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 6 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-15-2012, 12:05 AM
  #176
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I guess everyone who watched the three of them play was taking crazy pills too...

And yes, I said "everyone," because I you'll be pretty hard pressed I think to find someone involved in western hockey who didn't think Lehman was the best of the three.

You'd have to really value what Hainsworth did in the NHL to like him better, and I just don't get the sense that people who saw him in the NHL were all that impressed.

I'm honestly not sure if there is any legit case for Holmes over Lehman. Nobody has really looked into each goalie's personal play in the Cup finals, and that's really the only time when I can see Holmes with an advantage.
Except for my opinion that everything NHL > everything NOT NHL - as a fundamental starting point, at the very least. I appreciate Lehman's contribution as a forefather of the game of hockey, but this is still way too early for the "best of the rest", imo.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:06 AM
  #177
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Except for my opinion that everything NHL > everything NOT NHL - as a fundamental starting point, at the very least. I appreciate Lehman's contribution as a forefather of the game of hockey, but this is still way too early for the "best of the rest", imo.
So basically, you know nothing about pre-consolidation hockey and don't wish to learn.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:10 AM
  #178
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So basically, you know nothing about pre-consolidation hockey and don't wish to learn.
How is that the logical extension? lol.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:40 AM
  #179
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,948
vCash: 500
Eastern Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Assuming all the measureabls are Win and Loss records during the 6-7 man game and global GAA that have been broken down more than once.

If you'd like to support the claim Lehman failed to adapt to the Eastern rules then maybe you'd be better served looking at his record under East Rules in the 8 times he made the Stanley Cup finals.
Lehman 5W-10L under eastern rules, 5W-7L under western rules.
Holmes as the western goalie playing eastern rules was 6W-5L-1T

Which Explains the extra SCs that Holmes helped his team win and for a quirk in 1919 put the PCHA team in a position to win.

Look at the Holmes and Lehman, neither impressed in eastern hockey even though both were Ontario born and developed. Holmes after all had a losing record in the NHA/NHL but was more successful than Lehman out west.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:43 AM
  #180
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 12,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Lehman 5W-10L under eastern rules, 5W-7L under western rules.
Holmes as the western goalie playing eastern rules was 6W-5L-1T

Which Explains the extra SCs that Holmes helped his team win and for a quirk in 1919 put the PCHA team in a position to win.

Look at the Holmes and Lehman, neither impressed in eastern hockey even though both were Ontario born and developed. Holmes after all had a losing record in the NHA/NHL but was more successful than Lehman out west.
W/L proves nothing, or else Dryden would be #1, followed by Rinne, Brodeur, and then Cheevers

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 01:18 AM
  #181
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
How is that the logical extension? lol.
Back when the 2008 and 2009 top 100 lists were made, there were posters who said that they had trouble rating pre-1926 players as high as they probably should because the players were split between different leagues and therefore hard to evaluate. And I think it was definitely a valid opinion at the time. Since then, a lot of research has been done, largely via google archives, and much of it has been posted during this project (and the defensemen project). So I think the opinion has less merit now than it used to.

I don't agree with the opinion that pre-1926 hockey is inferior. I think the quality of the talent pool is what matters and that the talent pool made a sharp uptick in the early 1910s, not 1926. But it's at least a defensible opinion, even if I really do think it's becoming harder to defend with the more research that we do into the early years.

But the opinion that the NHL was far superior to every other league prior to 1926 just because the NHL was the last league standing after 1926 due to better finances? Not defensible at all all, and I can't believe that anyone who even put 10 minutes of research into pre-1926 would believe it. Players switched between leagues fairly regularly, players who were stars in one became stars in another fairly often, and there were similar numbers of Hall of Famers in the East and West* at the same time.

*by West, I mean PCHA + WCHL. The PCHA started weakening right as the WCHL got going. I used to think it was related, but overpass made a pretty convincing case that it was coincidence.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 01:33 AM
  #182
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,948
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You're one again trying to apply more recent standards to pre-consolidation hockey. The line between amateur and pro was much thinner back then. It wasn't pre-World War I hockey where the majority of top players were still amateurs, but you still had the odd player inducted into the HHOF mainly based off his "non-pro career."

I do think it's possible that Hainsworth didn't hit his prime until around the age of 30, but then I wonder if we should even add him to our list yet.



If you believe that, don't just say so, provide evidence!


I guess you have no idea that Lehman's Vancouver Millionaires were known as hockey's original run-and-gun team?

