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, 05:25 PM
  #176
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Nice Story But.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
His HHOF profile indicates that he was injured partly through 1951-52 and wasn't the same afterwards:



It also lists 1947-48, the only season between the war and 1952-53 when Rayner wasn't a full-time starter



http://www.hhof.com/htmlSpotlight/sp...ep197302.shtml

Only one set of goalie gloves? The Rangers were truly pathetic, lol.
Nice story but ask the obvious question -"How did the Rangers get thru training camp with both goalies in camp and inter squad games requiring that both play?"

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 05:28 PM
  #177
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 22,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Nice story but ask the obvious question -"How did the Rangers get thru training camp with both goalies in camp and inter squad games requiring that both play?"
True. I wonder if this is a case of "there's nothing fun about telling a boring story".

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 05:41 PM
  #178
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
True. I wonder if this is a case of "there's nothing fun about telling a boring story".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Nice story but ask the obvious question -"How did the Rangers get thru training camp with both goalies in camp and inter squad games requiring that both play?"
Heh, maybe it's just a tongue-in-cheek jab at how cheap the Rangers were at the time.

Guess I "fell for it" or something.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 05:42 PM
  #179
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
I appreciate all the research being done on Rayner/Lumley, but the only thing it's helping me decide is that neither of the two are going to break into my top 3 this round. Still undecided on who's the better of the two and still undecided if either is worthy of the 4th spot this round. In other words...Keep it coming!


EDIT: In the meantime, I'm going to try to work on something that compares Barrasso, Beezer, and Cujo


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 12-18-2012 at 06:46 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 05:45 PM
  #180
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Heh, maybe it's just a tongue-in-cheek jab at how cheap the Rangers were at the time.

Guess I "fell for it" or something.
Cheaping out probably messed up construction of the Gardens, too (beyond the sight lines and ventilation, lol), forcing them to skate uphill two periods of every home game. (big sarcasm on the "cheaping out", since just under $5 million is a LOT in 1925 dollars)

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 06:19 PM
  #181
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Entertainment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
True. I wonder if this is a case of "there's nothing fun about telling a boring story".
After all sport is about entertainment.

This is true at many levels and has to be considered at all times in these discussions. The original awards and honors were a function of entertainment - sell newspapers, the game, the personalities while entertaining the viewer and reader.

Taking such accounts to be purely historical in nature with an eye to how they would be interpreted generations down the road should be avoided.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 06:29 PM
  #182
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 22,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
After all sport is about entertainment.

This is true at many levels and has to be considered at all times in these discussions. The original awards and honors were a function of entertainment - sell newspapers, the game, the personalities while entertaining the viewer and reader.

Taking such accounts to be purely historical in nature with an eye to how they would be interpreted generations down the road should be avoided.
Agreed - Rob Neyer did a fantastic book called "The Big Book of Baseball Legends" (or something like that), where he takes 50 or so legends and evaluates them from a truthiness perspective. There's a storytelling element to older news that doesn't really exist any longer (for good and for bad).

EDIT - here:
http://www.amazon.com/Rob-Neyers-Boo.../dp/B001O9CB7G


I'd love to see someone do this for hockey (and have considered it, although my workload would have to be much lower).

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 06:41 PM
  #183
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Differences

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Agreed - Rob Neyer did a fantastic book called "The Big Book of Baseball Legends" (or something like that), where he takes 50 or so legends and evaluates them from a truthiness perspective. There's a storytelling element to older news that doesn't really exist any longer (for good and for bad).

EDIT - here:
http://www.amazon.com/Rob-Neyers-Boo.../dp/B001O9CB7G


I'd love to see someone do this for hockey (and have considered it, although my workload would have to be much lower).
Too many cultural differences may get in the way for hockey. Baseball had the New York and east coast media that was hype driven due to the high concentration of newspapers.

Hockey would have to consider the cross Canada cultural differences, the English and French polarities, the novelty factor entering the US markets plus the various European perspectives.

