The PCHA was not drawn from local talent as the WCHL was. British Columbia doesn't have the skating conditions that the prairie provinces have for outdoor hockey. The PCHA was staffed by transplanted Easterners taking a bigger paycheck. It was in direct competition with the NHA/NHL for players. Without having done the research, I expect that the NHL teams gained a financial edge and the talent pipeline to the coast dried up.
Thanks. This is straddling the line between straight hockey history and the history of Canada, and as an American, my history of Canada does have some holes in it.
It may not be entirely subjective, though. The Jan 27, 1929 issue of the New York Times has Worters stopping 659/675 shots in 16 games at that juncture in the season. That's a .972 while facing 42 shots a game. Now, John Ross Roach is also cited as stopping 790/813 (.972) and facing nearly 41 shots per game. So it's hard to know exactly how eye-popping those numbers are in the context of that historically low-scoring season, but we can be sure that Worters was at the top of the statistical heap at least some of the time.
I'm not sure how often the league sent out those shots/saves updates, but it would be really useful to find them.
If some here are questioning shot counts in an era where games are televised, how can we have any faith in such numbers from this time frame?
If some here are questioning shot counts in an era where games are televised, how can we have any faith in such numbers from this time frame?
Good question. I definitely wouldn't put faith in the unofficial numbers over the written accounts of what people who saw these guys play say when it comes to goalies from back then.
But IIRC, the numbers were posted somewhere not that long ago and they seem to confirm that Worters and early Gardiner faced more shots than most other goalies, which is what you'd expect based off what is written about those two.
We definately should take the western leagues seriously. All that needs to be done is look at the NHL in 1927 - which is the first season after the leagues all merged.
10 of the top 20 came from the Western League.
6 of the top 10 came from the Western League.
3 of the top 4 came from the Western League.
Both of the top 2 came from the Western League.
Good question. I definitely wouldn't put faith in the unofficial numbers over the written accounts of what people who saw these guys play say when it comes to goalies from back then.
But IIRC, the numbers were posted somewhere not that long ago and they seem to confirm that Worters and early Gardiner faced more shots than most other goalies, which is what you'd expect based off what is written about those two.
Agreed.
But why are Thompson & Hainesworth punished more than modern goalies who played behind great defensive teams? Is it because voters of the day took a completely different view of what an MVP was or an all-star?
I'm including the unofficial GM-voted teams from the late 20s when available. 3rd Team All Stars are unofficial but based off the same pool of votes that determine 1st and 2nd Team.
Roy Worters
1st Team All Star (1926) over ? (Charles Stewart was 2nd in Hart voting among goalies)
1st Team All Star (1927) over ?
1st Team All Star (1928) over George Hainsworth and Alec Connell
1st Team All Star (1929) over ?
no records for 1930, but Charlie Gardiner led goalies in Hart voting
3rd Team All Star (1931) behind Charlie Gardiner and Tiny Thompson
2nd Team All Star (1932) behind Charlie Gardiner, ahead of George Hainsworth
3rd Team All Star (1933) behind John Ross Roach and Charlie Gardiner
2nd Team All Star (1934) behind Charlie Gardiner, ahead of Tiny Thompson
3rd Team All Star (1935) behind Lorne Chabot and Tiny Thompson
All this talk about the Western leagues reminded me to highlight this. In 1925-26, half the talent was still in the WCHL. George Hainsworth, for example, played in the WCHL from 1923-24 to 1925-26 from the ages of 28 - 30 before coming to the NHL when the WCHL folded.
So Worters' competition for the first of his 4 straight (unofficial) 1st Team All Stars was basically Alec Connell (who led the league in GAA by a wide margin playing for the stacked Ottawa Senators), Clint Benedict (the defending Cup winner but aging), and little else.
The PCHA may have been a lesser league, but it was better than you suggest. From 1915-1922 the PCHA won 2 Cups and 5 other times took the Cup Final series to the limit, losing 3 games to 2. The best modern day KHL and AHL teams wouldn't come close to being that competitive with the best NHL teams.
