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.

Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2012, 08:50 PM
  #226
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Durnan

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yeah, I guess I can see the similarities in that Durnan played just as long as Dryden and (like Dryden) just flat out quit while he could still play. But I think the way Durnan quit (in the middle of a playoff series with his team down) is particularly onerous, especially considering that Durnan's playoff resume as a whole, while it's far from terrible, probably isn't as good as it could be.
So by your reasoning Dryden actually quit twice on the Canadiens - 1973-74 and 1979. Sawchuk quit on the Bruins during the 1956-57 season, yet Durnan carries the stigmata even though he is the only one who left his team with a suitable replacement who actually outperformed Durnan the rest of the way

This is the gratitude Durnan gets for playing through a broken hand that caused him pain everytime he stopped a shot with it. You made the post to this regard.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:50 PM
  #227
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Turk Broda did not have to be managed during the regular season like Fuhr or Smith so that he would be playoff ready
This is more valuable than meets-the-eye, I think Broda was a hefty step up on Fuhr and Smith. Fuhr - even when adjusting for the teams that he played for - doesn't have a strong regular season showing. Never top-5 in save pct., once top-5 in GAA, scant top-10 performances. I mean, it wasn't exactly pretty. He's going to get by on playoffs, and that's for another time. Billy Smith only played more games than his backup(s) three times in his entire career...Smith is all playoffs.

Broda for me is second behind a top-10 of all-time in his era. Smith played fewer games than Rollie Melanson sometimes...it's no contest this minute...until we break it down when Smith and Fuhr are actually eligible, that's how it shall remain I do believe.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 08:56 PM
  #228
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So by your reasoning Dryden actually quit twice on the Canadiens - 1973-74 and 1979. Sawchuk quit on the Bruins during the 1956-57 season, yet Durnan carries the stigmata even though he is the only one who left his team with a suitable replacement who actually outperformed Durnan the rest of the way

This is the gratitude Durnan gets for playing through a broken hand that caused him pain everytime he stopped a shot with it. You made the post to this regard.
How many of them quit in the middle of a playoff series? I'd like to think that I am pretty consistent here. I think 1997 was definitely a black mark on Hasek's record.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:21 PM
  #229
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
This is more valuable than meets-the-eye, I think Broda was a hefty step up on Fuhr and Smith. Fuhr - even when adjusting for the teams that he played for - doesn't have a strong regular season showing. Never top-5 in save pct., once top-5 in GAA, scant top-10 performances. I mean, it wasn't exactly pretty. He's going to get by on playoffs, and that's for another time. Billy Smith only played more games than his backup(s) three times in his entire career...Smith is all playoffs.
Now, I'm not going to lobby for a mercurial raising of Fuhr here, but I think his regular season performance goes extremely under-rated. The period for which he gets the least credit has to be the high-flying Gretzky days. I only have SV% numbers from '83/84 onward to work with (hockeyreference), but if you look at the aggregate SV% between '83/84 and '87/88, Fuhr only lags behind the "best" starter you can find on the list by about 0.010 tied with Beezer and Smith). We all know that his GAA was higher than most, and some of that is attributable to their offensive focus/style, but he has a reputation for making all the saves he had to, and the numbers bear out that he was competitive in terms of how often he had to make them.

Also, Grant Fuhr is in the 400 win club, but I think less than 200 of those wins came during the Gretzky era (of course, that means more than 200 losses after Gretzky, lol). Something else to consider. He was also one of the rare 60+ game starters (dating back to at least the 60s, and lasting until the 90s, there tended to be only 1-3 60+ game goalies per season) with a track record of playing the same consistent level; no matter what time of the season it was. That becomes a pretty considerable asset over that number of starts.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:23 PM
  #230
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Not Really

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How many of them quit in the middle of a playoff series? I'd like to think that I am pretty consistent here. I think 1997 was definitely a black mark on Hasek's record.
Not really.

Playoff series is somewhat arbitrary. Long term and short term effects have to be looked at.

Dryden in 1979 was going to be replaced by Bunny Larocque after a poor game 1 in the Finals but Larocque got hurt in the pre game warm-up before game 2 and Dryden had to replace him. Dryden then won 4 straight games.

Dave Kerr retired younger than Dryden:

http://nyrangerslegends.blogspot.ca/...dave-kerr.html

totaled the Rangers thru the first half of the 1940s. No viable goalie replacement.

Normie Smith. Will not try to figure out who is at fault.

Point is that we are comparing the one goalie era to the tandem goalie system. So how you view Hasek vs how you view solo goalies who got hurt in season but shorten the injury or rehab time for the benefit of the team,only to have it catch-up later at in their career or at playoff time is apples and oranges.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:27 PM
  #231
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Consider George Hainsworth, pre forward pass and post forward pass performance:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hainsge01.html

Pre forward pass era, in three seasons, Hainsworth,twice led the NHL in GAA/three Vezinas and twice lead in shutouts - more than half of his career record of 95.

Post forward pass, even though Hainsworth played for two SC champions in 1930 and 1931, basically the same Canadiens team from the pre forward pass era, Hainsworth did not dominate statistically, nor did he recapture his dominance later with Toronto. Never lead in GAA or shutouts and never was voted to an AST.

So after the rule changes Hainsworth did not dominate like he did before. He adapted but at a much lower level solid vs previously dominant. The goalie hierarchy reflects this.

Hainsworth adapted to the rule changes associated with the post forward pass era but never performed at his previous level. he went from dominant to solid. This adaptation element was within his control but others simply surpassed him - adapted better. Other goalies won Vezinas, led in shutouts, earned AST honours including John Ross Roach and Lorne Chabot, bottom half contemporaries of Hainsworth in the pre forward pass era. Rather sharp drop from a dominant position. This impacted the long term hierarchy as well.
So a 36 year old goalie wasn't as good as he was before then? (I'm starting from the 31-32 season because by all accounts he was stellar in Montreal's two cup wins.)

You are so utterly convinced of your premise that you are completely blind to relevant factors outside your premise.

