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.

Is There a Worse HOFer (in a Relative Sense) Than Leo Boivin?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-16-2011, 06:12 PM
  #1
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,293
vCash: 500
Is There a Worse HOFer (in a Relative Sense) Than Leo Boivin?

A post that Hockey Outsider made on the main board in a thread about whether or not Chara is a HOF lock inspired this thread. For reference, here's his post:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=123

The gist of it is that Chara, being a 5-time top five finisher in Norris trophy voting, is in a group that is almost exclusively HOF players (the exceptions are JC Tremblay, and, for now, Rob Blake), and that when you drop down to 3-4 top 5 finishes you start getting a lot more names who aren't in.

So here's my point with this thread, Leo Boivin is in the Hall of Fame with only a 5th place Norris trophy finish to his credit. This is far, far below the standard that has been set for defensemen after the post-war period or so (obviously, there are some funky choices in the initial HOF years from the game's pioneering days). Whereas a lot of the poor HOF choices at forward have plenty of company (in terms of similar types of players, be it compilers or complementary players on dynasties), I can't really think of or find any modern or semi-modern defenseman who is even close to Boivin in terms of weakness of resume. He seems to be in the HOF because he won some Stanley Cups and had a reputation as a big hitter. So I'm offering him up as the weakest HOF relative to the usual standards of his position at the HOF level. Objections/comments/suggestions of other players?

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 06:53 PM
  #2
WingsFan95
Registered User
 
WingsFan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
The kicker is he never won a Cup.

He made something like 2 or 3 Finals.

Wasn't there a debate on here a while back on his induction opening the doors to similar defense-men?

But I smell something fishy with the voting committee. Tim Horton did speak very well of him.

WingsFan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 06:56 PM
  #3
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 99wasnotthebest View Post
The kicker is he never won a Cup.

He made something like 2 or 3 Finals.


Wasn't there a debate on here a while back on his induction opening the doors to similar defense-men?

But I smell something fishy with the voting committee. Tim Horton did speak very well of him.
Wow you are right, that makes it even worse! I initially thought he had and checked Wikipedia to be sure. I must have done one of those self-reinforcing things where I only saw the words that I wanted to see (Stanley Cup) and ignored the other important one (finals).

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 06:59 PM
  #4
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,382
vCash: 500
To provide a bit more data, here's the HOF outcome for each player with X number of seasons in the top five in Norris voting. (Worked on this quickly so there may be some mistakes, but probably nothing significant).

Six or more seasons - 100%
In: 19 (Bourque, Lidstrom, Coffey, Orr, Harvey, Pilote, Robinson, Chelios, Potvin, Pronger, Park, Gadsby, Salming, Stevens, Leetch, MacInnis, Laperriere, Horton, Lapointe)
Debatable: 0
Out: 0

Five seasons - 75%
In: 4 (Langway, Pronovost, Flaman, Blake - pretty confident he'll make it)
Out: 1 (JC Tremblay)
Debatable: 1 (Chara)

Four seasons - 69%
In: 5 (Kelly, Niedermayer, Murphy, Savard, Howe)
Out: 2 (Wilson, Gonchar)
Debatable: 1 (Housley - not my personal opinion but he is often discussed as a candidate)

Three seasons - 25%
In: 1 (Johnson)
Out: 3 (White, Stapleton, Brewer - sometimes considered, along with Howe, the best defenseman not in the Hall but too much time has passed I think)
Debatable: 0

Two seasons - 25%
In: 2 (Stanley, Howell)
Out: 7 (Konstantinov, Vasko, Desjardins, Neilson, Boyle, Green, Weber)
Debatable: 1 (Zubov - this is likely a generous assessment, as most people place undue emphasis on his late-career resurgence)

One season - 5%
In: 1 (Biovin)
Out: 28 (Carlyle, Phaneuf, Green, D. Hatcher, Suter, Ozolinsch, Schoenfeld, Talbot, McCrimmon, McCabe, Hartsburg, Harris, K. Hatcher, Goldham, Stewart, Ashbee, Campbell, Mohns, Aucoin, Barkely, Redden, Harper, Baun, Duchesne, Timonen, Arbour, Evans, Bolton)
Debatable: 1 (Lowe)

====

Out of the 39 defensemen with two or fewer seasons as a legitimate Norris candidate, only three are in the Hall (Allan Stanley, Harry Howell and Leo Biovin) and only two more are often considered candidates (Sergei Zubov, Kevin Lowe) - though I think both are considered longshots at best. Obviously there are some players who can become candidates over time (i.e. Keith).