A daunting task.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-18-2012, 06:43 PM
  #184
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 22,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Too many cultural differences may get in the way for hockey. Baseball had the New York and east coast media that was hype driven due to the high concentration of newspapers.

Hockey would have to consider the cross Canada cultural differences, the English and French polarities, the novelty factor entering the US markets plus the various European perspectives.

A daunting task.
And exactly why I think that it'd be a very interesting read once finished.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 04:39 PM
  #185
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I appreciate all the research being done on Rayner/Lumley, but the only thing it's helping me decide is that neither of the two are going to break into my top 3 this round. Still undecided on who's the better of the two and still undecided if either is worthy of the 4th spot this round. In other words...Keep it coming!


EDIT: In the meantime, I'm going to try to work on something that compares Barrasso, Beezer, and Cujo
Just out of curiosity, why do you think Worsley separates himself from Rayner and Lumley? Is it the three Cups or is there more to it than that?

Looking forward to see more detailed comparisons of Barrasso, Beezer, and Cujo. It's hard not to be impressed by the fact that Barrasso is a 5-time Vezina finalist who was an important part of 2 Cup winners. I know 70s said Barrasso is like a rich man's Mike Vernon with his highs and lows, but that would also make him a poor man's Ed Belfour, right?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 05:48 PM
  #186
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
A quick case for Tom Barrasso over Ed Giacomin

Best 5 regular seasons = close?
Ed Giacomin: 5-time Postseason All Star (2 1st, 3 2nd)
Tom Barrasso: 5-time Vezina finalist (1 1st, 3 2nd, 1 3rd)

Honestly, I think the above is quite close, possibly a small advantage for Giacomin. If you're me, you question some of Giacomin's recognition since some of it seems to have been by default (1 of the 1st Teams happened when every goalie but Giacomin and Crozier was in a tandem, and Crozier missed the playoffs). But even if you take Giacomin's All-Star record at face value, it's awfully close to Barrasso's Vezina peak.

Counterargument: Giacomin's best 5 years were in a row (1967-1971), while Barrasso's are spread out (1984, 1985, 1988, 1993, 1998), which shows regular season consistency for Giacomin during his short prime.

Barrasso had some good seasons outside his best 5 years

I realize Barrasso was very up and down outside his best 5 seasons, but he certainly accomplished more than Giacomin, who was a tandem goalie who didn't distinguish himself from his partner, right?

Barrasso has a much better playoff record
The huge difference is the playoffs - Barrasso was a big part of back-to-back Cup winners (with a confirmed distant 2nd place finish in Smythe voting to Lemieux in 1992), while Giacomin's playoff record is pretty subpar.

Barrasso wasn't always good in the playoffs - he was bad in 1993, for example, but he certainly has much higher highs than Giacomin there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by intylerwetrust View Post
more all-star team selections than any other up there if Im not mistaken
And that's why I don't like Giacomin even this round - He does have the best All-Star record if you look at 1st and 2nd Teams, but he wasn't even a full-time starter in any season outside that 5 year stretch. And if you look at the Vezina voting, Barrasso has a similar record to Eddie's All Star record, but with a better playoff record.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 06:21 PM
  #187
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,421
vCash: 500
Barrasso seems to be the weakest link to me (by the "mind's eye" test) out of the glut of contemporaries up there. Great first season, but outside of the '91 playoffs and the '92/93 Year of the Lemieux/Jagr Dragon he really doesn't have much to hang his hat on. I mean, he barely compares to Fuhr - as direct competition as a contemporary that you could probably hope to find - and imo Cujo and Beezer (despite the lack of Cup ring) can be shown to compare quite favourably to Belfour (who has obviously already been added to the fold).