Yes, a 26 year old surpassed a 35 year old. What does that tell us? Basically nothing. One is entering their prime, another is leaving it. We extrapolate that the younger one was better not because he surpassed an older player, but because players who played against both and writers that observed both say so.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 09:45 PM
  #232
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Johnny Bower

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
So a 36 year old goalie wasn't as good as he was before then? (I'm starting from the 31-32 season because by all accounts he was stellar in Montreal's two cup wins.)

You are so utterly convinced of your premise that you are completely blind to relevant factors outside your premise.

Yes, a 26 year old surpassed a 35 year old. What does that tell us? Basically nothing. One is entering their prime, another is leaving it. We extrapolate that the younger one was better not because he surpassed an older player, but because players who played against both and writers that observed both say so.
Johnny Bower counters your latest. First of two Vezinas at 36, plus a 1st AST, second Vezina at age 39.

First your understanding of my premise is flawed. Goalies and other players have to adapt. How they adapt to rule changes is one element of adaptability which goes towards defining better. So it is perfectly reasonable to measure young vs old in this context. Be it a young Tretiak adapting in 1972 or an old Plante adapting in 1965. Both did it within ten minutes of one game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:00 PM
  #233
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Johnny Bower counters your latest. First of two Vezinas at 36, plus a 1st AST, second Vezina at age 39.

First your understanding of my premise is flawed. Goalies and other players have to adapt. How they adapt to rule changes is one element of adaptability which goes towards defining better. So it is perfectly reasonable to measure young vs old in this context. Be it a young Tretiak adapting in 1972 or an old Plante adapting in 1965. Both did it within ten minutes of one game.
No, exceptions and outliers prove nothing. I don't know how you can type with a straight face giving me outliers as proof of premise.

You are correct that players that can't adapt are weaker players. But you didn't say you think less of Vezina because he couldn't adapt. You said you think less of him because he didn't get the chance to adapt. That is significantly different.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:05 PM
  #234
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Evidence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
No, exceptions and outliers prove nothing. I don't know how you can type with a straight face giving me outliers as proof of premise.

You are correct that players that can't adapt are weaker players. But you didn't say you think less of Vezina because he couldn't adapt. You said you think less of him because he didn't get the chance to adapt. That is significantly different.
Provide proof of the second bolded - link. I clearly identified Vezina as a pre forward pass goalie. Also it is clear that he adapted to the liberalization of flopping without missing a beat.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 10:49 PM
  #235
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Provide proof of the second bolded - link. I clearly identified Vezina as a pre forward pass goalie. Also it is clear that he adapted to the liberalization of flopping without missing a beat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Vezina/Benedict or Benedict/Vezina, interesting debate but call it what it is pre FORWARD PASS era goaltenders. The game was very different, very defensive for the most part:

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

Clint Benedict only played 14 games in the forward pass era. Look at the bump in his GAA compared to his pre forward pass era GAA. Flat Walsh, a 32 year old journeyman, outperformed Benedict:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...walshfl01.html

Also you can see how Charlie Gardiner transitioned between eras:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...gardich01.html

Too early for either of the pre forward pass era goalies.
You are clearly punishing them for factors outside their control.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:18 PM
  #236
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 500
A H/R split of Broda's career.

YearGPMINWLTGAGAASOGPMINWLGAGAASO
36-37 H2314201481512.1531600133.000
36-37 R2213608113552.4301730121.640
37-38 H2415001365642.56442623151.151
37-38 R2414801194632.55231901282.530
38-39 H2414801383391.585530632101.961
38-39 R2415106126682.703531123101.931
39-40 H2314301535431.80364014291.351
39-40 R24147010140652.651425622102.340
40-41 H2414801653391.58331801262.000
40-41 R2414901293602.42242582292.090
41-42 H2414501860582.403742052152.140
41-42 R2415109123783.103636033162.671
42-43 H2515001762702.801318912103.170
42-43 R2515005137893.560325012102.400
45-46 H7420430223.140-------
45-46 R8480323313.880-------
46-47 H3018002082752.503638051162.530
46-47 R30180011118973.231530032112.201
47-48 H3018002235692.301531750142.650
47-48 R30180010128742.47442403161.501
48-49 H30180012810732.43242563181.880
48-49 R30180010173882.93353185071.321
49-50 H3319401778712.20532011261.791
49-50 R35210013184962.74442492240.962
50-51 H15873941271.86453122181.540
50-51 R16960664412.56231803010.332
51-52 H--------1600166.000
51-52 R13001036.0001600111.000
Pre H1671026010642193642.13222918181712581.913
Pre R167103206180264782.78112616981115652.302
Post H14586338433263372.3415241526166582.281
Post R15089705367304302.8814221347166301.347
Total H3121889319075457012.233753334433181162.084
Total R31719290114147569082.82254830452721951.879

In 1945-46 he is listed as 6-6-3 but looking through the game logs we see the Leafs going 7-5-3 down the stretch. A newspaper search confirms Broda played the last 15 games of the season.

In 1950-51 he is credited with 14-11-5 record, but going through the game by game results I come up with a 15-10-5 record.

On Dec. 2, 1950, both he and Rollins played in a 0-0 tie. Rollins played the first 27 minutes, and is credited with the tie. Broda played the last 33 minutes, and is credited with the shutout. In the official record the minute split seems to be reversed.

There is also a game on Oct. 15, 1950, a 4-4 tie with Detroit in Detroit, where it is mentioned that Broda was cut and required stitches with 54 seconds left in the first period. Rollins appears in the game roster as a sub, but there's no mention of anything but the injury in the game writeup. The game doesn't appear on Rollin's record.

In the 1951 playoffs, Broda played a game called by curfew after 20 minutes of OT. The game, minutes and GA are included in his totals, but the tie is not.