To answer your question: nobody fares as poorly as Biovin according to this simple metric. Even the next-closest defensemen are, on paper, much better. Howell won the Norris once and placed 5th another year; he also placed top five in Hart voting once. Stanley was runner-up to Harvey once and placed 3rd behind Harvey and Pronovost another time. Biovin had a single year in 5th place, and that's it. Stanley won multiple Stanley Cups; Howell and Biovin never did.

I'd argue that Derian Hatcher is a similar type of player (defense-oriented, big hitter) and, on paper, has a stronger resume (3rd behind Lidstrom and MacInnis in his best season; at worst #2 defenseman on a Stanley Cup winning team).

By the established standards of his position, Biovin is clearly the weakest Hall of Fame defenseman who played during the past ~60 years. Would be interesting to do a similar analysis for goalies and forwards (though the fluctuations in the relative quality of C, LW and RW could make it difficult).


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 07-01-2011 at 12:09 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 08:09 PM
  #5
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,587
vCash: 500
Considering that he played primarily in the 06 league only 1 top 5 in the Norris makes his case even weaker IMO.

Hypothetically there could be a Dman in a 21-30 team NHL that is consistently 6-10th best in the league who would be considered a better Dman than Boivin was.

A very weak resume for the Hall IMO.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 09:09 PM
  #6
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Hobey Baker?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 09:19 PM
  #7
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Very good article, but I would say there are a lot of weird/dubious HOF picks from the early years (Shorty Green would be an obvious one - he's seemingly in the HOF for taking his team out on strike) and so he's not glaringly bad in a relative sense the way Boivin is. Hockey Outsider's post really drove the point home.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 09:55 PM
  #8
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,009
vCash: 500
I've narrowed it down to this.

Worst forward in the HHOF: Edgar Laprade
Worst goalie in the HHOF: Gerry Cheevers
Worst defenseman in the HHOF: Leo Boivin

For all the marbles I still consider Laprade to be the worst pick of all-time. The best he did was 7th for the Hart in 1950. He had 3 votes! Other than that absolutely nothing. Barely played in the playoffs, never an all-star, won the Byng once and reached the final once only to lose. Not to mention he had a short career, even for his era.

Cheevers is the worst goalie in there but the goalies are so strict that there are hardly any complaints about either of them in there. That being said, I still would have put Cheevers in there and my feeling is that someone has to be the worst

Boivin isn't a guy I would have inducted. He was a solid defenseman but I figure he is a good comparison to Bob Baun without the Cups. Baun isn't in the HHOF either. I hate to say that Boivin's induction opens the door even for Adam Foote, but it does. He should be remembered as a good defenseman, stay at home, etc, but not a HHOFer. He is the only defenseman I have a problem with in there.

That being said, Laprade is still the worst

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 10:56 PM
  #9
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Very good article, but I would say there are a lot of weird/dubious HOF picks from the early years (Shorty Green would be an obvious one - he's seemingly in the HOF for taking his team out on strike) and so he's not glaringly bad in a relative sense the way Boivin is. Hockey Outsider's post really drove the point home.
It's true, there are a number of very questionable selections to the Hall, I picked Baker since he's the one amongst those that is best-known today.

Scotty Davidson shouldn't be in, he played two years of pro hockey before a tragic death. George Richardson is in because he died in the war as well. Frank Rankin was elected as a player because of what he later did as a coach, as was Steamer Maxwell. Oliver Seibert was elected because...well, I'm not actually sure why. Because he was one of the first player to turn pro maybe? Jack Ruttan is a puzzler, as is Fred Whitcroft. There's bunches of them.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-16-2011, 11:07 PM
  #10
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
It's true, there are a number of very questionable selections to the Hall, I picked Baker since he's the one amongst those that is best-known today.