Seriously, you seem to put a lot of weight into the "eye" test with more modern players. Why throw it in the trash when it comes to earlier players?



Did you not expect to be fact checked on this? Lehman has a better winning percentage in the PCHA based on the numbers you just provided. The GAA is a nice triviality, but of course it includes seasons in the first few years of the PCHA's existence for Lehman and not for Holmes where league scoring was through the roof.

All I have to say about the WCHL/WHL is that they are the same league under a different name and should be counted the same. And Lehman was 39-40 years old when he was there.



If you think Holmes outplayed Lehman, prove it! You've done nothing but post basic stats and then count them wrong.



You mean his teams were better. The irony of this all is that you insist the NHA was better than the PCHA, yet count the performances of Holmes' NHA teams as your evidence that he was better in SC competition.



Did you read any of the numerous newspaper accounts that were posted about Lehman?

The comparable was western hockey to western hockey. Clearly stated.
Not PCHA to PCHA which is your comparable to make your boy look good. Both Lehman and Holmes played in all the three SC eligible western leagues, so the western to western comparable is most accurate. BTW the count is correct you are just being selective in your comparable. Western to western Holmes had a .540W/L%, Lehman had a .531W/L%.

Eye test vs eyes test. Not enough eyes viewing and voting on PCHA ASTs to be taken seriously. Likewise for the newspaper stories.

Vancouver Millionaires, run and gun hockey. Interesting phrase but
but rather vapid in the context of seven man hockey. Two extra skaters - one from each team just add to the clutter, making it harder to score. Rather obvious given how much open ice there is when comparing 4 on 4 OT hockey to 5 on 5 regulation time hockey. Yet in the PCHA this some how translates into run and gun hockey. 14-11 scores do not represent good goaltending especially when its 6 on 6.

Holmes' superiority is clear by all metrics that are not selective. Like other weak eastern goalies - Bert Lindsay, Hugh Lehman, Holmes went west and was the best of the troika.

Last bolded is funny. 1915 - 1926 when PCHA/WCHL/WHL were guaranteed a final spot, only three western teams won all on home ice. 1915 Vancouver/Lehman, 1917 Seattle/Holmes, 1925 Victoria/Holmes, 1919 cancelled tied 2-2, Seattle goalie was Holmes.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 01:33 AM
  #183
Rob Scuderi
Moderator
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Lehman 5W-10L under eastern rules, 5W-7L under western rules.
Holmes as the western goalie playing eastern rules was 6W-5L-1T

Which Explains the extra SCs that Holmes helped his team win and for a quirk in 1919 put the PCHA team in a position to win.

Look at the Holmes and Lehman, neither impressed in eastern hockey even though both were Ontario born and developed. Holmes after all had a losing record in the NHA/NHL but was more successful than Lehman out west.
Thanks for taking the time to compile those numbers. Lehman and Vancouver definitely struggled under the East rules more than Holmes and Seattle did.

I don't agree that neither impressed in eastern hockey though, but I think Holmes deserves much more credit than Lehman in this regard. TDMM mentioned the Ontario clubs pining for Lehman's service in 1910. He wasn't an NHA star, but he was clearly highly regarded in the OPHL.

Holmes was highly regarded while playing in the NHA though so I really don't get that. I just posted two articles from 1913 where he was already impressing in Toronto. He won the Stanley Cup in 1914 which came only after a team won their league meaning it was on the back of a great regular season performance as well.

You're back to wins and losses and we're finally getting to talk about Lehman, instead of just the PCHA. I'd really rather not backtrack.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 01:52 AM
  #184
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,948
vCash: 500
Rules

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Thanks for taking the time to compile those numbers. Lehman and Vancouver definitely struggled under the East rules more than Holmes and Seattle did.

I don't agree that neither impressed in eastern hockey though, but I think Holmes deserves much more credit than Lehman in this regard. TDMM mentioned the Ontario clubs pining for Lehman's service in 1910. He wasn't an NHA star, but he was clearly highly regarded in the OPHL.

Holmes was highly regarded while playing in the NHA though so I really don't get that. I just posted two articles from 1913 where he was already impressing in Toronto. He won the Stanley Cup in 1914 which came only after a team won their league meaning it was on the back of a great regular season performance as well.

You're back to wins and losses and we're finally getting to talk about Lehman, instead of just the PCHA. I'd really rather not backtrack.
Read the articles about Holmes and the critiques of his game - improved puck clearing etc. So he was a work in progress in 1913.