Seasonal record vs playoff opponents:
YearTeamH WH LH TH GFH GAR WR LR TR GFR GA
1936-37NYR*12081002036
1937-38BOS120613030411
1937-38CHI111129102116
1938-39NYA2201710121410
1938-39DET40018103139
1938-39BOS22065031413
1939-40CHI211141013068
1939-40DET*300112310147
1939-40NYR01371013039
1940-41BOS121561211011
1941-42NYR31015111211318
1941-42DET3101512211119
1942-43DET32015141311214
1946-47DET42024184022314
1946-47MTL3211613033718
1947-48BOS5012010132915
1947-48DET40222162221511
1948-49BOS32116123301621
1948-49DET3211414051821
1949-50DET*23115213401124
1950-51BOS*201156320158
1950-51MTL*30014511046
1951-52DET*----------

* Hainsworth's record
YearTeamH WH LH TH GFH GAR WR LR TR GFR GA
1936-37NYR*-----01015

* Stein's record
YearTeamH WH LH TH GFH GAR WR LR TR GFR GA
1939-40DET*00122-----

* Mayer's record
YearTeamH WH LH TH GFH GAR WR LR TR GFR GA
1949-50DET*01002-----

* Rollins' record
YearTeamH WH LH TH GFH GAR WR LR TR GFR GA
1950-51BOS*40016610143
1950-51MTL*400135212118
1951-52DET*23219192321218


Last edited by BM67: 11-18-2012 at 12:36 PM.
BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:23 PM
  #237
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Seriously.............

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
You are clearly punishing them for factors outside their control.
That is your evidence?

Just defined their era and expressed an opinion that it was too early to consider them.

No different from others posting their opening salvos, page 1 of this thread, posts #4, 7, and ..... #13 yours, where you effectively try to jump the voting trend by introducing two goalies as 1 and 2 when one only finished 8th in the previous round and one was not eligible.

My opinion is supported by voting trends to date.

Let's see your case for Benedict/Vezina or Vezina/Benedict as #1 and #2 in this round. Support the assertion in your post #13 of this thread that BOTH were incorrectly listed on the master list - not my creation and that both deserve at least a four to six spot bump going against the already established voting patterns.

The reference to Charlie Gardiner was outside of the Benedict/Vezina or Vezina/Benedict issue.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 11-13-2012 at 11:29 PM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:30 PM
  #238
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,969
vCash: 500
I really hope nobody cares about the master list put together from the submitted lists when it comes to Round 2 voting. This is where the meat of the discussion is.

And I can assure everyone that the top 8 on our final list is not the same as the top 8 on the aggregate list created after Round 1 of voting.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:50 AM
  #239
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Belfour better than Tony O, huh? I do believe Belfour (and Esposito) are undersold here, as I've stated...I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on this Belfour > Esposito stance as well...so tricky to compare, Belfour is so out of sorts era-wise here...
I'm also in favor of Belfour over Esposito, and I think it's definitely too early for both this round. Some things to consider...

Competition
Belfour had to regularly compete with 2-3 of prime Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, and Barrasso for awards.

Esposito had 1-2 elite goaltenders not playing in the NHL (Tretiak and Holecek) and others playing in the WHA (i.e. Cheevers) to boost his awards finishes and to decrease league average SV%.

Playoffs

Belfour pretty clearly has the better resume here. A Conn Smythe level performance in '99. In 2 years he would face Roy twice and Hasek and Brodeur once in the playoffs and only lost one of those series...nitpicking can be done about the strength of the team in the case of Hasek, but he proved he could go up against the best and win. Did Esposito ever do something like this? Not that I can recall. In Esposito's defense, he does appear to be a little more consistent in the playoffs...he beat who he was suppose to beat, but doesn't look like he ever really stole anything or was the difference in a close matchup, which is a pretty big issue for me.

As someone else said, regular season appears to be close, but the playoffs make Belfour the easy choice for me.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 08:24 AM
  #240
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 500
NHL home team record from 1936-37 to 1951-52.

YearTeamsScheduleWLTW%GFGAGF/GA
1936-37848907428.5424944521.093
1937-38848956136.5895254471.174
1938-39748855825.5804763751.269
1939-40748955221.6285003391.475
1940-41748875031.6104994011.244
1941-427481015512.6375984491.332
1942-43650853332.6736214621.344
1943-44650874716.6336855401.269
1944-45650805317.5906154881.260
1945-46650814623.6175614421.269
1946-47660926226.5836375011.271
1947-48660846234.5615505041.091
1948-49660965628.6115614171.345
1949-506701016841.5796385101.251
1950-51670996645.5796285111.229
1951-526701036938.5816024881.234

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 10:26 AM
  #241
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by intylerwetrust View Post
WHats the knock on Durnan exactly? 2 Cups, 6 Vezinas, and 6 1st team all-stars are above and beyond what some of the top 8 have (not that he should be in the top 8).
Subpar 1940s competition, and other goalies’ accomplishments line up pretty well with his. Like Esposito.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Esposito was consistently very good for a long time, but I don't think he ever beat out Dryden or Parent for an All Star team when either was in their primes. His longerm consistency (at least in the regular season) beats out both quite easily though.
His longterm consistency is important to note, because it was longterm consistency as an elite goalie, not just a good one. Like, almost Brodeur-level.

He was almost always in the top-3 in voting, scouting reports almost always called him the best, or one of the two/three best in the league, and his sv% backs up those positions as well.

He never beat out Dryden or Parent when they were in their primes (unless you count 1972), but he finished ahead of Parent in voting, without making the AST, in 1971, 1978 and 1979, in addition to other seasons where his vote totals weren’t that significant.

Also, don’t be too fast to just assume Parent in 1973 would have been the 2nd AST goalie over Espo, or that Dryden would have been 2nd in 1974. It’s not his fault they each took a year off and he earned those spots. It’s just rather convenient for the argument that they each took a year off, or else we’d be saying “Esposito only beat out Dryden and Parent three times in total for all-star teams”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Tony Esposito showed consistency in his inconsistency. Same could be said about Belfour.
It would be great if this was substantiated. Esposito’s year by year numbers were as consistent as any goalie I’ve seen. From 1970 to 1980, these were his sv% rankings:

1st
4th
1st
2nd
2nd
7th
6th
9th
2nd
4th
2nd


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't really understand how the introduction of the Red Line affects anything. Brimsek was the best goalie in the world in the years leading up to the Redline (which was introduced in 1944). And we have evidence that after he got back from the war, he was considered just as good as Durnan as late as 1948.
Yeah, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it has nothing to do with how good Brimsek or any other goalie is, and just adds needless smoke to this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Parent and Esposito... I consider them 3/4 in the 1970s, and it's hard to rank that over the 1/2 of another era without a stronger case.
.
It’s easy if the “another era” is the 1940s when two teams were stacked and the rest were decimated by the war. It’s also easier when one guy took himself out of hockey after just 7 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I think there's a definite case for Belfour over Esposito. Belfour had even tougher competition for awards, and was better in the playoffs, which seems to be a weak spot for Esposito.
Yes, Belfour over Espo is not a hard case to make. They’re pretty close to even in the regular season once all factors are considered, but Belfour has a much better playoff record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
The same data may be out there, but from my understanding the same data certainly wasn't presented last time.