Scotty Davidson shouldn't be in, he played two years of pro hockey before a tragic death. George Richardson is in because he died in the war as well. Frank Rankin was elected as a player because of what he later did as a coach, as was Steamer Maxwell. Oliver Seibert was elected because...well, I'm not actually sure why. Because he was one of the first player to turn pro maybe? Jack Ruttan is a puzzler, as is Fred Whitcroft. There's bunches of them.
Richardson, Rankin and Maxwell were excellent amateurs and the first two have the stats and comparables to prove it. I realize that's not a strong case but there appears to be good basis for it, plus the people who voted them in saw them play.

Whitcroft, IMO, is not a puzzler. The guy was a very notorious player in his day - he was clearly the star of a barnstorming squad and was known for being a mercenary sought by anyone willing to pay to get a winning team.

Ruttan, as a defenseman, is very hard to substantiate because we can't just look at some scoring stats. Quotes on his play are also extremely hard to find. You could be right about him. Oliver Seibert, I really have no idea what he did. And although Scotty Davidson was probably on the way to a HHOF career, he should not have gotten in for playing two years.

Others: Billy Gilmour, Billy McGimsie, Shorty Green.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:13 AM
  #11
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,195
vCash: 500
Building

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Richardson, Rankin and Maxwell were excellent amateurs and the first two have the stats and comparables to prove it. I realize that's not a strong case but there appears to be good basis for it, plus the people who voted them in saw them play.

Whitcroft, IMO, is not a puzzler. The guy was a very notorious player in his day - he was clearly the star of a barnstorming squad and was known for being a mercenary sought by anyone willing to pay to get a winning team.

Ruttan, as a defenseman, is very hard to substantiate because we can't just look at some scoring stats. Quotes on his play are also extremely hard to find. You could be right about him. Oliver Seibert, I really have no idea what he did. And although Scotty Davidson was probably on the way to a HHOF career, he should not have gotten in for playing two years.

Others: Billy Gilmour, Billy McGimsie, Shorty Green.
Seventieslord has laid a solid foundation that I will try to build on.

Prefaced with a few comments. The initial mandate of the HHOF included the history of hockey not only the NHL/NHA/PCHA/WHL but amateur and semi pro as well, while honouring founders and innovators.If some one played but later made his mark as a coach or administrator he tended to be honoured under the catchall player grouping.

Hobey Baker. founding player and representative of the US amateur and university ideal. Hard to find a better choice.

George Richardson: representative of Ontario University hockey, - Queen's and senior hockey in the Kingston area.

Steamer Maxwell: amateur in Winnipeg, Manitoba, perhaps the best Canadian Amateur coach during the first fifty years of organized hockey. Olympic, WC, Memorial Cup finalist, Allan Cup .

Jack Ruttan. Manitoba amateur at various levels.

Billy McGimsie. Small town Stanley Cup Champions Kenora Thistles say hi.

Scotty Davidson. The best Canadian junior player pre NHL. Representative of junior hockey in its formative years. Very promising pro career cut short by the tragedies of war.

Oliver Seibert. representative of amateur and senior hockey in the area from Kitchener on west in Ontario. One of the first to use the wrist shot. The innovator factor.

Shorty Green. Combination of factors, amateur in Northern Ontario, WWI Battalion player mixed with a varied Senior background plus the Hamilton Tigers and NY Americans.