Lehman's strengths as described earlier - passing the puck, forward, etc were more suited for the PCHA rules. He also played for the largest media center in the league which facilitated recognition.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 02:09 AM
  #185
Rob Scuderi
Moderator
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Read the articles about Holmes and the critiques of his game - improved puck clearing etc. So he was a work in progress in 1913.
A work in progress in 1913, which by 1914 was capable of winning a Stanley Cup.

Quote:
Lehman's strengths as described earlier - passing the puck, forward, etc were more suited for the PCHA rules. He also played for the largest media center in the league which facilitated recognition.
I definitely agree Lehman's unique abilities - that would be a compliment to every other goalie in history - helped him with Vancouver's potent rosters. It seems strange the PCHA made a rule in their final season to ban goaltenders from going behind their nets.

It's good to mindful of which hype machines get out of control too, but it wasn't only Vancouver's papers calling him the best of the West along with Ion correct?

This was the compilation of quotes about Lehman referred to throughout this process, I see a lot outside of Vancouver.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 03:55 AM
  #186
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

The comparable was western hockey to western hockey. Clearly stated.
Not PCHA to PCHA which is your comparable to make your boy look good.
"My boy" is Martin Brodeur. I've never seen Hugh Lehman play, just like I've never seen Tiny Thompson play or George Hainsworth play. And neither have you. I'm trying my best to honestly assess the careers of players who I didn't see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
[B]


Eye test vs eyes test. Not enough eyes viewing and voting on PCHA ASTs to be taken seriously. Likewise for the newspaper stories.
There were plenty of people who watched Western hockey at the time. Basically everyone who was a hockey fan/media member west of Ontario. And there were a lot of them.

Can you find one of them who did not think Lehman was the best in the Western leagues? Can you find two?

Quote:
Vancouver Millionaires, run and gun hockey. Interesting phrase but rather vapid in the context of seven man hockey. Two extra skaters - one from each team just add to the clutter, making it harder to score. Rather obvious given how much open ice there is when comparing 4 on 4 OT hockey to 5 on 5 regulation time hockey. Yet in the PCHA this some how translates into run and gun hockey. 14-11 scores do not represent good goaltending especially when its 6 on 6.
Usually people who adopt condescending tones by calling others "vapid" actually know what they are talking about. I guess you're the exception. The PCHA was famous for adopting rules to make it a more offensive-minded league than the NHA, and no team was more offensive-minded than the Vancouver Millionaires.

Seriously, I'd prefer it if you dropped the insults, but if you're going to use them, at least take the time to learn something about the subject matter first. The 7th man in the PCHA - the rover - was often (but not always) used as an all-offense position. The Vancouver Millionaires, with Cyclone Taylor as their rover, were an offense-first team more than any other, and everyone who has done even basic research on the PCHA knows it.

Quote:
Holmes' superiority is clear by all metrics that are not selective. Like other weak eastern goalies - Bert Lindsay, Hugh Lehman, Holmes went west and was the best of the troika.
I doubt you actually believe this. And I have pretty good reasons to doubt it.

Quote:
Last bolded is funny. 1915 - 1926 when PCHA/WCHL/WHL were guaranteed a final spot, only three western teams won all on home ice. 1915 Vancouver/Lehman, 1917 Seattle/Holmes, 1925 Victoria/Holmes, 1919 cancelled tied 2-2, Seattle goalie was Holmes.
As discussed earlier, only the only NHA team to win on road ice were the dynasty Ottawa Senators and they did it twice.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-15-2012 at 04:52 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 06:31 AM
  #187
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,948
vCash: 500
Run and Gun

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
"My boy" is Martin Brodeur. I've never seen Hugh Lehman play, just like I've never seen Tiny Thompson play or George Hainsworth play. And neither have you. I'm trying my best to honestly assess the careers of players who I didn't see.



There were plenty of people who watched Western hockey at the time. Basically everyone who was a hockey fan/media member west of Ontario. And there were a lot of them.

Can you find one of them who did not think Lehman was the best in the Western leagues? Can you find two?



Usually people who adopt condescending tones by calling others "vapid" actually know what they are talking about. I guess you're the exception. The PCHA was famous for adopting rules to make it a more offensive-minded league than the NHA, and no team was more offensive-minded than the Vancouver Millionaires.