How many Stanley Cups did the PCHA and other Western Leagues win against the NHA or NHL when the final was in the east and they did not have the home advantage? NHA and NHL did win SCs out west.
But how many of those times were actually just one team - the Fred Taylor Vancouver Millionaires? And FWIW, I think KHL teams like Dynamo Moscow, CSKA, etc could hold their own in a 2 game or best of 5 series against any NHL club - maybe even win. I think you dismiss the relative strength of the KHL and AHL by an equivalent measure to my dismissal of the PCHA.
Actually, it was the post Fred Taylor Millionaires that were dominant. Seattle was their equal during Taylor's peak. And the fact that the Lehman-McKay-Duncan-Lloyd Millionaires were the clear cut 2nd best team in the world should in no way be held against the players that made it so.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
How many Stanley Cups did the PCHA and other Western Leagues win against the NHA or NHL when the final was in the east and they did not have the home advantage? NHA and NHL did win SCs out west.
Good question. From wikipedia, from 1915-1926 "the Stanley Cup championship finals alternated between the East and the West each year, with alternating games played according to NHA and PCHA rules."
1915 in Vancouver: Vancouver (PCHA) wins 3-0 over Ottawa (NHA)
1916 in Montreal: Montreal (NHA) wins 3-2 over Portland (PCHA)
1917 in Seattle: Seattle (PCHA) wins 3-1 over Montreal (NHA)
1918 in Toronto: Toronto (NHL) wins 3-2 over Vancouver (PCHA)
1919 in Seattle: Seattle (PCHA) and Montreal (NHL) tied 2-2-1 when the series is cancelled due to the Spanish flu
1920 in Ottawa/Toronto: Ottawa (NHL) wins 3-2 over Seattle (PCHA)
1921 in Vancouver: Ottawa (NHL) wins 3-2 over Vancouver (PCHA)
1922 in Toronto: Toronto (NHL) wins 3-2 over Vancouver (PCHA)
1923 in Vancouver: Ottawa (NHL) wins 2-0 over Edmonton (WCHL)
1924 in Montreal/Ottawa: Montreal (NHL) wins 2-0 over Calgary (WCHL)
1925 in Victoria/Vancouver: Victoria (WCHL) wins 3-1 over Montreal (NHL)
1926 in Montreal: Montreal Maroons (NHL) wins 3-1 over Victoria (WCHL)
________________________
Summary:
On 6 occasions (1916, 1918, 1920, 1922, 1924, and 1926), the NHA/NHL team was at home and they won all 6 times.
On 5 occasions, the Western Team was at home:
In 1915, 1917, and 1925, the Western Team won at home.
In 1919, the series was tied and then cancelled due to the flu.
In 1921, the Ottawa dynasty won their second straight Cup on the road.
On 1923, the final was played in Vancouver, but the Western Team was from Edmonton. The Ottawa dynasty won their 3rd Cup in 4 years.
1921 is the only time during this time period that a team won the Cup in the home rink of their opponent. I'm not sure if Vancouver favored Edmonton over Ottawa in 1923 because they were "Western," but even if this counts as a second time that the NHL won the Cup in hostile territory, both times were by the stacked Ottawa dynasty.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-28-2012 at 07:50 PM.
1921 is the only time during this time period that a team won the Cup in the home rink of their opponent. I'm not sure if Vancouver favored Edmonton over Ottawa in 1923 because they were "Western," but even if this counts as a second time that the NHL won the Cup in hostile territory, both times were by the stacked Ottawa dynasty.
Edmonton started red hot favourites with the crowd...the six thousand fans cheered (Edmonton's Simpson) to the echo. They gave big hands to Gagne and Arbour...Finally, as the game wore on... the fickle fancy of the crowd changed and before the night was over the applause was more evenly divided.