Leo Boivin, Dick Duff, Edgar Laprade and others who get thrown in under some perceived "worst" banner. Basically these are players with a reputation of being a player's player, warriors, gamers. With a team of such players you do not get embarrassed 4-0 in game 7 of the SCF at home. It may be true that adding the likes of Bob Baun, Claude Provost, Carl Brewer and a few borderline players would also sustain the effect but that is not the issue here.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 06-17-2011 at 12:17 AM. Reason: typos
Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:16 AM
  #12
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
It may be true that adding the likes of Bob Baun, Claude Provost, Carl Brewer and a few borderline players would also sustain the effect but that is not the issue here.
I don't think Baun is even close, but not many people would cry foul if Provost and Brewer got in. they are probably the two most touted O6 players, among guys like us.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:27 AM
  #13
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,195
vCash: 500
Bob Baun

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I don't think Baun is even close, but not many people would cry foul if Provost and Brewer got in. they are probably the two most touted O6 players, among guys like us.
As a player I tend to agree but I would definitely rate him ahead of some of the flops that we have seen come playoff time recently.

That stated there is an issue that is begging for HHOF recognition and that is the consideration of the various retired players who stood up to the NHL and Alan Eagleson regarding pension benefits etc. Bob Baun and Carl Brewer certainly were key players in this regard.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:39 AM
  #14
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
As a player I tend to agree but I would definitely rate him ahead of some of the flops that we have seen come playoff time recently.

That stated there is an issue that is begging for HHOF recognition and that is the consideration of the various retired players who stood up to the NHL and Alan Eagleson regarding pension benefits etc. Bob Baun and Carl Brewer certainly were key players in this regard.
Yeah; historically, going against Eagleson should be seen as a good thing, but it seems to go hand in hand with being considered a troublemaker who went against the establishment. I think that Mark Howe is still waiting because by going and playing in the WHA, it made him anti-establishment, too.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:58 AM
  #15
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,195
vCash: 500
Framing the Issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yeah; historically, going against Eagleson should be seen as a good thing, but it seems to go hand in hand with being considered a troublemaker who went against the establishment. I think that Mark Howe is still waiting because by going and playing in the WHA, it made him anti-establishment, too.
Comes down to how the issue is framed. Grouping Baun and Howe creates an either or situation which often results in a neither vote. Especially true when distinct, stand alone, issues get grouped.

As for the WHA angle there are members who may be subject to extra questioning because of their WHA connection. Michel Goulet, Gerry Cheevers, Rudy Pilous in varying degrees.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 08:17 AM
  #16
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Richardson, Rankin and Maxwell were excellent amateurs and the first two have the stats and comparables to prove it. I realize that's not a strong case but there appears to be good basis for it, plus the people who voted them in saw them play.
To my mind, a HOF player has to have a significant career at a high level to bo considered. Richardson comes kinda close to that, but three years in the OHA (high level) and four in the CIHU (kinda high level) don't really cut it for me. Rankin's the same; five year in the senior OHA isn't much to base a HOF career on, but at least he scored a bunch of goals. Maxwell had a similar number of years in senior amateur play in Manitoba, and his numbers are remarkably unremarkable for a Hall of Famer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Whitcroft, IMO, is not a puzzler. The guy was a very notorious player in his day - he was clearly the star of a barnstorming squad and was known for being a mercenary sought by anyone willing to pay to get a winning team.
I mean puzzler in the sense of why people would think this is a reason to put him the Hall of Fame. I agree with your assessment of him, I just can't see how it makes him worthy of enshrinement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Ruttan, as a defenseman, is very hard to substantiate because we can't just look at some scoring stats. Quotes on his play are also extremely hard to find. You could be right about him.
He's got the same problem as above; five years of senior-level play (the first was as a centre). His teams were generally good not great. I've read game reports for every known game he played; he was certainly a very fine player, but was not a preeminent superstar type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Others: Billy Gilmour, Billy McGimsie, Shorty Green.
I'd agree about Gilmour, he had a pretty unremarkable career. Green, as noted before, is based on notoriety. Of all the players mentioned here, I'd actually put McGimsie as the most deserving; paired with Tommy Phillips they were the heart of the Thistles. His career was still a bit short, but he was a dominant player when he played, even when Phillips was east for a couple of years.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 08:24 AM
  #17
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Hobey Baker. founding player and representative of the US amateur and university ideal. Hard to find a better choice.
As a builder or somesuch, sure. But based on his playing career, not deserving. I realize they only had the player category at the time, but he's still a stretch. Not sure what you mean by "founding player" of US amateur hockey either; the AAHL had been operating for almost 20 years when he first played in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Billy McGimsie. Small town Stanley Cup Champions Kenora Thistles say hi.
He was the equal of Tommy Philiips or Si Griffis on the team, though, so it's more than just that. Otherwise you'd have a guy like Tom Hooper in the Hall. Okay, bad example. But Roxy Beaudro, Matt Brown and Eddie Giroux are good examples.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 09:24 AM
  #18
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,206
vCash: 500
So why did Boivin get elected?