For instance, we ABSOLUTELY did not have the information we now have on Vezina last time around. It may have been out there somewhere (obviously it was. There hasn't been a rash of new publications since then saying different things about Vezina) but it wasn't presented or known to people. I don't know why that's a difficult concept.
You are absolutely right. There’s no revisionism going on, just historians doing the best with what they have available. Just like last time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 10:37 AM
  #242
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The case for Frank Brimsek:

Basically, in the late 30s, he was considered the best goalie in the world, better than Tiny Thompson who preceded him in Boston, and better than everyone who came since Charlie Gardiner. He went off to serve during World War 2, came back, and was considered just as good as Bill Durnan when he came back.

Basically, Brimsek likely peaked as high as Durnan but maintained that level for longer. And I think Brimsek was more of a difference-maker in the playoffs than Duran.

Detailed arguments from last round:

Brimsek was likely cheated out of 2-3 1st Team All Stars by the tradition that the 1st Team always went to the Vezina winner:
  • In 1942-43, players, general managers, and opposing goaltenders all seemed to agree that Brimsek was the best goalie
  • In 1947-48, Brimsek lost the 1st Team to Turk Broda, the Vezina winner, by a single point, but easily beat him in Hart voting (finishing 2nd while Broda got no votes).
  • In 1940-41, Brimsek lost the 1st Team by a single point to Broda, the Vezina winner.
  • It's highly suspicious that in Broda's long, Hall of Fame career, the only two times he was awarded the 1st Team were the two times he happened to lead the league in GAA
Details: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=151

Brimsek likely deserved 4 1st Teams and 4 2nd Teams, with possibly a 5th 1st Team. And that's before you take into account that he lost 2 years in the middle of his prime to World War 2.

Brimsek was very good in the playoffs for most of his career
  • The Bruins ended a 10 year Cupless Drought in Brimsek's rookie year and won 2 Cups in his first 3 seasons in the league before the team was destroyed by World War 2
  • Brimsek played very well in 1946, his first playoffs after the war, but was let down by the Bruin Defense
Details: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=152

Why Brimsek over Gardiner? Longevity. Why Brimsek over Vezina or Benedict? Better established as the best of his generation.

I also do think there is something to the statements by Jack Adams and Dick Irvin that goaltending improves over time, so the best goalie of the 40s maybe should be rated a bit higher than the best of the 20s. As a group, we seem to endorse that thinking as not a single member of our top 8 played in the NHL before 1950.
It should be obvious by now that Brimsek was actually the best of his era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I really don't understand why you guys are even talking about the addition of the Red Line.

…..

And that's not even getting into the fact that as late as 1947-48, Brimsek and Durnan were basically considered co-best goalies in the league. So even if evidence was provided that the Red Line changed the way goalies played, it's pretty clear that the goalies we are discussing here adjusted just fine.
Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But the guys available now - Turk Broda and Frank Brimsek seem to have been just as good after the rule change as before it.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think still you guys are putting too much emphasis on the rule changes and not enough on World War 2 gutting some teams more than others, though.
Bingo.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:09 AM
  #243
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It should be obvious by now that Brimsek was actually the best of his era.
I know not everyone agrees, but I think so. I'm comfortable with Brimsek being the only 40s goalie to make it this round and Durnan and Broda waiting one more round.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:16 AM
  #244
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
1) Longevity.
2) Better regular season play.
3) Better play on a variety of situations. (Broda was pretty much only great with the Hap Day dynasty. Benedict was great with dynasty Sens, great with a young Maroons team and very good with the transitional Sens of the mid 10's.) Granted this is similar to longevity, but an important part of why longevity is important.
Also – who says that Benedict wasn’t also better in the playoffs? It certainly shouldn’t be open-and-shut.

For example, in the 1928 playoffs, he had four shutouts… twice what all the other goalies in the NHL had combined! His .86 GAA was just over half of the next best guy’s.

And this wasn’t even one of the four times he won the cup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
Playoff numbers for team success vs. expected:

RankGoalieSeries WExp SeriesDiff%CupsExp CupsDiff%
1Turk Broda1510.34+4.66+45%53.07+1.93+63%
2Charlie Gardiner53.10+1.90+61%10.28+0.72+257%
3Ed Belfour1917.77+1.23+7%11.65-0.65-39%
4Johnny Bower86.97+1.03+15%32.37+0.63+27%
5Tony Esposito98.43+0.57+7%00.76-0.76-100%
6Bernie Parent98.48+0.52+6%20.99+1.01+102%
7Georges Vezina32.60+0.40+15%32.60+0.40+15%
8Clint Benedict55.55-0.55-10%33.80-0.80-21%
9Frank Brimsek78.37-1.37-16%22.84-0.84-30%
10Bill Durnan57.4-2.40-32%23.05-1.05-34%

I think Tony Esposito's playoff failures are generally overblown. He also has a very strong regular season record, ranking #1 all-time among goalies in regular season GVT. That is in part because of the lack of parity in the 1970s, but in terms of career regular season value Esposito certainly rivals anybody in this group.

I'm still not sold on Bill Durnan. To rank him in the top four this round (which is higher than I currently have him), I'd like to see more evidence that his individual statistical performance was great, or at least that knowledgeable observers who weren't his coaches or teammates rated him very highly, based on his play and not just on his accomplishments (All-Stars, Vezinas, etc.).
Two very, very good points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanf View Post
I had time and made a quick search about Benedict.Found this

source is 19.2.1927 New Castle News
Text is partly too unclear for me so the bolded are straight quotes (with possible misspells by me).

They made a ranking of best goalies at the time. I have understood that it is small newspaper but the writer himself admits that he is too rookie to make a list so they ask the question from "three qualified experts from New York, Boston and Montreal."

