progressed.For a dynasty team and a quality goalie the expectation would be the opposite. This lack of consistency is very revealing.Source, Trail of the Stanley Cup VolI.
It looks like you've excluded many years that have data contrary to your argument. Let's fill in the blanks.

1918: 63 first half, 51 second half
1919: 37 first half, 16 second half
1924: 24 first half, 30 second half

Based on the numbers we have, it looks like Benedict got worse in 1920, 1921 and 1922, the same in 1923, and better in 1918, 1919 and 1924. Overall there's no evidence to suggest that Benedict got worse as the season went on -- it looks like you just selected three years to "prove" your point without looking at any of the years with contrary data.

(Note 1: I don't have time to look through 1925-1930. If somebody does, let me know there's any evidence of Benedict getting worse as the season progresses).

(Note 2: My source is hockey-reference.com; click on "Game Results" for the Ottawa Senators for these three years and add up the first half & second half goals against yourself).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
At face value the numbers look attractive but upon scrutiny we see an extremely weak SC final-1915, a lack of consistency despite extremely strong HHOF caliber teammates, especially defensemen and an inability to adapt to new rules despite playing on a first place team. Sorry, not the stuff of an elite goalie.
Saying that Benedict had an "inability to adapt to new rules" is demonstrably false and borders on historical revisionism. Benedict was the first goalie in hockey history to wear a mask (done in 1930 after being sent to the hospital after taking a Howie Morenz shot to the head). (Source). Benedict was the goalie to pioneer perhaps the most important change in goalie equipment in history.

Perhaps even more importantly, Benedict was the first goalie to drop to the ice to make saves. Historically, goalies were given a two minute penalty if they dropped to the ice but Benedict did that so often (under false pretenses, i.e. while pretending to pray) that the NHL finally gave up and allowed Benedict to continue with his major change to goaltending strategy. (Source).

Benedict pioneered the face mask and dropping to the ice. He didn't just adapt to new rules -- he forced the NHL to change its rules to recognize his newer, more advanced style. He was the most creative and influential goalie of his era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The 1926 Montreal Maroons Stanley Cup team featured five HHOFers including Clint Benedict. They were an interesting team as three of the forwards used to play defense as did Nels Stewart. Not exactly an expansion team.
According to hockey-refence, the defensemen on that roster were Francis Cain, Albert Holway, Hobie Kitchen and Dunc Munro. Are you seriously suggesting that they were the key to Benedict's success?

Your comments about having three of the forwards playing defense are factually wrong. Here are some sources to back up my claims.

Babe Siebert would become a defenseman in the future, but he wasn't a defenseman in 1926. He didn't make the switch until he was 32, in 1936. (Source).

Reg Noble would become a defenseman in the future, but he wasn't a defenseman in 1926. He didn't make the switch until after he was traded to Detroit in 1927. (Source).

Nels Stewart was usually a centre. I can't find any record of Stewart playing defense, outside of the 1926 playoffs when Dunc Munco was injured. (Source).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
This counterpoint will not be limited to the NHL but will look briefly at his NHA effort, specifically the 1915 Stanley Cup Final vs Vancouver. Played in Vancouver. Ottawa had 5 HHOFers inc Clint Benedict yet lost three straight: 6-2,8-3,12-3. Clint Benedict had a 8.66 GAA, hardly Stanley Cup Final quality goaltending - more on a par with the goalies from Maritime League finalists or Dawson City.
It appears that Benedict played poorly here (and I say "appears" because we have nothing other than GAA to judge him by). Does digging out a three game sample, before his prime, represent anything meaningful about his career?

You hold the fact that Benedict played with Hall of Famers against him. Should we not take into account the fact that his opposition in the 1915 finals had seven HOFers on their team?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Clint Benedict was a member of the dynasty Ottawa Senators 1920-1923, three Stanley Cup Championships in four seasons. In those days teams played with 10 man rosters. A typical Senators roster featured seven HHOFers including Clint Benedict supported by up to three HHOF quality defensemen from Cleghorn,Gerard, Boucher, Clancy and HHOF defensive forwards like Darragh, Cy Dennenny, Frank Nighbour. In terms of a HHOF supporting cast Clint Benedict had a better supporting cast than Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr or Turk Broda.
You're right to an extent. I don't like using GAA, wins and shutouts when better data is available. Still, I've given some strong evidence that Benedict wasn't a product of his team.

As soon as Benedict left the Senators, they became immediately & noticeably worse. In 1924, the Senators were the best team in the league and were 2nd best in goals against. The next year, the roster was similar aside from Benedict leaving. The Senators fell to 4th (out of sixth) in both points and goals against. We don't know for sure, but based on the evidence we have, it looks like Benedict was probably the cause of that change. This implies that Benedict was an important contributor to the Senators' success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Another telling aspect of Benedict's career is his last season, 1929-30. Forward passing was introduced in the offensive zone and goals increased. Clint Benedict did not adapt well - evidenced by his GAA even though he was on a first place team. Quickly he was replaced by Flat Walsh:
Like you did with the 1915 playoffs, you're picking an extremely small sample size, outside of Benedict's prime, and are trying to pretend that it's meaningful.

It's worth mentioning that Benedict was injured in 1930, having been sent to the hospital by the aforementioned Morenz shot to the head. (Source). I don't blame an injured 37-year-old goalie, who had absolutely nothing left to prove, for retiring.

When Plante was up for voting, you never brought up the fact that he had a GAA over 5.00 in the playoffs in 1972 and 1973. That’s probably because you realize that it was a small sample size at the very end of Plante’s career. Why, then, does a 14 game sample of Benedict, at the absolute end of his career, suddenly become meaningful?


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 08-31-2009 at 10:52 PM.
Hockey Outsider 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 02:39 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.