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 09:54 AM
  #19
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Leo Boivin, Dick Duff, Edgar Laprade and others who get thrown in under some perceived "worst" banner. Basically these are players with a reputation of being a player's player, warriors, gamers. With a team of such players you do not get embarrassed 4-0 in game 7 of the SCF at home. It may be true that adding the likes of Bob Baun, Claude Provost, Carl Brewer and a few borderline players would also sustain the effect but that is not the issue here.
This is supposed to be a persuasive argument for HOF induction? How many modern era players who aren't part of the O6 good ole boys network also fit that description and won't even get a sniff of the Hall? Not to mention the fact that neither Boivin nor Laprade even won a single Stanley Cup so your made-up anecdote doesn't even hold water.

I'd be impressed if someone could make a compelling argument why Boivin is more HOF-worthy than Adam Foote, Ulf Samuelsson, and Derian Hatcher, all outstanding defensive defensemen with long careers who were key contributors to Stanley Cup championships.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 11:02 AM
  #20
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,195
vCash: 500
Why Did Boivin Get Elected?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
So why did Boivin get elected?
Allan Stanley.

1956-57 and 1957-58 Boston Bruins were anchored by three defensemen - Fern Flaman, Leo Boivin and Allan Stanley. 1957 team, finishing 3rd, upset the 1st place Detroit Red Wings and went to the SCF against the Canadiens. 1958 team finished 4th, upset the 2nd place Rangers and went to the SCF against the Canadiens. Bruins lost the two finals 4-1 and 4-2 but did manage to show as the strongest competition that the 1956-60 dynasty Canadiens faced, winning three of the nine playoff games that the Canadiens lost. Stanley missed the 1957 playoffs but the consensus was the Boivin and Flaman if not the two top Bruin performers were definitely the top two Bruin d-men.

Before the 1958-59 season Allan Stanley was traded to Toronto for Jim Morrison, which should provide a perspective of how he was viewed throughout the league - he was available yet no one offered more.

1959 and 1960 SCF featured Toronto and Montreal. The Leafs despite having a more talented team only won one game in the two series not 3, despite facing a weaker Canadiens team 1959 Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured playing only 3 and 4 early games respectively while Doug Harvey played injured. The Leafs were more talented than the 1957 and 1958 Bruins. In goal Bower vs Simmons was not close. Defense the Bruins with Boivin, Flaman, Stanley, Armstrong, matched or bettered Toronto with Horton, Stanley, Baun, Brewer while the forwards gave Toronto a distinct edge Mahovlich, Olmstead, Duff, Pulford, Armstrong, Kelly(1960) vs Bucyk,Mackell,Mckenney, Mohns(depending on where he is slotted).

Through the remainder of the O6 era starting in 1959-60 when the Bruins plummeted Leo Boivin and John Bucyk were the only game in game out constants providing an honest effort every shift. Traded to Detroit , Boivin contributed to their 1966 SCF appearance against Montreal.

Overall compared to Allan Stanley post Boston the performance is very similar offensively and defensively with Stanley's slight edge being a function of surrounding team mates.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 11:23 AM
  #21
WingsFan95
Registered User
 
WingsFan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Allan Stanley.