Here is their top six
1. Alec Connell 2. Vernon Forbes 3. "Sleepy" Clint Benedict 4. Jack Roach 5. Hugh Lehman 6. Roy Worters

About Benedict "For a long time almost a unanimous choice for the best goalie, but undoubtedly slipping a bit this year"

I think that on the unclear part there are arguments about all the goalies. This is not only GAA based ranking. Here is what they say about Chabot."A wonderful goalie to be sure and ranking right along with Connell as far goals scored against him go" Still they didn´t rank him in top six. Though the reason could be that this was made in the middle of his first season in NHL (same goes to Hainsworth) .

I remember reading a claim that Maroons acquired Flat Walsh at that season because of Benedicts "slipping". That seemed to be only temporary and Walsh got his chance only after Benedicts injury in 1929-1930 season. I found many articles from late 20´s which calls him "still one of the best".
Very interesting. I like Benedict and I’d like to consider this useful; however, at the same time, Connell was never considered one of the NHL’s two best goalies as of the end of any season, so I have to wonder if this list was based on fringe opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Tough for me to give Esposito any serious consideration this round. If he's considered the 4th best goalie of the 70's behind Dryden, Tretiak, and Parent, I can't justify putting him ahead of any guys who were considered the best in the world or co-best in the world.

Esposito seems to be comparable to Belfour and Bower in the sense that they were great goalies that had very tough competition (Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Barrasso) and (Plante, Hall, Sawchuk, Worsley). Esposito appears to have the best regular season resume of the 3, but also the worst playoff resume.

Those 3 will likely be my bottom 3 this round.

Something else to think about...what would Esposito's AS record look like had Tretiak and Holecek also been competing with him for those?
How about this then. Consider him 3rd best of the 70s, since Parent was only better than him in Flashes - and put Brimsek (easily the best of the 40s) ahead of him, and consider that the 40s were horrible, and yes, it’s easy to put the 3rd goalie of the 70s in before the 2nd of the 40s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
@anyone: So...Bernie Parent dominates Tony Esposito so badly that it's not even close...?
I certainly don’t think so.

Esposito was always better than Parent, year in, year out, except for 1974 and 1975. If that peak is so outstanding that Parent should be ahead on the basis of it, then fine, people can go ahead and vote Parent ahead, but they should be well informed as to what they’re voting. As your next post implies, it kinda sets a dangerous precedent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I also value how much Esposito dominated his own backups statistically. Parent can't exactly say that (hell, Stephenson gets them to the Cup in '76 just the same). I'm just trying to gauge the feeling of the group and if I'm missing something important here. It seems Parent is above this obvious divide above Esposito...and granted Parent's two years were amazing and Tony O had his playoff struggles to whatever degree...but I keeping looking for "what else" with Parent and every time I check, I think I sour on him a little more.

I'm just worried that this opens the door for others to get away with having an unsustained, short peak - which allows more room to question how much was team-influenced - and an otherwise "meh" to "very good" career. Parent, of course, has a good career...but how much mileage is really going to get out of those two years in the grand scheme of things?

I'm sorry that this is how I handle things, but looking at Wayne Stephenson - who appears to be a career backup who only surfaced after another couple rounds of expansion (was 22 when the big first expansion hit) took place...this guy, during this stretch of Flyer dominance, happened to go 59-15-16 (what's that? like a near .750 points pct?) with a 2.54 GAA and .908 save pct. and 5 shutouts.

Of note and for minor context, that .908 save pct. would rank him (among goalies who played at least half the games): 5th in 1975 (Vachon (LA), Parent (PHI), Bouchard & Myre (ATF)); 4th in 1976 (Resch (NYI), Dryden (MTL), Bouchard (ATF)); 3rd in 1977 (Dryden (MTL), Resch (NYI)) if ranked for each individual season.

I wish NHL Vault was working better for me, I think it's time to do some video work...I'm not sure this is looking good numbers-wise for Parent...
You are absolutely right, and I bolded the best part vis-à-vis Parent vs. Esposito.

As for stats, here are their numbers from 1970-1979, the years they were in the league as starters together:

Year E Min E sv% P Min P sv% % edge min % edge sv%
1970 3763 0.932 3680 0.921 2 16
1971 3325 0.919 2646 0.914 26 6
1972 2780 0.934 2715 0.914 2 30
1973 3340 0.917 N/A N/A N/A N/A
1974 4143 0.928 4314 0.933 -4 -7
1975 4219 0.905 4041 0.918 4 -14
1976 4003 0.904 615 0.907 551 -3
1977 4067 0.9 3525 0.899 15 1
1978 3840 0.914 2923 0.912 31 2
1979 3780 0.901 1979 0.893 91 8

As you can see, Esposito was ahead of Parent in 6 of 8 comparable seasons (1976 was a shortened season for Parent), and significantly in four of them. Over the entire period, Parent leads .915 to .914, but in 1970-1973, and 1976-1979, it is .914 to .911 for Esposito.

Esposito also did this while usually playing more minutes, aside from 1974. This is important for two reasons. 1) Bigger sample size tells us more. 2) it shows that he had greater durability and ability to handle more starts. As I will soon show, Esposito’s status as a workhorse goalie is almost unprecedented in the post-expansion age.

And, of course, this period omits Esposito’s last 1st all-star team, from 1980.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Thanks for adding the shots. And I'm sorry, but something doesn't compute. Johnny Bower played for the most defensive team of the era - the Toronto Maple Leafs, coached by Punch Imlach, featuring Tim Horton, Carl Brewer, Allan Stanley, and Bob Baun on D with Dave Keon and Red Kelly at C, and we're supposed to believe they allowed more shots than most teams?

Likewise, Glenn Hall's Blackhawks were apparently known as a run-and-gun team, and we're supposed to believe they allowed fewer shots?

It doesn't add up. There's a reason I don't really trust unofficial save percentages, there is no way to know the quality of the shot recording at the time.
This makes it hard for me to get over as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yes, but wasn't a big part of the case for Glenn Hall in Vote 1 that he was the biggest reason their GAAs remained low?
Yeah, I dunno, kinda sounds like trying to have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Apparently the 1925 article in MacLean's magazine selecting Georges Vezina the best goalie of all time up to that point was referring to All-Star teams put together by some serious heavyweights.