Rules were also an important part of home ice advantage. The home team played 3 of 5 games under their league's rules, which was a major advantage. At different times the leagues had rule differences that included 7-man vs 6-man hockey, different rules on forward passing, different ways of handling penalties and man advantages, and different sizes of neutral zones. I haven't compiled the records of teams in the final while playing under their league's rules, but I'm sure it was significant. Games 1, 3, and 5 were usually played under the home league's rules, I believe.
Just following up on the PCHA/WCHL-NHA/NHL cup era, if the 3-9 record doesn't do it for you consider the series records too.
The PCHA only won 2 series, but overall they went 16-16 against the NHL over these 7 series. The WCHL went 4-8 in their four series.
Just a clarification and it was my fault for originally posting the 9-3 thing. It was actually 8 Cups for the NHA/NHL, 3 Cups for the Western leagues, and the 1919 finals in Seattle cancelled due to the flu epidemic that killed millions (including Joe Hall who was to participate in the finals for the Canadiens).
Good question. From wikipedia, from 1915-1926 "the Stanley Cup championship finals alternated between the East and the West each year, with alternating games played according to NHA and PCHA rules."
1915 in Vancouver: Vancouver (PCHA) wins 3-0 over Ottawa (NHA)
1916 in Montreal: Montreal (NHA) wins 3-2 over Portland (PCHA)
1917 in Seattle: Seattle (PCHA) wins 3-1 over Montreal (NHA)
1918 in Toronto: Toronto (NHL) wins 3-2 over Vancouver (PCHA)
1919 in Seattle: Seattle (PCHA) and Montreal (NHL) tied 2-2-1 when the series is cancelled due to the Spanish flu
1920 in Ottawa/Toronto: Ottawa (NHL) wins 3-2 over Seattle (PCHA)
1921 in Vancouver: Ottawa (NHL) wins 3-2 over Vancouver (PCHA)
1922 in Toronto: Toronto (NHL) wins 3-2 over Vancouver (PCHA)
1923 in Vancouver: Ottawa (NHL) wins 2-0 over Edmonton (WCHL)
1924 in Montreal/Ottawa: Montreal (NHL) wins 2-0 over Calgary (WCHL)
1925 in Victoria/Vancouver: Victoria (WCHL) wins 3-1 over Montreal (NHL)
1926 in Montreal: Montreal Maroons (NHL) wins 3-1 over Victoria (WCHL)
________________________
Summary:
On 6 occasions (1916, 1918, 1920, 1922, 1924, and 1926), the NHA/NHL team was at home and they won all 6 times.
On 5 occasions, the Western Team was at home:
In 1915, 1917, and 1925, the Western Team won at home.
In 1919, the series was tied and then cancelled due to the flu.
In 1921, the Ottawa dynasty won their second straight Cup on the road.
On 1923, the final was played in Vancouver, but the Western Team was from Edmonton. The Ottawa dynasty won their 3rd Cup in 4 years.
1921 is the only time during this time period that a team won the Cup in the home rink of their opponent. I'm not sure if Vancouver favored Edmonton over Ottawa in 1923 because they were "Western," but even if this counts as a second time that the NHL won the Cup in hostile territory, both times were by the stacked Ottawa dynasty.
Keep in mind that in 1923, Edmonton beat Vancouver for the right to play Ottawa in what was essentially a round-robin Stanley Cup final. I believe there were a few other ones like that.
With all this talk about differing rules in east and west, were not many of the hired east legionares playing in the west quite aware of how it was playing under east rules? This should make it easier for them to adapt. As a matter of fact, when just having started to look at the individual games i can see the west teams doing real good under east rules, but i'm just in 1916 thus far. Edit: But the further i go i can see that in many years the Cup was solely won by rule differentials, which in my mind really makes it hard to view the eventual champ as more than only one of two real champs those years.
Last edited by Darth Yoda: 11-29-2012 at 12:46 AM.