1956-57 and 1957-58 Boston Bruins were anchored by three defensemen - Fern Flaman, Leo Boivin and Allan Stanley. 1957 team, finishing 3rd, upset the 1st place Detroit Red Wings and went to the SCF against the Canadiens. 1958 team finished 4th, upset the 2nd place Rangers and went to the SCF against the Canadiens. Bruins lost the two finals 4-1 and 4-2 but did manage to show as the strongest competition that the 1956-60 dynasty Canadiens faced, winning three of the nine playoff games that the Canadiens lost. Stanley missed the 1957 playoffs but the consensus was the Boivin and Flaman if not the two top Bruin performers were definitely the top two Bruin d-men.

Before the 1958-59 season Allan Stanley was traded to Toronto for Jim Morrison, which should provide a perspective of how he was viewed throughout the league - he was available yet no one offered more.

1959 and 1960 SCF featured Toronto and Montreal. The Leafs despite having a more talented team only won one game in the two series not 3, despite facing a weaker Canadiens team 1959 Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured playing only 3 and 4 early games respectively while Doug Harvey played injured. The Leafs were more talented than the 1957 and 1958 Bruins. In goal Bower vs Simmons was not close. Defense the Bruins with Boivin, Flaman, Stanley, Armstrong, matched or bettered Toronto with Horton, Stanley, Baun, Brewer while the forwards gave Toronto a distinct edge Mahovlich, Olmstead, Duff, Pulford, Armstrong, Kelly(1960) vs Bucyk,Mackell,Mckenney, Mohns(depending on where he is slotted).

Through the remainder of the O6 era starting in 1959-60 when the Bruins plummeted Leo Boivin and John Bucyk were the only game in game out constants providing an honest effort every shift. Traded to Detroit , Boivin contributed to their 1966 SCF appearance against Montreal.

Overall compared to Allan Stanley post Boston the performance is very similar offensively and defensively with Stanley's slight edge being a function of surrounding team mates.
What's interesting here, if true, is that Bolvin got his due, and he wasn't a first ballot guy by any stretch.

But Phil Housley should be in by this standard.

WingsFan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 11:36 AM
  #22
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,206
vCash: 500
Very interesting stuff... I am now edified

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 11:51 AM
  #23
Axxellien
Registered User
 
Axxellien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Allan Stanley.

1956-57 and 1957-58 Boston Bruins were anchored by three defensemen - Fern Flaman, Leo Boivin and Allan Stanley. 1957 team, finishing 3rd, upset the 1st place Detroit Red Wings and went to the SCF against the Canadiens. 1958 team finished 4th, upset the 2nd place Rangers and went to the SCF against the Canadiens. Bruins lost the two finals 4-1 and 4-2 but did manage to show as the strongest competition that the 1956-60 dynasty Canadiens faced, winning three of the nine playoff games that the Canadiens lost. Stanley missed the 1957 playoffs but the consensus was the Boivin and Flaman if not the two top Bruin performers were definitely the top two Bruin d-men.

Before the 1958-59 season Allan Stanley was traded to Toronto for Jim Morrison, which should provide a perspective of how he was viewed throughout the league - he was available yet no one offered more.

1959 and 1960 SCF featured Toronto and Montreal. The Leafs despite having a more talented team only won one game in the two series not 3, despite facing a weaker Canadiens team 1959 Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured playing only 3 and 4 early games respectively while Doug Harvey played injured. The Leafs were more talented than the 1957 and 1958 Bruins. In goal Bower vs Simmons was not close. Defense the Bruins with Boivin, Flaman, Stanley, Armstrong, matched or bettered Toronto with Horton, Stanley, Baun, Brewer while the forwards gave Toronto a distinct edge Mahovlich, Olmstead, Duff, Pulford, Armstrong, Kelly(1960) vs Bucyk,Mackell,Mckenney, Mohns(depending on where he is slotted).

Through the remainder of the O6 era starting in 1959-60 when the Bruins plummeted Leo Boivin and John Bucyk were the only game in game out constants providing an honest effort every shift. Traded to Detroit , Boivin contributed to their 1966 SCF appearance against Montreal.

