Old-Tyme Defencemen

Last time, which was quite a time ago (thanks, tax season!), I suggested some terms that could be used to describe the style of old-tyme goaltenders, so that we don't have to resort to modern, anachronistic language when discussing them. Now we can have a look at some names for the defenders.

Hardrock: A hardrock defenceman is a physical player, who uses his body to prevent opposing players from approaching the net. He hits them, and if they get up, he hits them again. Fighting has not always been a part of the game, but body-checking has, and these men do it best. Harvey Pulford is an example of a hardrock defenceman.

Lifting: A lifting defenceman is one who excels at clearing the puck out of his end of the rink by lifting it, hurling the puck high into the air so that it cannot be intercepted by the opposition. While common in the early days of the game, this is a tactic not much used today. The Winnipeg Vics' great defensive pair of Rod and Magnus Flett are both noted for their lifting ability.

Rushing: A rushing defencemen is one who relieves the pressure on his side by rushing the puck up the ice himself. He is generally, though not necessarily, a gifted offensive player. He can either carry the puck all the way to the goal, or pass it off to another player for a scoring chance. Mike Grant is a noted example of a rushing defenceman from the game's early days, and there were many others since this style of play attracted so much attention.

Blocking: A blocking defenceman focuses on preventing scoring chances rather than moving the puck up the ice, but unlike the hardrock defenceman he does not rely on physicality to do so. He uses positional play and stick-checking ability to either block the opponent's path to the goal, or to block his shot. James Stewart is a fine example of a blocking defenceman.

Shooting: A shooting defenceman is one who focuses more on the offensive game, but instead of rushing the puck in to the goal, he possesses a deadly shot that can be used from a distance as well as in close. There are many such defenders in the game today, but in hockey's early years such players were fairly rare. Harry Cameron is one example.



I'm always open to suggestions for additional "classes" of player, if you will. Next time: fowards.

The Quality of Pre-Stanley Cup Hockey (Part 3)

This is the third and final post addressing the quality of pre-Stanley Cup hockey, demonstrating that the line between 1892 and 1893 is an arbitrary one and does not reflect a real difference in the quality of hockey. In this installment, we look at the idea that the lack of Hall-of-Famers from that era speaks to the quality of the players.

Hall of Fame

Some have argued that if the players from the pre-Stanley Cup era were so good, then at least a few of them would have been inducted into the Hall of Fame. The selection committee usually had first-hand knowledge of the players they inducted, and didn't deem any player from this time worthy of the honour.

This appeal to authority is flawed, since the Hall of Fame selection committee has made numerous selections, even its early years, which can be described as questionable at best. The first Hall of Fame induction was in 1945, 62 years after the first Montreal Winter Carnival tournament. The idea that the committee had first-hand knowledge of early players is unsupportable. The first selection committee was made up of the following men:

Red Dutton (born 1898)

Art Ross (born 1886)

Lester Patrick (born 1883)

Abbie Coo (born 1885)

Wes McKnight (born 1909)

Basil O'Meara (born 1892)

W. A Hewitt (Born 1875)

In addition, there were Frank Sargent and J.P. Fitzgerald, whose birth years I have been unable to determine. Clearly there is little evidence that the committee would have had first-hand knowledge of players active in 1890 - some weren't even born yet and several others were but a few years old at the time. There is no reason to think these men had any particular insight into the earliest players. The only one we know to be old enough, W.A. Hewitt, was a native of Toronto and began his newspaper career in 1895 at the Toronto News. Toronto was, of course, not involved in the highest level of hockey at this time. Notably, Hewitt transferred to Montreal to work at the Montreal Herald as sports editor in 1899, when Mike Grant was still active and Graham Drinkwater had only just retired. Coincidentally, these are chronologically the first two Hall of Fame players. Hewitt would have had no direct experience with Tom Paton, then, but plenty with Mike Grant. Is it any wonder that one is in, and the other isn't?

Conclusion

Since hockey in the 1880s era was so similar to the 1890s era, it is unfair to discount its players while not doing the same for men like Mike Grant, Graham Drinkwater, Alf Smith and Harvey Pulford as well. An argument can be made that the professional era brought a higher degree of competition; however the point of these posts is merely to establish that there is no substantive difference between hockey in 1890 and hockey in 1895. If the players from 1895 (Drinkwater, Grant, Havilland Routh, Bob McDougall) are worthy of consideration, then so are the players from 1890. There may be a discount necessary, but not moreso for 1890 than 1895.

In due time we will address which of the early era players should have been considered for induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame. But we're still just getting started here.