Just to take a look, I fired up the count-a-majig to find out the stats for the decade between '91/92 and '01/02 (the decade of overlap with these guys as starters): [link to table] (limited to goalies who averaged 40 games/year over that period... arbitrarily "half" of a team's games)

Sure enough, you see Cujo, Beezer, and Belfour right there together in the group under Hasek/Roy/Brodeur when ranked by SV%. Now, I think Beezer had a lot of really good years that get cut off (that might even put him over the edge of them in some regards, but SV%s from the 80s don't usually look nice "raw"), so that's part of the nebula. Individual and team accolades/strengths/weaknesses, rhetoric, and anecdotes/observation factored in, I still think a person could value any one of those guys (Cujo, Beezer, Belfour, maybe even Fuhr and Barrasso) over the others.

Where Giacomin slots in is harder to peg. I almost think he has to be considered among the other Cup-less chaps (better than the ass-less kind?) than Barrasso at the lower end (despite his Cups). I almost think Giacomin and Beezer should be close to each other as workhorse guys asked to give a bit more behind teams with less to give, lol. Long uninterrupted pattern of strong regular seasons but not more than a handful of real quality playoff stories. And Fuhr and Barrasso should be compared to each other as the guys who wrote the highlights of their careers largely behind half of the dynasties represented in the "Top 4".

So I guess my first instinct is to go Giacomin over Beezer, and Fuhr over Barrasso, but I have no idea where to slide Joseph into all of that. Either in between the two groups, or at the end. Depends somewhat on the playoff/Cup value vs all-star nomination weight(s), 'cause Fuhr could (should?) be considered top of them all. Messy round. Results should be interesting.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 12-19-2012 at 06:28 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 06:44 PM
  #188
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,982
vCash: 500
As a Penguin fan, I don't think Barrasso has much to stand on in this round. I don't know his Buffalo days all that well, mind you, but he's not any where near Fuhr territory I don't believe.

I'm kind of thinking similarly, O_J, messy is a good way to put it. There's no way I'm not putting Fuhr at number one, as I think it's a tad bit silly to be still talking about him. I'm pretty sure Gump is 2, at least it seems that way...not that he's a sterling medalist at this point either, there seems to be less negatives about him at least vs. Lumley and Rayner.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 06:45 PM
  #189
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,598
vCash: 500
I posted these tables already for Lumley, Worsley, Cheevers, Giacomin, and Vachon in post #110. One update for this round of tables was the inclusion of Taco's Goal Differentials and Goals above Replacement (goofily called "Goals AR" in the tables because I don't know how to manually enter widths).

Just 1500 minutes (1000 for lockout shortened '95) was the threshold used for the League Rank columns.

I find these tables helpful as you can see exactly what went into the awards earned each year. I think it also helps look at how low the lulls were in each goalies career.

Tom Barrasso
YearTeamGPSave %(Average %)League RankGAALeague RankGoal DifferentialGoals ARAll-StarVezina
1984BUF42.893 (.873)T32.84223.338.711
1985BUF54.887 (.875)52.66116.135.322
1986BUF60.880 (.874)153.61149.936.589
1987BUF46.874 (.880)313.65T30-8.010.0  
1988BUF54.896 (.880)T33.311127.152.032
1989BUF/PIT54.880 (.879)T184.2130-10.6/12.6-6.4/34.3 7
1990PIT24.865 (.881) 4.68 -12.3-1.0  
1991PIT48.896 (.886)T83.59T2415.539.2  
1992PIT57.885 (.888)153.5318-5.819.7  
1993PIT63.901 (.885)43.01331.960.222
1994PIT44.893 (.895)233.3628-2.217.3  
1995PIT2.892 (.901) 3.84 -0.50.6  
1996PIT49.902 (.898)T223.43325.329.7  
1997PIT5.860 (.905) 5.78 -8.3-5.5  
1998PIT63.922 (.906)T22.07324.547.943
1999PIT43.901 (.908)T272.5521-6.58.4  
2000PIT/OTT25.880 (.904) 3.17 -9.2/-4.6-3.4/-1.9  
2002CAR/TOR38.907 (.908)T152.6225-1.3/0.112.0/1.8  
2003STL6.879 (.909) 3.28 -4.0-2.0  