This is what i ended up with in results seeing it from the wests perspective:
Home rules: 11-11
Away rules: 10-15-1
This is if all series had the home team playing under their rules in games 1, 3 and 5. Looks odd that 26 games was played under east rules and only 22 under west, but that's what happens if the team starting with their rules has a clear advantage of off it, when also factoring in that the East teams often was a little better under west rules than reversed.
Keep in mind that in 1923, Edmonton beat Vancouver for the right to play Ottawa in what was essentially a round-robin Stanley Cup final. I believe there were a few other ones like that.
True. Things were pretty funky for three years from 1922-1924 when there were the 3 leagues.
The WCHL and PCHA played regular season games against each other, so I sometimes consider them linked, but they were treated as different leagues in the playoffs
Team success vs. expected from regular season results:
Rank
Goalie
Series W
Exp Series
Diff
%
Cups
Exp Cups
Diff
%
1
Billy Smith
26
14.82
+11.18
+75%
4
1.79
+2.21
+123%
2
Grant Fuhr
23
18.79
+4.21
+22%
4
2.25
+1.75
+78%
3
Gump Worsley
7
5.25
+1.75
+33%
3
1.61
+1.39
+86%
4
Johnny Bower
8
6.97
+1.03
+15%
3
2.37
+0.63
+27%
5
Bernie Parent
9
8.48
+0.52
+6%
2
0.99
+1.01
+102%
6
George Hainsworth
9
9.09
-0.09
-1%
2
2.63
-0.63
-24%
7
Roy Worters
1
2.48
-1.48
-60%
0
0.27
-0.27
-100%
8
Harry Lumley
5
7.54
-2.54
-34%
1
2.64
-1.64
-62%
9
Tiny Thompson
5
9.60
-4.60
-48%
1
3.23
-2.23
-69%
Interesting mix of goalies with lots of team success and goalies on underachieving playoff teams this round. I'm particularly interested in any arguments that Smith and Fuhr were clutch and it wasn't mostly just a case of their teams raising their game offensively in those Cup runs, as well as anything that sheds light on how Lumley and Thompson did in their playoff careers. Worsley's record is also very impressive, although it only includes up to 1967-68 as after that he platooned in every playoff season.
Team success vs. expected from regular season results:
Rank
Goalie
Series W
Exp Series
Diff
%
Cups
Exp Cups
Diff
%
1
Billy Smith
26
14.82
+11.18
+75%
4
1.79
+2.21
+123%
2
Grant Fuhr
23
18.79
+4.21
+22%
4
2.25
+1.75
+78%
3
Gump Worsley
7
5.25
+1.75
+33%
3
1.61
+1.39
+86%
4
Johnny Bower
8
6.97
+1.03
+15%
3
2.37
+0.63
+27%
5
Bernie Parent
9
8.48
+0.52
+6%
2
0.99
+1.01
+102%
6
George Hainsworth
9
9.09
-0.09
-1%
2
2.63
-0.63
-24%
7
Roy Worters
1
2.48
-1.48
-60%
0
0.27
-0.27
-100%
8
Harry Lumley
5
7.54
-2.54
-34%
1
2.64
-1.64
-62%
9
Tiny Thompson
5
9.60
-4.60
-48%
1
3.23
-2.23
-69%
Interesting mix of goalies with lots of team success and goalies on underachieving playoff teams this round. I'm particularly interested in any arguments that Smith and Fuhr were clutch and it wasn't mostly just a case of their teams raising their game offensively in those Cup runs, as well as anything that sheds light on how Lumley and Thompson did in their playoff careers. Worsley's record is also very impressive, although it only includes up to 1967-68 as after that he platooned in every playoff season.
In their first meeting in the finals of 1983, the offensive juggernauts from Long Island & Edmonton met in game 1 on the Oilers' ice. The Islanders won 2-0, I believe with an empty netter. Islanders went on to sweep.