Seriously, I'd prefer it if you dropped the insults, but if you're going to use them, at least take the time to learn something about the subject matter first. The 7th man in the PCHA - the rover - was often (but not always) used as an all-offense position. The Vancouver Millionaires, with Cyclone Taylor as their rover, were an offense-first team more than any other, and everyone who has done even basic research on the PCHA knows it.



I doubt you actually believe this. And I have pretty good reasons to doubt it.



As discussed earlier, only the only NHA team to win on road ice were the dynasty Ottawa Senators and they did it twice.
Did not call you "vapid" but referred to the use of "run and gun" hockey in the context of 6 on 6 hockey as "vapid". As for your explanation it overlooks one simple fact. There is only one puck on the ice. Without the puck the six teammates have to play defensive hockey of one form or another and they take up space, creating clutter. Unless the goaltending is horrific - no other way to describe a 14-11 game, the offence becomes hard to generate. 25 goals in a game, with hardly any substitution since rosters featured 9 skaters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914%E2...onaires_season

see the team roster. Just extrapolate the SV% from a 14-11 game. You need 100 shots to get as high as .750. Lehman gave - up ten or more goals twice that season alone. Not impressive.

Also the 1914-15 team had Frank Nighbor. Curious to read the explanation how Frank Nighbor suspended his defensive play for the regular season, then suddenly turn it on for the playoffs?

As for western media, trust you can name the actual beat reporters who traveled with each team and did not rely on wire services or reports.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 07:47 AM
  #188
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,554
vCash: 500
*Fastening on my coach's hat here for a minute* - I don't remember it being coned-shaped and coming to a such a high point...oh well...

I have to agree with C1958 on the point of this so-called "run and gun" hockey. Every player on the rink improves the defensive percentages not offense's. In any style of play this is true. That's why overtimes in the regular season are played 4 on 4 - to promote offense. That's why a 4 on 3 power play is better than a 5 on 4. et cetera.

Having 6 on 6 and, if I'm not mistaken, the inability to pass over a line would not be conducive to "run and gun" hockey. There's just no amount of space that could be provided inside of an arena that could facilitate such a game. The offense could be good and the defense could be bad, sure. Look at the Flyers/Pens series in 2012, it was just bad defense and bad goaltending that made the offenses look super human. It wasn't the 80's Oilers out there...it was just two clubs that couldn't stop a puck, not run and gun, just bad hockey. Poorly played. Consistent with what you'd expect to find in the origins of a league.

How much the goaltending was to blame is a matter for the courts. But, it couldn't have been much above average to be giving up that amount of goals in those conditions.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 09:12 AM
  #189
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
*Fastening on my coach's hat here for a minute* - I don't remember it being coned-shaped and coming to a such a high point...oh well...

I have to agree with C1958 on the point of this so-called "run and gun" hockey. Every player on the rink improves the defensive percentages not offense's. In any style of play this is true. That's why overtimes in the regular season are played 4 on 4 - to promote offense. That's why a 4 on 3 power play is better than a 5 on 4. et cetera.

Having 6 on 6 and, if I'm not mistaken, the inability to pass over a line would not be conducive to "run and gun" hockey. There's just no amount of space that could be provided inside of an arena that could facilitate such a game. The offense could be good and the defense could be bad, sure. Look at the Flyers/Pens series in 2012, it was just bad defense and bad goaltending that made the offenses look super human. It wasn't the 80's Oilers out there...it was just two clubs that couldn't stop a puck, not run and gun, just bad hockey. Poorly played. Consistent with what you'd expect to find in the origins of a league.

How much the goaltending was to blame is a matter for the courts. But, it couldn't have been much above average to be giving up that amount of goals in those conditions.
Good explaination for those of us who have reservations about voting for non-NHL goalies of this era. The game itself, how it was played, much more difficult to gauge players, but even more so goaltenders.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 09:32 AM
  #190
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,735
vCash: 500
The next poster who makes a public claim that another poster has "an agenda" (either directly, or through my interpretation of that term), will receive:
  1. An infraction.
  2. A thread ban.
  3. And perhaps more.

Happy holidays. Stop derailing the damned thread.

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 11:41 AM
  #191
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Back when the 2008 and 2009 top 100 lists were made, there were posters who said that they had trouble rating pre-1926 players as high as they probably should because the players were split between different leagues and therefore hard to evaluate. And I think it was definitely a valid opinion at the time. Since then, a lot of research has been done, largely via google archives, and much of it has been posted during this project (and the defensemen project). So I think the opinion has less merit now than it used to.