Grant Fuhr
YearTeamGPSave %(Average %)League RankGAALeague RankGoal DifferentialGoals ARAll-StarVezina
1982EDM48.898 (.873)T23.31540.663.822
1983EDM32.867 (.875)T244.2929-8.16.5  
1984EDM45.883 (.873)T123.912014.336.3 6
1985EDM46.884 (.875)T93.872214.235.696
1986EDM40.890 (.874)T63.18220.439.933
1987EDM44.881 (.880)T223.44T180.918.133
1988EDM75.881 (.880)193.43T142.433.311
1989EDM59.876 (.879)243.83T21-6.519.2 8
1990EDM21.868 (.881) 3.89 -6.81.1  
1991EDM13.897 (.886) 3.014.310.0   
1992TOR66.881 (.888)T223.6622-14.314.7  
1993TOR/BUF58.893 (.885)T83.30T116.0/8.219.6/20.6  
1994BUF32.883 (.885)323.68T35-11.02.6  
1995BUF/LAK17.873 (.901) 4.03 -3.6/-9.4-2.3/-3.7  
1996STL79.903 (.898)T192.87T1710.042.366
1997STL73.901 (.905)T242.72T18-8.420.7  
1998STL58.898 (.906)272.5318-11.39.0  
1999STL39.892 (.908)T332.44T16-12.9-0.5  
2000CGY23.856 (.904) 3.83 -26.0-17.9  

Curtis Joseph
YearTeamGPSave %(Average %)League RankGAALeague RankGoal DifferentialGoals ARAll-StarVezina
1990STL15.890 (.881) 3.38 3.710.3  
1991STL30.898 (.886)T63.12T1010.823.9  
1992STL60.910 (.888)23.01645.174.48 
1993STL68.911 (.885)13.02459.592.643
1994STL71.911 (.895)63.102238.374.0 4
1995STL36.902 (.901)T182.79160.914.5  
1996EDM34.886 (.898)333.4433-12.62.0  
1997EDM72.907 (.905)162.93284.436.6 5
1998EDM71.905 (.906)T172.6320-2.925.7  
1999TOR67.910 (.908)T142.56224.633.242
2000TOR63.915 (.904)72.491819.847.653
2001TOR68.915 (.903)T92.39T1522.150.7 8
2002TOR51.906 (.908)T192.2312-2.415.7  
2003DET61.912 (.909)T152.49194.930.0  
2004DET31.909 (.911)T282.39T24-1.79.4  
2006PHX60.902 (.901)T202.91230.926.2  
2007PHX55.893 (.905)T373.19T38-18.93.4  
2008CGY9.906 (.909) 2.55 -0.62.2  
2009TOR21.869 (.908) 3.57 -15.1-9.4  

John Vanbiesbrouck
YearTeamGPSave %(Average %)League RankGAALeague RankGoal DifferentialGoals ARAll-StarVezina
1982NYR1.967 (.873) 1.00 2.83.3  
1984NYR3.882 (.873) 3.33 0.72.0  
1985NYR42.877 (.875)T164.22252.823.0  
1986NYR61.887 (.874)T93.32521.045.311
1987NYR50.882 (.880)T193.64293.323.9 6
1988NYR56.890 (.880)103.381317.943.496
1989NYR56.882 (.879)T143.69224.029.0 4
1990NYR47.887 (.881)T143.38158.128.5  
1991NYR40.891 (.886)T163.35T195.723.0  
1992NYR45.910 (.888)T22.85429.649.6 6
1993NYR48.900 (.885)53.31T1324.147.0  
1994FLA57.924 (.895)22.53457.386.022
1995FLA37.914 (.901)T42.47913.828.8 6
1996FLA57.904 (.898)182.68T87.829.9 7
1997FLA57.919 (.905)T52.29523.347.048
1998FLA60.899 (.906)262.8727-11.812.8  
1999PHI62.902 (.908)262.186-7.912.8  
2000PHI50.906 (.904)T222.2051.318.4  
2001NYI/NJD48.901 (.903)T262.87313.0/-6.24.4/11.4  
2002NJD5.915 (.908) 2.00 0.82.5  