In 1984, they met again, this time in New York for game 1. Oilers won 1-0, went on to win in 5.
In both of those series I felt the series was won in game 1. And in both series Fuhr and Smith were the best players in both game 1's.
In their first meeting in the finals of 1983, the offensive juggernauts from Long Island & Edmonton met in game 1 on the Oilers' ice. The Islanders won 2-0, I believe with an empty netter. Islanders went on to sweep.
In 1984, they met again, this time in New York for game 1. Oilers won 1-0, went on to win in 5.
In both of those series I felt the series was won in game 1. And in both series Fuhr and Smith were the best players in both game 1's.
So, based on the large gap between Thompson/Smith and the rest of the group last vote and the relative lack of chatter so far this round, I assume that the #5 to #8 guys from last round are safe bets to be ranked pretty high this time around, without too much challenge from any of the new guys with the possible exception of Lehman? Can anyone make a strong case for a goalie other than Bower, Holecek, Parent, Worters and Lehman to make the top four this round?
So, based on the large gap between Thompson/Smith and the rest of the group last vote and the relative lack of chatter so far this round, I assume that the #5 to #8 guys from last round are safe bets to be ranked pretty high this time around, without too much challenge from any of the new guys with the possible exception of Lehman? Can anyone make a strong case for a goalie other than Bower, Holecek, Parent, Worters and Lehman to make the top four this round?
I agree with this, in my eyes it's a 5 horse race for 4 spots this round. How I rank those 5 is still up in the air. Right now I'm leaning towards Bower as slightly behind the others, making him the odd man out. Of course, things could change dramatically if a compelling case is made.
But why are Thompson & Hainesworth punished more than modern goalies who played behind great defensive teams? Is it because voters of the day took a completely different view of what an MVP was or an all-star?
I'll try to answer this. First off, I think Hainsworth and Thompson both have a chance of getting my top 4 votes NEXT round, so it's not like I'm calling them crap goalies.
And I do agree that voters seemed more willing to give goalies on weaker teams recognition in the 20s and early 30s than any time afterwards. But even so, the evidence that Hainsworth and Thompson's numbers were partly the product of their teams is pretty strong.
Hainsworth
Keep in mind the the unofficial All-Star Teams of the late 20s were voted on by NHL GMs (like the modern Vezina), so they represent the opinions of the men who were paid to be the ultimate judge of talent in the era.
Look at the full voting results for the 1927-8 All Star team:
Goal: Roy Worters, Pit (7-1), George Hainsworth, Mon (1-4), Alec Connell, Ott (1-3), John Ross Roach, Tor (1-1)
There were 10 GMs and they couldn't vote for their own player. Only 1 opposing GM felt Hainsworth was the best goalie in the league and 4 thought he was second best - only 1 more than thought Alec Connell was 2nd best.
1927-28 was Hainsworth's 2nd Vezina in a row (for lowest GAA in the league), setting an NHL record with 1.05. Yet, he barely edged out Alec Connell for 2nd in the perception of the league's GMs.
We don't have full voting results for 1928-29, but it appears Worters was again voted the best goalie in the league, even as Hainsworth broke his own record with a 0.92 GAA in the final season before the forward pass was allowed.
Or you might want to look at Hainsworth's lack of Hart voting in the 3 seasons he led the league in GAA:
1926-27: We have the top 10 in Hart votes and it doesn't include Hainsworth. His teammate, defensive defenseman Herb Gardiner won the Hart. Howie Morenz was 8th.
1927-28: We have the top 6 in Hart voting and it doesn't include Hainsworth (but we do have GM-voted All Star voting this season, see above). Hainsworth's teammate Howie Morenz won the Hart.
1928-29: We have the top 7 in Hart voting and it doesn't include Hainsworth. Hainsworth's teammate, defensive defenseman Sylvio Mantha finished 4th in Hart voting.