From the hockey history site on yahoo:

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group.../message/20402

Note that Benedict's revival with the Maroons would not be included in these rankings as it happened afterwards.

Note that the article came out on March 19, 1925. Vezina would not fall ill with TB until the beginning of the following NHL season and did not die until March 27, 1926. So this All-Time All Star team put together by the experts was NOT affected by his death.

Vezina will be in my top 4 this round, likely second. Edit: Although, honestly after seeing who was involved in putting together the 1925 All-Time All Star Team, I'm actually considering whether to rank Vezina over Brimsek or not.
Ugh, look at some of those names in there. Lalonde and Taylor on the 3rd team? How seriously can we take this?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:28 AM
  #245
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post


Ugh, look at some of those names in there. Lalonde and Taylor on the 3rd team? How seriously can we take this?
The 1925 MacLean's team was done by position, so I don't think it's strange. They specifically did not include a "rover" position, which was Taylor's primary position and they ended up just sticking him in there as a LW which I guess is strange. Nalyd also found an article accusing the team of East Coast bias, so there's that.

As for center, I don't see anything strange with listing Frank Nighbor and Russell Bowie over Newsy Lalonde, especially considering Lalonde spent some time as a rover himself.

I see the defensemen and centers on that list falling about as they should. Other than Moose Johnson (forgetting another west coast player), the defensemen on that list follow the early defensemen on our Top 60 list very closely - you have Sprague Cleghorn and Hod Stuart first, Eddie Gerard and Georges Boucher second, Lester Patric and Joe Simpson third. We included Harvey Pulford and not Joe Simpson on our top 60 list (which I'm starting to question), but other than that, it's very similar to what we had.

Cy Denneny is a notable omission as a LW, though he doesn't appear to have been all that highly thought of by those who watched him play, despite his gaudy stats.

If nothing else, i think it's an excellent snapshot as to the perceptions of Eastern players as of 1925 with a few Western players thrown in


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-14-2012 at 11:49 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:32 AM
  #246
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,203
vCash: 500
Consistency

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

It would be great if this was substantiated. Esposito’s year by year numbers were as consistent as any goalie I’ve seen. From 1970 to 1980, these were his sv% rankings:

1st
4th
1st
2nd
2nd
7th
6th
9th
2nd
4th
2nd

Yes, Belfour over Espo is not a hard case to make. They’re pretty close to even in the regular season once all factors are considered, but Belfour has a much better playoff record.

Your own words trip you up. Consistency was one of Belfour's problems - Mike Keenan and him had a running battle with Keenan regularly yanking him early when he started a game weakly.

Tony Esposito was similar. Look at his 1969-70 season. 15 shutouts is impressive but factor out the shutouts and his GAA is close to 3.00, 136 goals against in 48 games.Yet Belfour ouver Esposito is not a hard case to make.

Also Esposito's inconsistency in the playoffs is well documented. See the HSP for all the details you would like - 1971 Finals, 1973 Finals.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:07 PM
  #247
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Considering the high save percentages of Bower, Plante and Palmateer from the mid-60s to late-70s, I would've assumed that if there was a shot-counting bias at MLG, that it would be one that was more liberal in counting shots than other arenas. The home/road splits posted so far are the opposite of what I expected.
Same here.

Quote:
The idea that a team could be giving up high shot totals, but few quality chances, is valid. (The Islanders dynasty is another example of a renowned defensive team giving up more shots than you'd expect). I guess it's a good reason why save percentages alone don't tell the whole story.
It has to be shot quality, right? If it’s not, what is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post

I think it's clear that rightly or wrongly by 1936 - 10 years after Vezina's death - "conventional wisdom" considered him the best goalie of the era - better than Clint Benedict, Hugh Lehman, or Hap Holmes.

Later, in 1953:

Montreal Gazette, Mar 9, 1953

There are some who would picked Benedict, however

Ottawa Cititzen, March 10, 1943

In 1948, Kenny McKenize, hockey journalist and co-founder of The Hockey News called Benedict the greatest goaltender of all-time. He recalled a save Benedict made on Duke Keats that made Keats "so mad that he couldn't speak for 2 hours after the game."

Vancouver Sun, Oct 13, 1948
This is the part that worries me. We know that today’s journalists and analysts aren’t the experts they often project themselves as, and I’d like to think their counterparts from the past knew a little better, but how much better?

As soon as a trophy exists that recognizes the league’s best goalie, the goalie with their name attached to that trophy is going to get overrated. I am sure that he is overrated to some degree by those who spoke of him 10-30 years later, but figuring out how much is the hard part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Vezina seems like he was probably the best goalie in the NHA, but to what degree? Also, we're talking about a split league situation there. When he got to the NHL, there seems to be a Bendict/Vezina split in terms of dominance.
Also, not sure if you noticed or not, but once they were both in the NHL together, it was still a split league too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
You are bringing up an outlier and acting like he provides definition

You have it set in your head that rule changes are defining benchmarks that change everything.

And you should let reality determine how you vote, not preconceptions.
Just thought these three points were worth quoting.

I absolutely agree with you that C1958 is punishing them based on their dates of birth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Consider George Hainsworth, pre forward pass and post forward pass performance:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hainsge01.html

Pre forward pass era, in three seasons, Hainsworth,twice led the NHL in GAA/three Vezinas and twice lead in shutouts - more than half of his career record of 95.

Post forward pass, even though Hainsworth played for two SC champions in 1930 and 1931, basically the same Canadiens team from the pre forward pass era, Hainsworth did not dominate statistically, nor did he recapture his dominance later with Toronto. Never lead in GAA or shutouts and never was voted to an AST.

So after the rule changes Hainsworth did not dominate like he did before. He adapted but at a much lower level solid vs previously dominant. The goalie hierarchy reflects this.

Hainsworth adapted to the rule changes associated with the post forward pass era but never performed at his previous level. he went from dominant to solid. This adaptation element was within his control but others simply surpassed him - adapted better. Other goalies won Vezinas, led in shutouts, earned AST honours including John Ross Roach and Lorne Chabot, bottom half contemporaries of Hainsworth in the pre forward pass era. Rather sharp drop from a dominant position. This impacted the long term hierarchy as well.
What’s your point? George Hainsworth wasn’t a ‘great’ player like the ones we’re talking about now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Charlie Gardiner and Bill Durnan

Both played 7 seasons in the NHL

Durnan = 6 1st Team All Stars, but 2 of them were over competition that was probably worse than AHL quality and a 3rd was over competition that was still recoving from the war

Gardiner = 3 1st Teams, 1 2nd Team, plus a 4th likely 1st Team in 1929-30.