Overall compared to Allan Stanley post Boston the performance is very similar offensively and defensively with Stanley's slight edge being a function of surrounding team mates.
..Interesting point surrounded by total, convoluted nonsense..There are so many mistakes here, that i do not know where to begin!..lol


Last edited by Axxellien: 06-17-2011 at 12:17 PM.
Axxellien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:02 PM
  #24
Axxellien
Registered User
 
Axxellien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
So why did Boivin get elected?
..No one here can provide an adequate awnser...I would add the salient follow up query, WHY have 3 of His teammates from the 1950s Bruins, namely Flem Mackell, Doug Mohns & Don McKenney not joined Leo Boivin in the Hall?????

Axxellien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2011, 12:12 PM
  #25
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
To provide a bit more data, here's the HOF outcome for each player with X number of seasons in the top five in Norris voting. (Worked on this quickly so there may be some mistakes, but probably nothing significant).

Six or more seasons - 100%
In: 19 (Bourque, Lidstrom, Coffey, Orr, Harvey, Pilote, Robinson, Chelios, Potvin, Pronger, Park, Gadsby, Salming, Stevens, Leetch, MacInnis, Laperriere, Horton, Lapointe)
Debatable: 0
Out: 0

Five seasons - 75%
In: 4 (Langway, Pronovost, Flaman, Blake - pretty confident he'll make it)
Out: 1 (JC Tremblay)
Debatable: 1 (Chara)

Four seasons - 56%
In: 4 (Kelly, Niedermayer, Murphy, Savard)
Out: 3 (Wilson, Gonchar, Howe - I think he should be in, but likely his time has passed)
Debatable: 1 (Housley - not my personal opinion but he is often discussed as a candidate)

Three seasons - 25%
In: 1 (Johnson)
Out: 3 (White, Stapleton, Brewer - sometimes considered, along with Howe, the best defenseman not in the Hall but too much time has passed I think)
Debatable: 0

Two seasons - 25%
In: 2 (Stanley, Howell)
Out: 7 (Konstantinov, Vasko, Desjardins, Neilson, Boyle, Green, Weber)
Debatable: 1 (Zubov - this is likely a generous assessment, as most people place undue emphasis on his late-career resurgence)

One season - 5%
In: 1 (Biovin)
Out: 28 (Carlyle, Phaneuf, Green, D. Hatcher, Suter, Ozolinsch, Schoenfeld, Talbot, McCrimmon, McCabe, Hartsburg, Harris, K. Hatcher, Goldham, Stewart, Ashbee, Campbell, Mohns, Aucoin, Barkely, Redden, Harper, Baun, Duchesne, Timonen, Arbour, Evans, Bolton)
Debatable: 1 (Lowe)

====

Out of the 39 defensemen with two or fewer seasons as a legitimate Norris candidate, only three are in the Hall (Allan Stanley, Harry Howell and Leo Biovin) and only two more are often considered candidates (Sergei Zubov, Kevin Lowe) - though I think both are considered longshots at best. Obviously there are some players who can become candidates over time (i.e. Keith).

To answer your question: nobody fares as poorly as Biovin according to this simple metric. Even the next-closest defensemen are, on paper, much better. Howell won the Norris once and placed 5th another year; he also placed top five in Hart voting once. Stanley was runner-up to Harvey once and placed 3rd behind Harvey and Pronovost another time. Biovin had a single year in 5th place, and that's it. Stanley won multiple Stanley Cups; Howell and Biovin never did.

I'd argue that Derian Hatcher is a similar type of player (defense-oriented, big hitter) and, on paper, has a stronger resume (3rd behind Lidstrom and MacInnis in his best season; at worst #2 defenseman on a Stanley Cup winning team).

By the established standards of his position, Biovin is clearly the weakest Hall of Fame defenseman who played during the past ~60 years. Would be interesting to do a similar analysis for goalies and forwards (though the fluctuations in the relative quality of C, LW and RW could make it difficult).
Your analysis proves one thing to me. I've always thought it, but now it's clear as day. It's a crime JC Tremblay is not in the HOF.

Psycho Papa Joe 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 09:41 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.