I don't agree with the opinion that pre-1926 hockey is inferior. I think the quality of the talent pool is what matters and that the talent pool made a sharp uptick in the early 1910s, not 1926. But it's at least a defensible opinion, even if I really do think it's becoming harder to defend with the more research that we do into the early years.

But the opinion that the NHL was far superior to every other league prior to 1926 just because the NHL was the last league standing after 1926 due to better finances? Not defensible at all all, and I can't believe that anyone who even put 10 minutes of research into pre-1926 would believe it. Players switched between leagues fairly regularly, players who were stars in one became stars in another fairly often, and there were similar numbers of Hall of Famers in the East and West* at the same time.

*by West, I mean PCHA + WCHL. The PCHA started weakening right as the WCHL got going. I used to think it was related, but overpass made a pretty convincing case that it was coincidence.
Actually, the most recent explorations into Lehman and his PCHA competition, and the PCHA/WCHL/WHL/NHA/NHL, leave me convinced that there's little propelling Lehman so far up the all-time list besides respect for a long-gone era in a secondary league. Every goalie so far has been rigorously compared against their peers, and attempts made to slot their accomplishments/etc into the larger perspective of "all-time", and I still find Lehman the most lacking of the names that have been bandied about so far, for reasons that have been expressed in detail at this point.

For example, if it's comparison to Hap Holmes that ultimately suggests Lehman already deserves to be in this conversation, how high does that mean Holmes should be on the list when all is said and done? Does being the "Hainsworth of the West" actually put him higher all-time than Hainsworth? I still don't get how that can work in terms of career value (but then again, an NHL career has higher value to me than a PCHA career, as I've said).

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:32 PM
  #192
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,858
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Actually, the most recent explorations into Lehman and his PCHA competition, and the PCHA/WCHL/WHL/NHA/NHL, leave me convinced that there's little propelling Lehman so far up the all-time list besides respect for a long-gone era in a secondary league. Every goalie so far has been rigorously compared against their peers, and attempts made to slot their accomplishments/etc into the larger perspective of "all-time", and I still find Lehman the most lacking of the names that have been bandied about so far, for reasons that have been expressed in detail at this point.

For example, if it's comparison to Hap Holmes that ultimately suggests Lehman already deserves to be in this conversation, how high does that mean Holmes should be on the list when all is said and done? Does being the "Hainsworth of the West" actually put him higher all-time than Hainsworth? I still don't get how that can work in terms of career value (but then again, an NHL career has higher value to me than a PCHA career, as I've said).
What makes you so sure the PCHA was a secondary league?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 12:37 PM
  #193
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Iain Fyffe wrote an article about the changing role of the rover in the PCHA. His conclusion was that the rover was initially an offensive position, but became a defensive position in 1918.

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=699

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 01:01 PM
  #194
Rob Scuderi
Moderator
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Actually, the most recent explorations into Lehman and his PCHA competition, and the PCHA/WCHL/WHL/NHA/NHL, leave me convinced that there's little propelling Lehman so far up the all-time list besides respect for a long-gone era in a secondary league. Every goalie so far has been rigorously compared against their peers, and attempts made to slot their accomplishments/etc into the larger perspective of "all-time", and I still find Lehman the most lacking of the names that have been bandied about so far, for reasons that have been expressed in detail at this point.

For example, if it's comparison to Hap Holmes that ultimately suggests Lehman already deserves to be in this conversation, how high does that mean Holmes should be on the list when all is said and done? Does being the "Hainsworth of the West" actually put him higher all-time than Hainsworth? I still don't get how that can work in terms of career value (but then again, an NHL career has higher value to me than a PCHA career, as I've said).
I believe you compared the PCHA to the KHL, right? I really think you should outline why you believe this or try look a little more into the PCHA if that's still your belief. The defensemen were clearly weak in the PCHA compared to their eastern counterparts in the NHA/NHL and we're here fleshing out where the goalies belong, but there's little question the PCHA was filled will legitimate HHOF forwards. I said it before, but even an appeal to the WHA needs to be established if we're talking about teams capable of winning a best of five series with the NHL champions.

Since we're still caught up in this debate why don't we just look at what the people watching the Stanley Cup finals said. I managed to find reports for every game in the 1918 finals, some from eastern and western sources, and it features Lehman vs Holmes. This is just one Stanley Cup series and the PCHA did not win, but they still received a fair bit of praise.