Tim Thomas
YearTeamGPSave %(Average %)League RankGAALeague RankGoal DifferentialGoals ARAll-StarVezina
2003BOS4.907 (.909) 3.00 -0.21.5  
2006BOS38.917 (.901)72.771719.137.3  
2007BOS68.905 (.905)263.1335-0.729.1  
2008BOS57.921 (.909)T42.44T1521.847.8109
2009BOS54.933 (.908)12.10141.466.911
2010BOS43.915 (.911)T142.56174.422.7  
2011BOS57.938 (.913)12.00146.974.111
2012BOS59.920 (.914)T102.36T1211.736.6  


Last edited by Rob Scuderi: 12-19-2012 at 08:51 PM. Reason: added Fuhr, GD and GAR for multi team years
Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 07:25 PM
  #190
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
As a Penguin fan, I don't think Barrasso has much to stand on in this round. I don't know his Buffalo days all that well, mind you, but he's not any where near Fuhr territory I don't believe.
Obviously, Vezina voting isn't everything, but Barrasso does have a slightly better Vezina record than Fuhr (and a better record anyone else not yet added), and most of it is from Buffalo.

Vezina record in Buffalo: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 9th in 5 seasons
In 1989 (split between Pittsburgh and Buffalo): 7th
Vezina record in Pittsburgh: 2nd, 3rd in 10.5 seasons

For all the slack Barasso gets about being up and down in Pittsburgh (and he was), he was actually quite consistent early on - Vezina finalist in 3 of his first 5 seasons, received at least a vote for the Vezina (which means an NHL GM thought he was a top 3 goalie) in 5 of his first 6 seasons.

Edit: Barrasso was also at least 30 goals above replacement in 5 of his first 6 seasons, according to the tables above.

Quote:
I'm kind of thinking similarly, O_J, messy is a good way to put it. There's no way I'm not putting Fuhr at number one, as I think it's a tad bit silly to be still talking about him. I'm pretty sure Gump is 2, at least it seems that way...not that he's a sterling medalist at this point either, there seems to be less negatives about him at least vs. Lumley and Rayner.
It's definitely messy. It's definitely reasonable to have Fuhr/Worsley 1/2 and I'm considering doing so myself, but is that just doing the easy thing and throwing the two remaining dynasty goalies in the top 2 spots?

Does Worsley have fewer negatives than Lumley or Rayner? I honestly think he might have more negatives - Rayner never lost his starting job on merit until he was older (in 1948, there was Henry coming back from the war and an injury involved and Rayner got the job back by the playoff), and if Lumley lost his starting job, it was when he was older and there was a holdout involved. Worsley was in a tandem a couple of times in NY and had trouble establishing himself as the starter in Montreal. On the other hand, Worsley definitely has more positives than those two - namely winning 4 Cups, 2 as a starter, 1 in a tandem with Charlie Hodge, and 1 in a tandem with Rogie Vachon.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-19-2012 at 07:30 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 07:42 PM
  #191
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,982
vCash: 500
Well, I thought Fuhr was a high choice last time around. And he was upset...I was upset. So I can't - in all likelihood - be talked out of that.

Gump is the easy choice for #2, you're right. Easy in the sense that you stated. I don't know what else to do with the spot though. It's alarming how limited the talent pool is for goaltending in history when you break it down like this...it felt like such a big pool, but we're already at tandem goalies and journeymen and all that...I'm glad we didn't elect to do 60 or some audacious figure like that..."oh look, Jimmy Waite is up for discussion..."

That's the one thing that causes me to pause re: Barrasso - his Vezina nominations. I believe in the GMs vote more than the media's. In fact, I'm trying to put together a table that has the "Vezina rank" / "All Star rank" and then each of the major statistical categories rank (GP, W, GAA, Sv%, SO) to see if there's any case for GMs using their talent evaluation skills to outweigh stats. Let's see how it turns out...if it turns out...I literally just started...