Hainsworth was important to his team's GAA. Montreal's GAA went to hell in 1925-26 after Georges Vezina was forced to retire due to illness and recovered as soon as they got Hainsworth for 1926-27. But it appears that people who watched him play didn't consider him the most important part.
Tiny Thompson
1st in GAA and Vezina Trophy but 4th in All Star voting in 1932 is unheard of in the early years. He was a 1st Team All Star twice, but both were in the late 30s when he led the league in GAA over a group of goalies that didn't include a single other Hall of Famer.
And I just can't get over the fact that as soon as Boston replaced Thompson with Brimsek, they immediately went on to win 2 out of 3 Cups.
Edit: Jack Adams was a fan of Thompson, but that quote comes from 1936 and I'm not sure what the competition was then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18
I agree with this, in my eyes it's a 5 horse race for 4 spots this round. How I rank those 5 is still up in the air. Right now I'm leaning towards Bower as slightly behind the others, making him the odd man out. Of course, things could change dramatically if a compelling case is made.
This is my current line of thinking.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-30-2012 at 04:55 PM.
I'll try to answer this. First off, I think Hainsworth and Thompson both have a chance of getting my top 4 votes NEXT round, so it's not like I'm calling them crap goalies.
And I do agree that voters seemed more willing to give goalies on weaker teams recognition in the 20s and early 30s than any time afterwards. But even so, the evidence that Hainsworth and Thompson's numbers were partly the product of their teams is pretty strong. Hainsworth
Keep in mind the the unofficial All-Star Teams of the late 20s were voted on by NHL GMs (like the modern Vezina), so they represent the opinions of the men who were paid to be the ultimate judge of talent in the era.
Look at the full voting results for the 1927-8 All Star team:
Goal: Roy Worters, Pit (7-1), George Hainsworth, Mon (1-4), Alec Connell, Ott (1-3), John Ross Roach, Tor (1-1)
There were 10 GMs and they couldn't vote for their own player. Only 1 opposing GM felt Hainsworth was the best goalie in the league and 4 thought he was second best - only 1 more than thought Alec Connell was 2nd best.
1927-28 was Hainsworth's 2nd Vezina in a row (for lowest GAA in the league), setting an NHL record with 1.05. Yet, he barely edged out Alec Connell for 2nd in the perception of the league's GMs.
We don't have full voting results for 1928-29, but it appears Worters was again voted the best goalie in the league, even as Hainsworth broke his own record with a 0.92 GAA in the final season before the forward pass was allowed.
Or you might want to look at Hainsworth's lack of Hart voting in the 3 seasons he led the league in GAA:
1926-27: We have the top 10 in Hart votes and it doesn't include Hainsworth. His teammate, defensive defenseman Herb Gardiner won the Hart. Howie Morenz was 8th.
1927-28: We have the top 6 in Hart voting and it doesn't include Hainsworth (but we do have GM-voted All Star voting this season, see above). Hainsworth's teammate Howie Morenz won the Hart.
1928-29: We have the top 7 in Hart voting and it doesn't include Hainsworth. Hainsworth's teammate, defensive defenseman Sylvio Mantha finished 4th in Hart voting.
Hainsworth was important to his team's GAA. Montreal's GAA went to hell in 1925-26 after Georges Vezina was forced to retire due to illness and recovered as soon as they got Hainsworth for 1926-27. But it appears that people who watched him play didn't consider him the most important part.
Tiny Thompson
1st in GAA and Vezina Trophy but 4th in All Star voting in 1932 is unheard of in the early years. He was a 1st Team All Star twice, but both were in the late 30s when he led the league in GAA over a group of goalies that didn't include a single other Hall of Famer.
And I just can't get over the fact that as soon as Boston replaced Thompson with Brimsek, they immediately went on to win 2 out of 3 Cups.
This is my current line of thinking.
Isn't this true of Dryden, Tretiak, Brodeur, Plante, Durnan and Sawchuk also?