It would have taken much longer and more space to use the exact quotes to convey the same information so I have notes from the articles. Selective bolding just focuses on goalies or how teams adapted to rules.

G1, 5-3 TOR (NHL rules)

The Calgary Daily Herald - 3/21/1918
  • Toronto outclasses opponents, mediocre brand of game. Toronto plays like a team should, no stars and all playing splendidly, shots like bullets and backchecked like fiends. Toronto shows off younger age, Vancouver only has advantage when it comes to weight, but doesn't use it.
  • MacKay and Cook two man team for Vancouver, Holmes has to make a number of saves on MacKay after breaking through Toronto's D. Taylor off his game at first, tangles with Meeking and Randall at one point taking a penalty, but later scores
  • Second period highlight of the affair, stellar play from Lehman and Holmes each allowing one goal
  • Disappointment is mild way to describe westerners performance, some Ontario exhibitions were more interesting
  • Taylor and MacKay speed artists, but never whirlwinds that Toronto's checkers couldn't handle, Toronto had no trouble checking an of Vancouver's skaters
  • Vancouver is a speedy club, can turn well in tight space, rush well, shoot hard but inaccurately, yet little backchecking out of all that speed. No 7th man the reason for such woes? They attempted no combination and lacked persistence and relentlessness of Toronto
  • Consensus that MacKay played better than Taylor.
  • Toronto stayed back and protected their lead effectively. Vancouver only goes offside at center once in first period, apparently familiar with style of hockey played in NHL

G2, 6-4 VAN (PCHA rules)
The Toronto World - 3/25/1918
"(Western rules) provide for seven players on each team, and allow almost everything except putting the puck in players' pocket in a marked area of the action in the centre of the rink. This allows a man to take offside passes under the eastern rules of as far as sixty feet, and the hard backchecking and speedy skating of the Toronto forwards was not in evidence, the handicap of a man taking a pass thirty or forty feet away being too great to overcome."
  • Two extra skaters always seemed to be in the way
  • 1st Period: Toronto started off fast and peppered Lehman with several good chances in the first five minutes but he was invincible. Cameron had a great rush and shot that Lehman was lucky to stop. Skinner scores first goal of game on rebound from Mummery. Taylor evens to end first taking a pass from Stanley when right in on Holmes
  • 2nd Period: Taylor scores goal on long shot with extra man that slips through Holmes legs. MacKay scores two, Cameron easily beats Lehman following a great rush slipping through the defence
  • 3rd Period: Cameron misses the net on a good chance. Mummery takes Maynes out of the game late after a whistle, Randall slashes Taylor's arm and referees prevent things from boiling over. Skinner scores off another rebound, from Noble this time, MacKay and Skinner each score their third goals to end game

The Toronto World - 3/26/1918
"If the Vancouver Club gets protection, it has a good chance to win the world's championship series with Toronto," said Art Ross, back from Toronto, where he refereed the Saturday night match between the champions of east and west, won by the westerners.

"The blues gave a most brutal exhibition," said the veteran player, "and unless the western club gets absolute protection from the referees, they'll all be killed. Randall was particularly offensive and in addition to the numerous penalties he served, I gave him a fine of $15 for using foul and abusive language. Mummery was also conspicuous by rough work, his efforts being so crude and brutal that he was hooted by the Toronto fans."

G3, 6-3 TOR (NHL rules)
The Toronto World - 3/27/1918
  • Blueshirts had much better system of attack and checked better than Vancouver, outskated Vancouver's forwards
  • Toronto had best of early play scoring three goals in first, Vancouver does better in 2nd scoring twice but Toronto scores 2 themselves, each team scored a goal in the third
  • McDonald best man for Vancouver, fed Taylor from behind the net twice and scored the other himself. Taylor plays well, rushes often and excels in front of the net. MacKay was fast and tricky, chief of Vancouver checking brigade, hookcheck that broke up many rushes. Cook and Griffis rushed strongly, but Toronto skated around them many times
  • Lehman made many phenomenal stops with Blueshirts right on top of him
  • Cameron the outstanding player for TOR, rushed in his old time style and scored two while paving way for two more. Denneny brilliant and nets two, Mummery tower of strength and stops nearly as many shots as Holmes. Meeking checked well and worked inside many times. Holmes was in excellent form and the goals that got past him no one could stop, Taylor was right in on top of him twice.
  • Vancouver does much better in 6 man game this time around, quick rushes of two men with a trailer, chief flaw was shooting from too far out. Toronto unbeatable, kept up offensive game for entire contest
  • Cameron skates round Vancouver D for both goals, second one Lehman had no chance to save. Denneny fast skating and good checking and scores after splitting D following a fake pass.
  • McDonald battles to net and scores on his own rebound, rushes well and gives Holmes a number of hard shots to handle
  • Vancouver showed better brand of hockey in second, many chances but shooting was not up to the mark and work inside the defensive end was poor.