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 07:58 PM
  #192
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
He had a poor season, or the team had a poor season, and Lumley was the focus of some (unwarranted?) fan hate?
I think Lumley probably had a poor season, yes. Putting up a .912 on the Leafs in 1952-53 is not very impressive, considering that it ranked 5th out of 6 starters while league average was .916. Rollins was at .918 in Chicago, Henry was at .918 in Boston, and it is highly doubtful either of them had better team defences than Toronto's. Lumley went from the worst team in the league to one of the best defensively, and yet his league average adjusted save percentage only went up by .006. I don't see any way to argue that Chicago had a huge negative impact on his save percentage while at the same time letting Lumley off the hook for his first season in Toronto.

Lumley's Toronto tenure is perhaps an example of how "boom-and-bust" goalies can sometimes perhaps be overrated by evaluation schemes that rely heavily on awards voting. Lumley had two First All-Star years surrounded by years where he finished 5th and 6th in save percentage. Despite the two impressive awards, if you look at those four years combined Lumley's results do not look like anything special compared to the other goalies with >75 GP:

1. Jacques Plante: 136 GP, .929
2. Terry Sawchuk: 266 GP, .924
3. Glenn Hall: 78 GP, .923
4. Gerry McNeil: 119 GP, .921
5. Harry Lumley: 267 GP, .918
6. Jim Henry: 166 GP, .914
7. Gump Worsley: 185 GP, .914
8. Al Rollins: 238 GP, .908

Factoring in team defence, is Lumley clearly better in terms of save percentage than any of those other goalies? Maybe Rollins, but still I don't think .010 is an unreasonable team effect gap between Toronto and Chicago, particularly with the way the Leafs apparently played defence under Clancy. Maybe McNeil, if you want to argue that Montreal's defence was even better than Toronto's. Lumley was certainly not as consistently good as the top three guys, and there's not much between Lumley and Henry or Worsley, even though both of them guys played on worse teams.

Lumley deserves credit for all those games played, and it isn't really all that embarrassing to finish behind guys like Plante, Sawchuk and Hall, but where's the evidence of separation between Lumley and Henry, McNeil, Rollins, etc., even during the peak of Lumley's career?

If instead of going .912-.923-.929-.905 Lumley went .918-.918-.918-.918 over the same number of games played, he would have contributed exactly as much to the Toronto Maple Leafs as he actually did in terms of goals prevented. If anything the consistent version of Lumley would have been more valuable to the team considering that they missed the playoffs by just 2 points in 1952-53 and would have allowed 12 fewer goals against with .918 goaltending, while finishing at least 10 points clear of the 5th place team in both of Lumley's big years.

However, consistent Lumley would have ranked 5-5-4-4 in save percentage instead of 5-2-1-6, and probably would have never been an All-Star or attracted much Hart Trophy attention. Take those things off his resume, and is he still up for voting at this point in the ranking? Maybe not, yet really he would have been every bit as good.

Obviously there are team effects from having different players and coaches so having the same numbers four years in a row is a little unrealistic even if the goalie performance was identical, but I really do think the All-Star + Hart voting = goalie value approach is very problematic once we get outside the top 20 and are looking at goalies who don't have piles of award recognition. I think that approach often rewards randomness, inconsistency and the luck of the draw in terms of team situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Keep in mind, I'm not pushing for Lumley to be high in the vote, and I'm fully aware that I'm covering more of why Lumley isn't as bad as his detractors believe, and less of why Lumley is as good as his supporters believe.
I was a quite a big Lumley skeptic on my original list, but I have moved him up some after this discussion. As someone pointed out earlier, all the goalies have some warts at this stage.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 08:06 PM
  #193
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Gump Worsley

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post




It's definitely messy. It's definitely reasonable to have Fuhr/Worsley 1/2 and I'm considering doing so myself, but is that just doing the easy thing and throwing the two remaining dynasty goalies in the top 2 spots?

Does Worsley have fewer negatives than Lumley or Rayner? I honestly think he might have more negatives - Rayner never lost his starting job on merit until he was older (in 1948, there was Henry coming back from the war and an injury involved and Rayner got the job back by the playoff), and if Lumley lost his starting job, it was when he was older and there was a holdout involved. Worsley was in a tandem a couple of times in NY and had trouble establishing himself as the starter in Montreal. On the other hand, Worsley definitely has more positives than those two - namely winning 4 Cups, 2 as a starter, 1 in a tandem with Charlie Hodge, and 1 in a tandem with Rogie Vachon.
Tremendously overrating Gump Worsley here. Cup counting at its worse. During the four seasons that the Canadiens won the SC with Worsley he appeared in a total of 140 regular season games = average of 35 games. Remove a 51 games season and the average dips to under 30 games. This is about the number of games Bunny Larocque played per season as Ken Dryden's back-up. Basically a tandem goalie all the way thru with the Canadiens.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...worslgu01.html

Lumley and Rayner were much better goalies. Reasons listed above plus previously in the thread.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 08:34 PM
  #194
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,338
vCash: 500
Decided to be back.

Having a long look at Alec Connell's career.

Judging by results, and composition of the team, I suspect he was robbed of a AST berth (likely 3rd and probably 2nd -- why did Worters ended up with that one?!?!?!) -- it's not like the Falcons were great, and remember, Goodfellow wasn't yet a D.

Who was the 3rd AST in 31-32?

I really like Connell for this round : certain Top-8 as far as I'm concerned.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 08:41 PM
  #195
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Obviously, Vezina voting isn't everything, but Barrasso does have a slightly better Vezina record than Fuhr (and a better record anyone else not yet added), and most of it is from Buffalo.

Vezina record in Buffalo: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 9th in 5 seasons
In 1989 (split between Pittsburgh and Buffalo): 7th
Vezina record in Pittsburgh: 2nd, 3rd in 10.5 seasons

For all the slack Barasso gets about being up and down in Pittsburgh (and he was), he was actually quite consistent early on - Vezina finalist in 3 of his first 5 seasons, received at least a vote for the Vezina (which means an NHL GM thought he was a top 3 goalie) in 5 of his first 6 seasons.

Edit: Barrasso was also at least 30 goals above replacement in 5 of his first 6 seasons, according to the tables above.
I think Barrasso may be getting punished because the second half of his career wasn't close to as good as the first half, and that's how people are remembering him.

Here are his first 10 seasons...

1. Wins Vezina
(in-between seasons has a pretty good Canada Cup as starter for the U.S.)
2. Vezina runner-up
3. 9th in Vezina voting (one vote)
4. nothing of note
5. Vezina runner-up
6. 7th in Vezina voting (one vote)
7. Injured
8. Won Stanley Cup *
9. Won Stanley Cup*
10. Vezina runner-up

*From the research I posted about the back-to-back Cups he was the 2nd best Penguin behind Mario both years.

After those first 10 years, his only real noteworthy accomplishment is a 3rd place Vezina finish behind Hasek and Brodeur in his 15th season.

Do any of the remaining goalies outside of maybe Fuhr have a 10 year stretch that can compare with this? I think people may look at him differently if those first 10 years were at the middle or end of his career instead of the very beginning.

As I said before I will be giving a comparison of Barrasso, Beezer, and Cujo, which will likely be ready tomorrow, so we will see what that brings, but this is something to think about.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 08:43 PM
  #196
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Decided to be back.

Having a long look at Alec Connell's career.

Judging by results, and composition of the team, I suspect he was robbed of a AST berth (likely 3rd and probably 2nd -- why did Worters ended up with that one?!?!?!) -- it's not like the Falcons were great, and remember, Goodfellow wasn't yet a D.

Who was the 3rd AST in 31-32?

I really like Connell for this round : certain Top-8 as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know; we already have a lot of goalies who peaked in the late 20s on the list (not as many as from the 1970s, but the late 20s looks to be our next most represented period); I guess it maybe was a really strong time for goalies, though hard to separate the low GAAs from the rules at the time.