I don't see any advantage for Durnan in the regular season.

Advantages for Gardiner:

1) He generally exceeded expections in the playoffs. Durnan did not.

2) Gardiner's career was cut short by his sudden death due to illenss. Durnan's career was cut short after he pulled himself in the middle of the playoffs and retired because he couldn't mentally handle playing in the NHL anymore. Look at the difference in their stories as reported by Joe Pelletier:

Gardiner

Durnan:

Conclusion: These two great short-career goalies are close, but Charlie Gardiner should be ranked a little bit higher.
I agree, Gardiner should come out ahead of Durnan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Personally, I'm not really sold that Parent was better than Esposito. In fact, I can't figure a way to make that so.
It’s hard, isn’t it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I'm completely and totally unsold on Broda being above the Grant Fuhr/Billy Smith level. Anyone willing to convince me otherwise?
Not I, but I will say again that if you value regular season dominance that much over the playoffs, then you should seriously consider Tony Esposito for your 1st or 2nd spot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm not entirely sold that Parent was better than Espo either. But I am fairly certain that Belfour was better than Espo.
That is fair to say. Look at the voting record:

look at his all-star voting in a Roy and Hasek-less world, and it's almost identical to Espo: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6. Then you add in the fact that it was a deeper and more competitive era (20 years later) and the fact that he was much better in the playoffs, he should be a spot ahead.

At least I think all of that transcends the huge sv% gap (Esposito averaged 20.9 points above the league average across his best 10 seasons; Belfour just 12.6)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Charlie Gardiner during his first two seasons was part of the bottom two teams then benefited from playing against two weak teams for two seasons.
Was Gardiner the only goalie in the league benefitting from playing against two weak teams?

I’m surprised no one asked you this yet…

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yeah, I guess I can see the similarities in that Durnan played just as long as Dryden and (like Dryden) just flat out quit while he could still play. But I think the way Durnan quit (in the middle of a playoff series with his team down) is particularly onerous, especially considering that Durnan's playoff resume as a whole, while it's far from terrible, probably isn't as good as it could be.
Bingo.

Quote:
I just see Belfour and Esposito as very close in the regular season with a pretty large playoff edge for Belfour. I don't think anyone has talked about either that much because I think it's a round too early to consider either.
Heh, it’s a round too early for Durnan to get in, but he’s the most talked-about goalie this round!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Now, I'm not going to lobby for a mercurial raising of Fuhr here, but I think his regular season performance goes extremely under-rated. The period for which he gets the least credit has to be the high-flying Gretzky days. I only have SV% numbers from '83/84 onward to work with (hockeyreference), but if you look at the aggregate SV% between '83/84 and '87/88, Fuhr only lags behind the "best" starter you can find on the list by about 0.010 tied with Beezer and Smith).
.
If you remove goalies with under 150 games – leaving only “starters” – Fuhr’s .884 is not that far above average, and this is his most flattering five season period.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...er_by=save_pct

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Let's see your case for Benedict/Vezina or Vezina/Benedict as #1 and #2 in this round. Support the assertion in your post #13 of this thread that BOTH were incorrectly listed on the master list - not my creation and that both deserve at least a four to six spot bump going against the already established voting patterns.
.
Using the master list as evidence is a horrible argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I'm also in favor of Belfour over Esposito, and I think it's definitely too early for both this round. Some things to consider...

Competition
Belfour had to regularly compete with 2-3 of prime Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, and Barrasso for awards.

Esposito had 1-2 elite goaltenders not playing in the NHL (Tretiak and Holecek) and others playing in the WHA (i.e. Cheevers) to boost his awards finishes and to decrease league average SV%.
I’m with you on Belfour over Espo, but first of all, Gerry Cheevers was not in any way a threat to Espo’s dominance. Secondly, if you assume that all the best goalies are in the NHL, you must also assume that all the best forwards are there too. Pretty sure that Petrov, Kharlamov, Maltsev, Martinec, Mikhailov, Novy, Lacroix, Walton, Hull, Howe, Hedberg, Nilsson, Nedomansky, etc would have the effect of decreasing league average sv% to approximately the same degree that Cheevers, Holecek and Tretiak would. So the bolded is rendered moot.

Quote:
Playoffs
Belfour pretty clearly has the better resume here. A Conn Smythe level performance in '99. In 2 years he would face Roy twice and Hasek and Brodeur once in the playoffs and only lost one of those series...nitpicking can be done about the strength of the team in the case of Hasek, but he proved he could go up against the best and win. Did Esposito ever do something like this? Not that I can recall. In Esposito's defense, he does appear to be a little more consistent in the playoffs...he beat who he was suppose to beat, but doesn't look like he ever really stole anything or was the difference in a close matchup, which is a pretty big issue for me.
Belfour has the better resume, yes, but Espo’s best playoff – 1971– is the second best playoff either of them posted statistically:

1995: 23.3 sv% points above league average
1999: 12.2 sv% points above
2000: 12.6 sv% points above

Espo, 1971: 21.9 sv% points above league average

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
Your own words trip you up. Consistency was one of Belfour's problems - Mike Keenan and him had a running battle with Keenan regularly yanking him early when he started a game weakly.
I wasn’t commenting on Belfour’s consistency.

Quote:
Tony Esposito was similar. Look at his 1969-70 season. 15 shutouts is impressive but factor out the shutouts and his GAA is close to 3.00, 136 goals against in 48 games.Yet Belfour ouver Esposito is not a hard case to make.
OK, now all you have to do is remove the 15 best games for the other top goalies that season and see what their GAAs would look like, and if Esposito is significantly worse than the 2nd place he actually finished in GAA, then you might have the start of a case that he was inconsistent.