The Calgary Daily Herald - 3/27/1918
  • Little difficulty for Toronto
  • Griffis weak point for Vancouver, tower in previous two games offensively and defensively, seemed glued to one spot and seldom started a rush before losing the puck. "It was largely to his poor playing that teammates can attribute defeat."
  • Two stars on each side, MacKay and McDonald, Denneny and Cameron. MacKay stickhandled brilliantly as third defenseman
  • Cameron bright light for Toronto, excellent rushes making Vancouver's defence look silly. Denneny was always prominent, good skater and stickhandling like MacKay, led backchecking
  • Both goalies given lots of work and there was little choice between them. Vancouver was losing 0-3 in first, but they rained shots in on Holmes and only by his marvelous work were they kept scoreless.
  • Vancouver always looked dangerous, but faded as Toronto kept coming. Dozens of times Toronto forwards went right through Vancouver's defense only to be blocked by Lehman, who came out of the net two stop two would-be goals
  • Each team scored one goal in the third, and despite trailing kept playing the old style of three defencemen leading to a lot of work for Lehman
  • Game hardly up to the class of the other contests, Toronto never showed any inclination to mix it up, Vancouver displayed fast skating but little good hockey.

G4, 8-1 VAN (PCHA rules)
The Morning Leader - 3/29/1918
  • Outplayed at every angle the Toronto Blues lose 8-1. Toronto couldn't do anything right, Vancouver couldn't do anything wrong, but it is doubtful whether the results would have been different with the Blues in their best shape
  • Vancouver had brilliant form, lightning fast combinations, deadly shooting, backchecked like fiends
  • McDonald and McKay brilliant both ways, MacKay one goal but rushes lead to at least three more. Taylor in best form of series to date, scores to pretty goals, Stanley and Lloyd Cook unusually effective

The Toronto World - 3/29/1918
  • Torontos looked like a juvenile club playing against world champions, simply lost at seventh man, no offside in centre ice
  • Vancouver runs all over Toronto with speed and bag of tricks, Toronto tried three-man defence but it wasn't a bother to Vancouver
  • Vancouver streaked in two, three and four at a time, Holmes was simply helpless before the onslaught, Blueshirts showed many loose sessions in front of their own goal which helped Vancouver
  • MacKay worth price of admission alone, tore up and down ice like a crazy man, Holmes made marvelous saves on many of his shots. Taylor smooth and the Millionaires walked around Toronto. Griffis dumped everyone that came near him, Vancouver D rushed very well, especially Cook in the final frame
  • Cameron strong rushes for Toronto but hard luck with shots, Denneny played well, Mummery did some effective blocking.

G5, 2-1 TOR (NHL rules)
The Toronto World - 4/1/1918
  • Close checking affair with elimination on the line and a number of penalties called. No score through first two periods.
  • Skinner scores an ugly goal on a long shot that goes in over Lehman's shoulder as he ducks. McKay sets Taylor up in front of Toronto cage to tie game halfway through third. Denneny scores after working his way through four Vancouvers and pulling Lehman out of the net.
  • Good backchecking by Toronto helped keep Vancouver shots to outside
  • Taylor takes two penalties for loafing. Second period marred by penalties mostly trips and holds.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 02:21 PM
  #195
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,836
vCash: 500
Anyone have some last minute words on how Fuhr/Smith should be ranked relative to Holmes/Hainsworth?

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 02:24 PM
  #196
Sanf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 375
vCash: 500
Sorry to interrup the Lehman discussion but Im intrested why Tiny Thompson has dropped this low? I got intrested about the old goalies techniques and it seems that Thompson was considered best skater with Kerr (both had played forward in the early career). Also he was considered the best stickhandler. "Only goalie who has actually take full advantage of the openings offered through forward passing". He was the first goalie to get assist (there is a good possibility that he had been robbed some assists before that). Also he had the best hands in league (many newspaper articles crediting him that ,baseball backround).

There are quite many (Jack Adams,Jim Hendy, "Baldy" Northcott if you want names) who considered him the best goalie of the 30s or to that point (and yet he had the most succesful season before the forward pass rule in 20s). Also I did try to find stories about his playoff failures but failed (actually find more praising).

Sanf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 03:32 PM
  #197
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
I believe you compared the PCHA to the KHL, right?
Actually, I think I began threads ago with the statement that I don't consider awards in the PCHA to be of any more merit than awards from the AHL or KHL (as examples of leagues which are at least similar in their "level" difference from today's NHL imo as the PCHA was from the NHA/NHL of yesteryear). I could have also used the WHA from the 70s as an example, and in fact we got in that direction a bit, too. Thusly, I don't personally care much that Lehman is a 10X PCHA all-star as much as I care about how he stacks up against the "most relevant" competition, and where that puts him all-time.

A re-opening of examination of the PCHA/WCHL already followed in the recent incarnation of this discussion (and there has been much written and linked previously, so I'm not going to put it all back together in summary form as if a grand presentation of my opinion should hold any merit over those of the actual voters presenting opinions as well), and I'm grateful for all of that work if it had anything to do with the most recent round voting putting all of Holmes, Fuhr, and Smith ahead of Lehman. I'd personally put Thompson and Hainsworth ahead of Lehman, too, for that matter, but that's me.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 03:36 PM
  #198
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What makes you so sure the PCHA was a secondary league?
Because it's not the league that persevered and ultimately evolved into the league that we hold in the highest regard on the planet (and have for a century). In a nutshell. But it's obviously not really that simple outside of the most macroscopic of views.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 03:49 PM
  #199
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanf View Post
Sorry to interrup the Lehman discussion but Im intrested why Tiny Thompson has dropped this low? I got intrested about the old goalies techniques and it seems that Thompson was considered best skater with Kerr (both had played forward in the early career). Also he was considered the best stickhandler. "Only goalie who has actually take full advantage of the openings offered through forward passing". He was the first goalie to get assist (there is a good possibility that he had been robbed some assists before that). Also he had the best hands in league (many newspaper articles crediting him that ,baseball backround).

There are quite many (Jack Adams,Jim Hendy, "Baldy" Northcott if you want names) who considered him the best goalie of the 30s or to that point (and yet he had the most succesful season before the forward pass rule in 20s). Also I did try to find stories about his playoff failures but failed (actually find more praising).
Thompson dropped below Roy Worters because when they were in the same league at the same time, the majority thought Worters was better.

To the extend that Thompson was the "best of the 30s," it probably matters that he was the only HHOF-level goalie to actually play the whole decade.

I do have Thompson #2 behind Lehman this round though.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2012, 03:54 PM
  #200
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
*Fastening on my coach's hat here for a minute* - I don't remember it being coned-shaped and coming to a such a high point...oh well...

I have to agree with C1958 on the point of this so-called "run and gun" hockey. Every player on the rink improves the defensive percentages not offense's. In any style of play this is true. That's why overtimes in the regular season are played 4 on 4 - to promote offense. That's why a 4 on 3 power play is better than a 5 on 4. et cetera.

Having 6 on 6 and, if I'm not mistaken, the inability to pass over a line would not be conducive to "run and gun" hockey. There's just no amount of space that could be provided inside of an arena that could facilitate such a game. The offense could be good and the defense could be bad, sure. Look at the Flyers/Pens series in 2012, it was just bad defense and bad goaltending that made the offenses look super human. It wasn't the 80's Oilers out there...it was just two clubs that couldn't stop a puck, not run and gun, just bad hockey. Poorly played. Consistent with what you'd expect to find in the origins of a league.

How much the goaltending was to blame is a matter for the courts. But, it couldn't have been much above average to be giving up that amount of goals in those conditions.
I'm not talking about the 1980s; I'm talking about the context of the 1910s. And the most offensive-minded team of the era were the Vancouver Millionaires. This profile of their coach, Frank Patrick, even called him "the Glen Sather of his era:" http://insidehockey.com/profiles-in-...-frank-patrick

The PCHA allowed the forward pass in certain situations long before the NHA/NHL did. And the goal was to make for a faster paced, more offensive game.

For the most part, the PCHA rulebook was ahead of its time and most of it was later adopted by the NHL.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-15-2012 at 04:45 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe 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 06:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.