View Single Post
12-25-2012, 11:30 PM
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Thanks for putting this together. A couple of things.

Coleman seems to take a very statistical view of the early goalies - picking Benedict over Vezina because of his better GAAs. This is consistent with his view that people who watched Holmes played underrated him because of his "boring" style. There's nothing wrote with the way Coleman is evaluating the goalies, but realize that he is putting a very high emphasis on GAA and less so on the popular opinion of people who watched this guys.

(Coleman was born in 1902, and I'm not sure how much he saw the earliest players he wrote about, or if it was based on the historical research available at the time).
Good context. I was more interested in his affirmation of the "boring" factor than him talking about Holmes's weighted GAA, but didn't address this.

Their place among their generations seem similar - Holmes was probably 4th best of his, Connell was probably 5th best of his. It seems to me that Holmes was farther behind 3rd than Connell was behind Hainsworth. Both are best known for being key players in the postseason (though Connell has "only" two Cups with two Teams, and Holmes has four, although 2 of Holmes' were during WWI).
I just think Holmes was on a different level than Connell honestly. Holmes did everything he did and more. If I'm going to appeal to just the balancing act I'm really not going to look at Connell's case as #5 of his era at this point.

I'd like to see the names Connell beat out in the playoffs to see if they compare favorably to Holmes. It seems like Connell gets a lot of mileage for beating a geriatric Hainsworth in the playoffs, yet Holmes dispatched him twice in the WCHL playoffs 5 years earlier. I find his record vs Vezina far more compelling than anything Connell did in the playoffs. I mean Connell only won 1 more playoff series than Holmes won Cups.

I don't put much stock in the war concern either. The 1917 Canadiens had a very good team that lost depth and gained star power.
Originally Posted by Trail of the Stanley Cup Vol 1
The champions had lost McNamara, Prodgers, Arbour, and Ronan. However, after [re-]signing Vezina, Pitre, Laviolette, Lalonde, Corbeau and Berlinquette, they picked up Harry Mummery and Tommy Smith from Quebec and a new player Billy Couture or Coutu. They were so well loaded that they let Skinner Poulin to the Wanderers.
Here's the notes on 1918's Millionaires
Vancouver replaced Patrick and Griffis with Ran McDonald an Lloyd Cook of Spokane for the defence. Taylor, MacKay, and Stanley were back as forwards but Gordie Roberts had been transferred to Seattle.
Patrick retired, I'm not sure what Griffis did (also retired??) but he was back for the Stanley Cup. It's a shame they lost Roberts the year after he led the league in scoring, but his movement had nothing to do with the war.

Well, I'm still a skeptic as to how good Hainsworth was at his peak, considering in the height of his NHL prime in 1928, he only beat out Connell for 2nd Team All Star by a single vote. I voted Hainsworth in last time based on his longevity as a top player, more than peak value.
I saw Hainsworth the same way and had him 5th last round. I think the further we go though, the more Holmes longevity stands out as Hainsworth's did despite the doubts. I see more similarities between Hainsworth and Holmes than Connell.

3 more Original 6 goalies before a guy who peaked after 1990, eh?
That's the problem and why I wanted to be transparent. Am I being unfair to Barrasso, Joseph, and Beezer? Or is it more fair considering we're light on the 80s goalies as well? No one's really calling for Liut and he has to the best 80s guys left out of the voting right? (I have Fuhr #1 this round FWIW.)

Honestly, Worsley is the one I'm least comfortable with. So if I'm being too kind to the older guys I'd probably take the birth year arguments out on him.

Is there a good reason to take Barrasso or Cujo over that Lumley, Rayner, and Holmes group? I wouldn't call those guys weak HHOFers so are we at the point that goalies just outside of the Hall are better than merited HHOFers?

I gave you my top 5, but Barraso and Cujo are comfortably holding down 6 and 7 in an undecided order and I'd be glad to bump them up as seems fit. I just don't see how I could get them any higher than above Worsley so help me see where I'm erring.

Last edited by Rob Scuderi: 12-26-2012 at 08:28 AM.
Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote