HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-18-2012, 08:48 AM
  #126
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Ya, Al Rollins & Gus Mortson who were both workhorses for Chicago for several seasons thereafter, while Cal Gardner I believe stuck around for one season, and Hannigan, well, he never did play for the Hawks, either a career minor leaguer or Senior player. Lumley I have no memory of whatsoever, before my time, but based on what Ive read, pieced together, he appeared ascendant in Detroit early but was upstaged by Sawchuk, and from there began a journey, a sojourn of sorts, playing for 5 of the 06 teams during his 16 or 17yr career. Stylistically, no idea what to make of him, however, he simply mustve benefited from Toronto's defensive game.... highly thought of by Smythe, member of the HHOF.
Lumley played one game for the Rangers, and that was when he was 17.

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 10:19 AM
  #127
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,637
vCash: 500
Hap Holmes in the Playoffs and Stanley Cup Finals

Totals
Playoffs
Series W-LW-L-TGF-GA
6-37-8-354-41

Stanley Cup
 Series W-LW-L-TGF-GA
 4-217-12-1103-83
W Rules 6-745-46
E Rules 11-5-158-37
Home4-0  
Away0-2  

NHA
Playoffs
Series W-LW-LGF-GA
1-01-16-2

Stanley Cup
 Series W-LW-LGF-GA
 1-03-013-8
E Rules 2-07-3
W Rules 1-06-5
Home1-0  

NHL
Playoffs
Series W-LW-LGF-GA
1-01-110-7

Stanley Cup
 Series W-LW-LGF-GA
 1-03-218-21
E Rules 3-013-7
W Rules 0-25-14
Home1-0  

PCHA
Playoffs
Series W-LW-LGF-GA
2-3 3-6-119-21

Stanley Cup
 Series W-LW-L-TGF-GA
 1-17-6-153-36
W Rules 4-227-16
E Rules 3-4-126-20
Home1-0  
Away0-1  

WCHL
Playoffs
Series W-LW-LGF-GA
2-02-0-219-11

Stanley Cup
 Series W-LW-LGF-GA
 1-14-419-18
W Rules 1-37-11
E Rules 3-112-7
Home1-0  
Away0-1  


Versus Benedict
 Series W-LW-LGF-GA
 0-23-614-25
SC0-23-614-25
E Rules 2-39-15
W Rules 1-35-10
Away0-2  

Versus Vezina
 Series W-LW-L-TGF-GA
 4-0 10-6-174-38
SC2-08-4-158-29
E Rules 4-2-129-12
W Rules 4-229-17
Home2-0  

Versus Lehman
 Series W-LW-L-TGF-GA
 3-36-8-137-42
SC1-03-218-21
E Rules 3-013-7
W Rules 0-25-14
Home1-0  

Versus Hainsworth
Series W-LW-L-TGF-GA
2-02-0-210-7

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 10:43 AM
  #128
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
It really doesn't seem to me like Lumley was anything special outside of 1953 and 1954. Clarification - he was good enough to keep a starter's job in a 6 team league for over a decade, which is an accomplishment on it's own, but he didn't stand out outside of those two years.

4th in Hart voting in the still-tainted 1946 is good, but not great, though it is much more meaningful than any all-star votes against a still questionable field of goalies (Durnan was the only other HHOFer who seems up to speed in 1946 and he was way ahead of Lumley and the rest. Brimsek, who came back partly through the season, was 2nd).

Then Lumley spent the next 5 years as an unspectacular starter, outshone by Rayner, Broda, and others. Then he goes to Toronto, and in his 2nd and 3rd seasons in Toronto, has 2 great seasons. By 1954 and 1955, the competition was quite strong, and his Hart voting record in those two seasons backs up the All-Star teams.

Are those two seasons enough to push Lumley ahead of the older Rayner, who was better than him when the two were in the league at the same time? I'm honestly not sure.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-18-2012 at 11:10 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 11:01 AM
  #129
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
From last round, it seems like 1917 and 1918 were the two seasons really affected by World War I. Are Hap Holmes' 2nd and 3rd Cups tainted by that War?

His Cups were in 1914, 1917, 1918, and 1925.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 11:46 AM
  #130
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
Harry Lumley II

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It really doesn't seem to me like Lumley was anything special outside of 1953 and 1954. Clarification - he was good enough to keep a starter's job in a 6 team league for over a decade, which is an accomplishment on it's own, but he didn't stand out outside of those two years.

4th in Hart voting in the still-tainted 1946 is good, but not great, though it is much more meaningful than any all-star votes against a still questionable field of goalies (Durnan was the only other HHOFer who seems up to speed in 1946 and he was way ahead of Lumley and the rest).

Then Lumley spent the next 5 years as an unspectacular starter, outshone by Rayner, Broda, and others. Then he goes to Toronto, and in his 2nd and 3rd seasons in Toronto, has 2 great seasons. By 1954 and 1955, the competition was quite strong, and his Hart voting record in those two seasons backs up the All-Star teams.

Are those two seasons enough to push Lumley ahead of Rayner, who was better than him when the two were in the league at the same time? I'm honestly not sure.
Bolded ranks as some of the most curious statements ever made about a hockey player. 1946 Harry Lumley was 19 years old

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lumleha01.html

Could the poster making the claim submit a list of 19 year old NHL players getting 4th place Hart consideration in the O6 era of the NHL?

To stay in the NHL as a teenager/20 year old. Harry Lumley had to beat-out Johnny Mowers, a former SC champion goalie, 1st team AST and Vezina winner.

Before the age of 24 Harry Lumley had backstopped the Red Wings to three SC finals, winning once in 1950. Only Terry Sawchuk accomplished more at the same age in the pre 1967 NHL. Another comparable would be Clint Benedict who at the age of 22 was hammered for an 8.33 GAA in the 1915 SC Final by Vancouver.

Chuck Rayner has been proposed as a superior goalie. Same Chuck Rayner who was replaced by Jim Henry during the 1947-48 season.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1948.html

Overall Rayner, a more mature goalie, was the weakest of the five HHOF goalies in the NHL during the late 1940's.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 12:05 PM
  #131
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
Success

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
From last round, it seems like 1917 and 1918 were the two seasons really affected by World War I. Are Hap Holmes' 2nd and 3rd Cups tainted by that War?

His Cups were in 1914, 1917, 1918, and 1925.
Success finally someone admits that WWI may have impacted hockey.

Start of the 1916-17 season, combined the NHA/PCHA totaled 10 teams. By the end of the 1917-18 season the NHL/PCHA had contracted to 6 teams for a variety of reasons.Four of the six remaining teams had HHOF quality goalies. Talent from 10 teams was spread over six except for some of the stars fighting in Europe.Some future stars saw their entry into the top levels of hockey delayed by the war. Still competition was at a level that does not provide a reason to punish Hap Holmes.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 12:19 PM
  #132
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bolded ranks as some of the most curious statements ever made about a hockey player. 1946 Harry Lumley was 19 years old

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lumleha01.html

Could the poster making the claim submit a list of 19 year old NHL players getting 4th place Hart consideration in the O6 era of the NHL?
Personally, when I evaluate a historical player, I care about how good they were and what they accomplished, not how old they were when they accomplished it. It was an excellent season for a 19 year old, followed by mediocre seasons in his early 20s.

In other words, if you want a list of 19 year old NHLers who got recognition, feel free to make it yourself

Quote:
To stay in the NHL as a teenager/20 year old. Harry Lumley had to beat-out Johnny Mowers, a former SC champion goalie, 1st team AST and Vezina winner.
Mowers played a grand total of 7 NHL games after missing 3 seasons due to the war, so I'm not sure how much credit we can give Lumley for beating him out. If Mowers was still NHL-calibre, he would have at least been able to stick around the AHL after the War, right?

Quote:
Before the age of 24 Harry Lumley had backstopped the Red Wings to three SC finals, winning once in 1950. Only Terry Sawchuk accomplished more at the same age in the pre 1967 NHL. Another comparable would be Clint Benedict who at the age of 22 was hammered for an 8.33 GAA in the 1915 SC Final by Vancouver.
How much credit can you give Lumley for his Red Wings winning a single Cup, though? Before 1950, they were known for losing repeatedly to Toronto in the playoffs. 1950 was notable for finally "getting the Toronto monkey off their backs." And it's hard to give Lumley more credit than Rayner for 1950. Rayner got more praise in the press, and was awarded the 1950 Retroactive Conn Smythe by the HHOF committee in a losing cause.

Quote:
Chuck Rayner has been proposed as a superior goalie. Same Chuck Rayner who was replaced by Jim Henry during the 1947-48 season.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1948.html
Actually, I'm undecided as to who I prefer, though I am leaning towards Rayner.

But I do need to give context to what you said:

Jim Henry returned from the War and the Rangers didn't want to abandon him. But they didn't want to give up on Rayner either, so they started what has been called hockey's "first two goalie system" where they alternated starts. Then Rayner got injured, and they went with Henry the rest of the year. In 1948-49, Rayner got his job back and was named Rangers MVP, just like he was in 1946-47. Any semi-complete profile of Rayner that you can find with google will tell you this

Quote:
Overall Rayner, a more mature goalie, was the weakest of the five HHOF goalies in the NHL during the late 1940's.
Where's your evidence that the NHL coaches who voted on the All Star teams and the media members who voted for the Hart were wrong?

Listen, I do think there's probably a good case for Lumley over Rayner, but I think it depends on what Lumley did after Rayner retired.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-18-2012 at 12:30 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 12:35 PM
  #133
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
From last round, it seems like 1917 and 1918 were the two seasons really affected by World War I. Are Hap Holmes' 2nd and 3rd Cups tainted by that War?

His Cups were in 1914, 1917, 1918, and 1925.
I just looked at the teams at the top since we're talking about his Cups rather than looking at it comprehensively, but I think he makes it out unscathed. I'm more skeptical of the Jack Walker factor honestly.

The Canadians were the Stanley Cup winner in 1916 and lost 5 players by the start of the next season. The thing is though, they actually made out with a stronger looking roster by 1917 as they lost depth mostly and added Tommy Smith and Harry Mummery to make the Stanley Cup finals again. It seems the 228th Battalion took a number of these guys for the first half of the season before shipping them out.

1916 Canadians gone by 1917: Amos Arbour (DNP '18-'19; '17 with 228th), Goldie Prodgers (DNP '18-'19; '17 with 228th), George McNamara (DNP '18+ retired after WWI, '17 with 228th), Howard McNamara (DNP '18-'19, '17 with 228th), Skene Ronan (DNP '17-'18)

1916 Stanley Cup MON Starters
Georges Vezina
Bert Corbeau - McNamara (didn't specify which)
Newsy Lalonde - Didier Pitre - Jack Laviolette

1917 Stanley Cup MON Starters
Vezina
Harry Mummery - Corbeau
Tommy Smith - Lalonde - Pitre
Spare: Laviolette

1917 SEA
Hap Holmes
Roy Rickey - Ed Carpenter
Bernie Morris - Frank Foyston - Jack Walker
Spare: Cully Wilson

1918 TOR
Holmes
Harry Cameron - Mummery
Ken Randall- Reg Noble - Alf Skinner
Spares: Harry Meeking, Corb Denneny

1918 VAN
Hugh Lehman
Lloyd Cook - Si Griffis
Cyclone Taylor - Mickey MacKay - Barney Stanley
Spares: Ran McDonald, Leo Cook, Melnnes

The only player I see Vancouver missing in 1918 from years prior is Gord Roberts who spent the season playing with Seattle as part of his duties as a doctor. I didn't see any players missing from Vancouver in 1917 when Seattle won the league.


Last edited by Rob Scuderi: 12-18-2012 at 12:47 PM.
Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 12:57 PM
  #134
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Jim Henry returned from the War and the Rangers didn't want to abandon him. But they didn't want to give up on Rayner either, so they started what has been called hockey's "first two goalie system" where they alternated starts. Then Rayner got injured, and they went with Henry the rest of the year. In 1948-49, Rayner got his job back and was named Rangers MVP, just like he was in 1946-47. Any semi-complete profile of Rayner that you can find with google will tell you this
To be fair, numerous newspaper accounts I've found mention that Lumley was neck and neck with Broda for the Vezina in 1947 until the end of the season, when Toronto beat Detroit twice in the same weekend to give Broda the victory. If those games go the other way, Lumley has two Vezinas, one in 1947 and the other in 1954.

I honestly think that had Lumley stayed on the Wings in 1950 or had he been traded to a better team than the Black Hawks, he could have won more awards. He was regarded as one of the best goalies at that time, and he was fresh off a Stanley Cup win, not to mention a near-Vezina a few years earlier. After he left the Hawks, and joined the Maple Leafs, he had his two best seasons. He nearly had the Vezina in 1955, too. He actually had a better GAA than Sawchuk, but the Red Wings had given up one fewer goal overall, and thus won it.

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 12:59 PM
  #135
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,003
vCash: 500
Neck and neck for the Vezina doesn't mean a whole lot at that time. Up until 1982 (?) it was just a statistical award, not voted by the league's GMs. Newspapers often noted GA in "league-wide" articles as a result. Equivalent to saying Crosby and Ovechkin are neck and neck for the Art Ross.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:02 PM
  #136
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It really doesn't seem to me like Lumley was anything special outside of 1953 and 1954. Clarification - he was good enough to keep a starter's job in a 6 team league for over a decade, which is an accomplishment on it's own, but he didn't stand out outside of those two years.

4th in Hart voting in the still-tainted 1946 is good, but not great, though it is much more meaningful than any all-star votes against a still questionable field of goalies (Durnan was the only other HHOFer who seems up to speed in 1946 and he was way ahead of Lumley and the rest. Brimsek, who came back partly through the season, was 2nd).

Then Lumley spent the next 5 years as an unspectacular starter, outshone by Rayner, Broda, and others. Then he goes to Toronto, and in his 2nd and 3rd seasons in Toronto, has 2 great seasons. By 1954 and 1955, the competition was quite strong, and his Hart voting record in those two seasons backs up the All-Star teams.

Are those two seasons enough to push Lumley ahead of the older Rayner, who was better than him when the two were in the league at the same time? I'm honestly not sure.
What do you make of the fact that the Leafs traded 4 players to get Lumley after the 51-52 season? Why would they do that unless Lumley had played extremely well in his 2 Blackhawk seasons?

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:11 PM
  #137
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Neck and neck for the Vezina doesn't mean a whole lot at that time. Up until 1982 (?) it was just a statistical award, not voted by the league's GMs. Newspapers often noted GA in "league-wide" articles as a result. Equivalent to saying Crosby and Ovechkin are neck and neck for the Art Ross.
Right, but literally one goal is the difference, and that wasn't on Lumley. He outplayed Sawchuk in terms of GAA. Glenn Hall won the 1955 Vezina for Sawchuk. If it was actually given to the goalie with the best GAA, Lumley would have two and Sawchuk only 3, one being in tandem with Bower

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:14 PM
  #138
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
To be fair, numerous newspaper accounts I've found mention that Lumley was neck and neck with Broda for the Vezina in 1947 until the end of the season, when Toronto beat Detroit twice in the same weekend to give Broda the victory. If those games go the other way, Lumley has two Vezinas, one in 1947 and the other in 1954.

I honestly think that had Lumley stayed on the Wings in 1950 or had he been traded to a better team than the Black Hawks, he could have won more awards. He was regarded as one of the best goalies at that time, and he was fresh off a Stanley Cup win, not to mention a near-Vezina a few years earlier. After he left the Hawks, and joined the Maple Leafs, he had his two best seasons. He nearly had the Vezina in 1955, too. He actually had a better GAA than Sawchuk, but the Red Wings had given up one fewer goal overall, and thus won it.
I'm assuming you mean 1948, when Broda won the Vezina? What does it say about Lumley that he almost won the Vezina (equal to the modern Jennings), but only finished 4th in All Star voting? That doesn't sound to me like he was hurt by the team he was on.

Obviously, playing on a better defensive team = more old Vezinas, but I don't really care about the old Vezina any more than I care about the modern Jennings.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:17 PM
  #139
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm assuming you mean 1948, when Broda won the Vezina? What does it say about Lumley that he almost won the Vezina (equal to the modern Jennings), but only finished 4th in All Star voting? That doesn't sound to me like he was hurt by the team he was on.

Obviously, playing on a better defensive team = more old Vezinas, but I don't really care about the old Vezina any more than I care about the modern Jennings.
Yeah I meant the 47-48 season. My bad.

And that's true, but it sounds like when he lost it to Sawchuk in 55, he was on the lesser team. I just posted a quote to that effect, and it sounds like Lumley carried the team.

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:26 PM
  #140
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
What do you make of the fact that the Leafs traded 4 players to get Lumley after the 51-52 season? Why would they do that unless Lumley had played extremely well in his 2 Blackhawk seasons?
Harry Lumley (25 years old) to Toronto by Chicago for Al Rollins (25), Gus Mortson (28), Cal Gardner (27) and Ray Hannigan (24, career AHL), September 11, 1952.

At that point, Lumley had played 7 full seasons in the NHL, and Al Rollins had played 1.5 full seasons.

Toronto obviously expected Lumley to be a significant improvement over Rollins.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:28 PM
  #141
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Found an interesting newspaper article from late 1954 about the Leafs and their style of play at the time:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Colletti, Canadian Press, November 17, 1954
Harry Lumley and Sugar Jim Henry provide a grim contrast today in the fortunes of goaltending in the National Hockey League. Perhaps the lesson is, never get caught with your defences down. The two fierce competitiors are old pros when it comes to the art of stopping pucks, but for one everything has turned out right, for the other nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Colletti, Canadian Press, November 17, 1954
The Canadiens aren't happy with Toronto's defence hockey, and they make no bones about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Colletti, Canadian Press, November 17, 1954
Not long after Dick Irvin, coach of the Canadiens, hit town for tonight's affair he began needling Conn Smythe, King Clancy and Hap Day over the Leafs' defensive style. His players aren't tightwads when it comes to scoring goals, Irvin noted in pointing out that Montreal occupies the first four places in the scoring parade. The dialogue went something like this: After insisting that the Canadiens didn't get to the top by "playing 1-0 hockey", Montreal has one shutout so far and the Leafs two, Irving said he couldn't understand Smythe. "Years ago, when I worked for him, he used to sit behind the opponents' goal and yell 'come in and see me' at his players. He wanted them to bust in and score goals. Now all you hear is King Clancy and Hap Day yelling 'get back, get back.' I can't understand how Mr. Smythe could change so much in such a short space of time.
The other thing is that All-Star voting in 1954 and 1955 was done on the two votes basis, one at midseason and one at the end of the season. In both years Lumley solidly beat out Sawchuk in the first half but lost ground in the second half. The 1954-55 voting is particularly notable, given that Lumley was almost unanimously voted into first place for the first half where he held a 1.69 - 1.91 GAA lead over Sawchuk (the Jan. 17, 1955 Ottawa Citizen gives him 89 out of a maximum 90 points, which makes no sense considering that a 5-3-1 voting system can't result in 89 points, but presumably they meant 88/90). Yet by the end of the year Lumley only won the All-Star voting by 25 points, which means that Sawchuk must have solidly outpointed him in end of season voting.

Given his team's defensive reputation, the heavy GAA bias of the time and the unusual voting circumstances, I tend to agree with TDMM that Lumley's First Team All-Stars shouldn't necessarily be given a lot of weight.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:31 PM
  #142
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Harry Lumley (25 years old) to Toronto by Chicago for Al Rollins (25), Gus Mortson (28), Cal Gardner (27) and Ray Hannigan (24, career AHL), September 11, 1952.

At that point, Lumley had played 7 full seasons in the NHL, and Al Rollins had played 1.5 full seasons.

Toronto obviously expected Lumley to be a significant improvement over Rollins.
Which tells me that he must have been playing damn good (and wasn't mediocre as you stated) for Toronto to have given up so much.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:31 PM
  #143
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
Yeah I meant the 47-48 season. My bad.

And that's true, but it sounds like when he lost it to Sawchuk in 55, he was on the lesser team. I just posted a quote to that effect, and it sounds like Lumley carried the team.
1955 is when Lumley was the Hart-runner up to Ted Kennedy, so it was definitely a great season.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:33 PM
  #144
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Which tells me that he must have been playing damn good (and wasn't mediocre as you stated) for Toronto to have given up so much.
I was implicitly using a set of the 6 starting goalies in the league when I used the word "mediocre." Maybe it was a poor choice of words. But the voters were clear - Lumley was not getting recognition as a top goalie in the Original 6 until he was traded to Toronto.

Rayner's Rangers were almost as bad as the Blackhawks, and that didn't stop him from getting recognition, right?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:36 PM
  #145
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
What do you make of the fact that the Leafs traded 4 players to get Lumley after the 51-52 season? Why would they do that unless Lumley had played extremely well in his 2 Blackhawk seasons?
I think this is an interesting point in terms of evaluative criteria, because it also impacts other goalies. What is more important, awards voting for a specific season which is based on what a goalie actually achieved and is often largely influenced by circumstance, or what observers think about a goalie overall? I've gone on record several times as saying that one season is not a large sample size for goalies and that voters tend to be biased in different ways, so I think there is a lot of merit in looking at observer opinions beyond awards voting.

However, it is important to look at all the data points and take into account reputations at the time. As TDMM points out, it is reasonable that Lumley would be rated higher than Rollins since his career achievements were vastly superior. And given that Rollins went on to surpass Lumley's statistics in Chicago (I think even when you adjust for the rest of the guys coming over in that trade), the counterargument is that Toronto simply got it wrong. Rollins' Hart recognition, added to the achievements of someone like Rayner, kind of indicates that Lumley may have been good for Chicago but he probably wasn't any better than a lot of other guys were doing on bottom feeders, and reinforces the idea that a good part of the separation between Lumley and other good O6 goalies was situational.

The reputation vs. awards argument is also an argument that can be made in favour of Curtis Joseph, a guy that really didn't have a particularly strong Vezina record but still was routinely rated among the league's best for a long period of time, started repeatedly for Canada in best-on-best tournaments, and was a highly sought after free agent and one of the league's highest-paid goalies.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:38 PM
  #146
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Chuck Rayner has been proposed as a superior goalie. Same Chuck Rayner who was replaced by Jim Henry during the 1947-48 season.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NYR/1948.html

Overall Rayner, a more mature goalie, was the weakest of the five HHOF goalies in the NHL during the late 1940's.
Replaced by Henry after being injured. Rayner started the first 10 games of the season, and came back and was the Rangers goalie for the playoffs.

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:39 PM
  #147
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post

Given his team's defensive reputation, the heavy GAA bias of the time and the unusual voting circumstances, I tend to agree with TDMM that Lumley's First Team All-Stars shouldn't necessarily be given a lot of weight.
I thought that until I looked at it closer - but what do you make of the fact that he finished 4th, then 2nd in Hart voting in those two years?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:40 PM
  #148
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I was implicitly using a set of the 6 starting goalies in the league when I used the word "mediocre." Maybe it was a poor choice of words. But the voters were clear - Lumley was not getting recognition as a top goalie in the Original 6 until he was traded to Toronto.

Rayner's Rangers were almost as bad as the Blackhawks, and that didn't stop him from getting recognition, right?
WRONG. Rangers were a much better team. In 51, Rangers had 61 points and Hawks had 36. In 52 Rangers had 59 and Hawks 43.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:41 PM
  #149
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 6,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
Found an interesting newspaper article from late 1954 about the Leafs and their style of play at the time:

The other thing is that All-Star voting in 1954 and 1955 was done on the two votes basis, one at midseason and one at the end of the season. In both years Lumley solidly beat out Sawchuk in the first half but lost ground in the second half. The 1954-55 voting is particularly notable, given that Lumley was almost unanimously voted into first place for the first half where he held a 1.69 - 1.91 GAA lead over Sawchuk (the Jan. 17, 1955 Ottawa Citizen gives him 89 out of a maximum 90 points, which makes no sense considering that a 5-3-1 voting system can't result in 89 points, but presumably they meant 88/90). Yet by the end of the year Lumley only won the All-Star voting by 25 points, which means that Sawchuk must have solidly outpointed him in end of season voting.

Given his team's defensive reputation, the heavy GAA bias of the time and the unusual voting circumstances, I tend to agree with TDMM that Lumley's First Team All-Stars shouldn't necessarily be given a lot of weight.
That doesn't explain the 1953-54 season, though. And I posted an article in my bio of Lumley that said that although the Leafs were on the right track, they weren't quite proper fits into the defensive system. And if you're going to play that game, shouldn't Sawchuk be equally discredited due to the team he played behind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I was implicitly using a set of the 6 starting goalies in the league when I used the word "mediocre." Maybe it was a poor choice of words. But the voters were clear - Lumley was not getting recognition as a top goalie in the Original 6 until he was traded to Toronto.

Rayner's Rangers were almost as bad as the Blackhawks, and that didn't stop him from getting recognition, right?
He got recognition in 1950, at least, when he was traded to the Black Hawks, as one of the best goalies of that time. I honestly think part of the difficulty with Lumley is that he sits firmly in between two eras.

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 01:41 PM
  #150
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,760
vCash: 500
In Other Words....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Personally, when I evaluate a historical player, I care about how good they were and what they accomplished, not how old they were when they accomplished it. It was an excellent season for a 19 year old, followed by mediocre seasons in his early 20s.

In other words, if you want a list of 19 year old NHLers who got recognition, feel free to make it yourself



Mowers played a grand total of 7 NHL games after missing 3 seasons due to the war, so I'm not sure how much credit we can give Lumley for beating him out. If Mowers was still NHL-calibre, he would have at least been able to stick around the AHL after the War, right?



How much credit can you give Lumley for his Red Wings winning a single Cup, though? Before 1950, they were known for losing repeatedly to Toronto in the playoffs. 1950 was notable for finally "getting the Toronto monkey off their backs." And it's hard to give Lumley more credit than Rayner for 1950. Rayner got more praise in the press, and was awarded the 1950 Retroactive Conn Smythe by the HHOF committee in a losing cause.



Actually, I'm undecided as to who I prefer, though I am leaning towards Rayner.

But I do need to give context to what you said:

Jim Henry returned from the War and the Rangers didn't want to abandon him. But they didn't want to give up on Rayner either, so they started what has been called hockey's "first two goalie system" where they alternated starts. Then Rayner got injured, and they went with Henry the rest of the year. In 1948-49, Rayner got his job back and was named Rangers MVP, just like he was in 1946-47. Any semi-complete profile of Rayner that you can find with google will tell you this



Where's your evidence that the NHL coaches who voted on the All Star teams and the media members who voted for the Hart were wrong?

Listen, I do think there's probably a good case for Lumley over Rayner, but I think it depends on what Lumley did after Rayner retired.
So which is it - age matters or not? Revisit your position on an old Lehman and a young Lumley.

1950 playoffs, semi finals, Red Wings without Howe, down 3-2 in games. Lumley blanks the Leafs in games 6 and 7. Wings go to the Finals. Indicator that Lumley played a significant role.

Let's see? Your position has been that coaches and media get things wrong in AST voting - Bill Durnan.Now your position is that the same coaches that got it wrong for Durnan got it right for Rayner.

The noble Rangers. Rayner was a free agent signing with the Rangers after WWII, so the loyalty to Henry position is questionable. Also the Rangers were the weakest NHL team at that time. Seems like the Rangers were the only team that wanted Rayner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Rayner

As for alternating/tandem with Jim Henry, the GP data does not support your assertion:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...henryji01.html

1945-46 Henry played 11 games, 1946-47 - 2 games. Hardly alternating.

1947-48 Henry played 48. Rayner spent 15 games in the minors. 10 is more than sufficient for rehab.

Assuming Mowers wanted to stick around the AHL. Was there a future for him? This is the rub with the pre 1943 NHL goalies - Henry, Bibeault, Mowers, Rayner, Brimsek, - the young next wave of the 1939- 43 era. How good were they? Bottom 1/3 to 1/2 in a six team league by the late 1940s?

Canadiens1958 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 03:26 AM.

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.