Quote:
Also Esposito's inconsistency in the playoffs is well documented. See the HSP for all the details you would like - 1971 Finals, 1973 Finals.
Single plays don’t define a player. This goes back to what Nalyd said: “You are bringing up an outlier and acting like he provides definition”. Esposito’s sv% indicates he was possibly the best player in the 1971 playoffs until one single play that has dogged and defined him forever.

I’m not saying that play should be meaningless but everyone – especially you – should be careful just how much weight it really carries in defining the career of a goalie who played almost 1000 combined games.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:28 PM
  #248
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,265
vCash: 500
Tony Esposito the workhorse


Tony Esposito has a record as a workhorse goalie that is perhaps unprecedented in the post-expansion era. Six times he played the most minutes in the NHL, three other times he was 2nd, and twice more he was 3rd, for a total of 11 times in the top-3 – ever season from 1970-1981 except 1972, when he was “only” 6th.

Here are some other top post-expansion goalies and their top-3 minutes placements:

Brodeur: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-3-3
Esposito: 1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-3-3
Kiprusoff: 1-1-3-3-3-3
Joseph: 2-2-3-3-3
Vachon: 2-2-3-3
Giacomin: 1-1-1
Irbe: 1-1-2
Belfour: 1-1-3
Fuhr: 1-2-2
Parent: 1-2-3
Hextall: 1-2-3
G Smith: 1-3-3
Luongo: 2-3-3
Bouchard: 2-3-3
Ranford: 3-3-3
Roy: 1-2
Kolzig: 1-2
Meloche: 1-3
Millen: 1-3
McLean: 1-3
Turco: 2-2
Hasek: 1
Barrasso: 1
Hrudey: 1
Potvin: 1
D Edwards: 1
Ward: 1
Vernon: 2
Richter: 2
Nabokov: 2
Salo: 2
Crozier: 2
Hebert: 2
Casey: 2
Burke: 3
Vokoun: 3
Biron: 3
Lemelin: 3
Peeters: 3
Miller: 3
Lundqvist: 3
Dafoe: 3
Puppa: 3
Smith: NIL
Vanbiesbrouck: NIL
Khabibulin: NIL
Osgood: NIL
Beaupre: NIL
Theodore: NIL
Giguere: NIL

(edit: I've now covered the vast majority of top-3 placements since 1968)

Aside from Brodeur, Esposito has been considerably more durable & consistent, and displayed greater stamina and staying power than any other goalie on this list. 3rd on the list is Miikka Kiprusoff, and Esposito led the league in minutes as many times as Kipper was even top-3!

Why you should vote Esposito in higher than Durnan

Line up their best seasons against eachother (an argument I used in the ATD)

Quote:
xth-best season Esposito Durnan
1 1st AST (1970), Hart-2, sv%-1 1st AST (1947) - in WW2-recovering NHL, over Brimsek
2 1st AST (1980), Hart-3, sv%-2 1st AST (1949) - in WW2-recovering NHL, over Rayner, Hart-2
3 1st AST (1972), Hart-8, sv%-1 1st AST (1950) - in WW2-recovering NHL, over Rayner, Hart-5 (two votes)
4 2nd AST (1974), Hart-5, sv%-2 1st AST (1946) - in WW2-recovering NHL, over Brimsek, Hart-3
5 2nd AST (1973), Hart-9, sv%-2 1st AST (1944) - over brutal wartime goalies
6 3rd AST (1971), Hart-8, sv%-4 1st AST (1945) - over brutal wartime goalies
7 3rd AST (1978), Hart-9, sv%-3 nondescript season
8 5th AST (1979), Hart-11, sv%-4 DNP
9 6th AST (1976), sv%-6 DNP
10 6th AST (1977), sv%-7 DNP

Are Durnan's three best seasons better than Espo's (look at when they were, and who each goalie beat)? I don't think so. They are close though.

Are Durnan's 4th-6th-best seasons better than Espo's? A layman would look at them and say they are 1st AST years, so they must be better. But two of them are 1944 and 1945, so we know better than that. His 4th-best in 1946.... it's debatable.

Durnan's nondescript 7th-best season is obviously not better than Espo's.

And Espo played an 8th, 9th, 10th season, and beyond, at a pretty high level and deserves credit for that.

I'm not seeing why Durnan is "definitely" ahead, other than canon. He gets a lot of mileage out of the 6 first ASTs, but those aren't that great once you really look at them, much like Hainsworth's three straight Vezinas.
To recap:

1. Their best 4 seasons are very close to even in terms of historical impressiveness. No matter who you prefer, it’s clear that it’s very close.
2. Beyond 4th-best seasons, it is clear that Esposito has the more impressive seasons. Esposito actually had 14 relevant regular seasons at the NHL level.

I would be interested to hear cases against recap points 1 and 2. I’m not seeing one myself.


Last edited by seventieslord: 11-14-2012 at 12:36 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:39 PM
  #249
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If you remove goalies with under 150 games – leaving only “starters” – Fuhr’s .884 is not that far above average, and this is his most flattering five season period.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...er_by=save_pct
If you remove all the "filler", Fuhr is 8th overall for a 4 year stretch, and only 0.010 behind the "best" in SV%, like I said. I don't see how that's even as low as "mediocre", and he seems to get even less credit for his performance during that time than that, which is more to my point.

Heck, in the entire decade of the 80s, only 5 goalies played more than 400 games, and Fuhr's SV% is #3 among them (Lemelin, Liut). he has to get credit on some level for being a workhorse (you just pumped Esposito's tires in this regard), and maintaining a high degree of consistency (0.884 SV% between '83/84 and '87/88, and still 0.881 for the decade on the whole).

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 12:44 PM
  #250
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your own words trip you up. Consistency was one of Belfour's problems - Mike Keenan and him had a running battle with Keenan regularly yanking him early when he started a game weakly.
Consistency may have been a problem in Keenan's eye, but has there ever been a coach as quick to pull the trigger on a goalie change, or one to change goalies as often? He pulled Hextall and Resch a total of 5 times in a single game once, lol.

Said Luongo, while on the Panthers: "Not a big deal. [Keenan] does it so much that we expect it. If he's your coach and you're an NHL goalie on the bench, you have to be ready, just in case."

So if that's your evidence of inconsistency, it's going to be among the weakest on that front of this topic.

Ohashi_Jouzu 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 07:01 PM.

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.