This is the voting for 1931-32. Connell barely got any recognition:

GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Charlie Gardiner, Chi 21; Tiny Thompson, Bos 3; Roy Worters, NYA 3; John Roach, NYR 2; George Hainsworth, Mtl 2; Lorne Chabot, Tor 1
SECOND TEAM: Roy Worters, NYA 11; George Hainsworth, Mtl 8; Charlie Gardiner, Chi 5; John Roach, NYR 5; Lorne Chabot, Tor 2; Alex Connell, Det 1

Hard to decipher, but assuming 2 points to 1st Team vote, 1 point to 2nd Team vote, that gives:

1. Gardiner 42 (looks like a unanimous 1st Team nod over pretty strong competition)
2. Worters 17
3. Hainsworth 12
4. Roach 9
5. Thompson 6
6. Chabot 4
7. Connel 1

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 08:46 PM
  #197
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Tremendously overrating Gump Worsley here. Cup counting at its worse. During the four seasons that the Canadiens won the SC with Worsley he appeared in a total of 140 regular season games = average of 35 games. Remove a 51 games season and the average dips to under 30 games. This is about the number of games Bunny Larocque played per season as Ken Dryden's back-up. Basically a tandem goalie all the way thru with the Canadiens.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...worslgu01.html

Lumley and Rayner were much better goalies. Reasons listed above plus previously in the thread.
How do you think he compares to the more modern trio of Barrasso, Beezer, and Cujo?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 08:54 PM
  #198
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't know; we already have a lot of goalies who peaked in the late 20s on the list (not as many as from the 1970s, but the late 20s looks to be our next most represented period); I guess it maybe was a really strong time for goalies, though hard to separate the low GAAs from the rules at the time.

This is the voting for 1931-32. Connell barely got any recognition:

GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Charlie Gardiner, Chi 21; Tiny Thompson, Bos 3; Roy Worters, NYA 3; John Roach, NYR 2; George Hainsworth, Mtl 2; Lorne Chabot, Tor 1
SECOND TEAM: Roy Worters, NYA 11; George Hainsworth, Mtl 8; Charlie Gardiner, Chi 5; John Roach, NYR 5; Lorne Chabot, Tor 2; Alex Connell, Det 1

Hard to decipher, but assuming 2 points to 1st Team vote, 1 point to 2nd Team vote, that gives:

1. Gardiner 42 (looks like a unanimous 1st Team nod over pretty strong competition)
2. Worters 17
3. Hainsworth 12
4. Roach 9
5. Thompson 6
6. Chabot 4
7. Connel 1
I fail to see how a guy like Roach could end up with so many recognition, when you consider both teams... AND the fact that Connel's team actually surrendered LESS goals than Roach's.

Unless there's really something I should know about Alex Smith or Doug Young.

The same could be said for Hainsworth as well.

Besides, Worters's replacement (Jake Forbes -- not bad, but not exactly a candidate for this list either) did play a somewhat significant amount of games (6). Results? Exactly the same. (The Amerks were winning a bit more, but that's pretty irrelevant).

To me, AST voting that years looks sketchy.
At best.

I obviously have nothing against Gardiner's 1st AST, which seems to totally make sense.

EDIT : I'm not advocating that Connel is the BAG. But you could say that I'm advocating that he certainly doesn't belong in what I'd call the lower-tier category that won't get much support. To me, he's a clear Top-8 in the round.


Last edited by MXD: 12-19-2012 at 09:06 PM.
MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 09:05 PM
  #199
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
Ordering

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
How do you think he compares to the more modern trio of Barrasso, Beezer, and Cujo?
Barrasso>Cujo>Worsley>Beezer

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-19-2012, 09:28 PM
  #200
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,982
vCash: 500
I'll certainly re-visit my opinion of Gump. I came to this thinking that he was just a "likable loser" - not that he lost a lot, but that he wasn't an elite guy but very likable, a guy you could have a beer with. In fact, from the looks of Gump - described sometimes as a "bloated fire hydrant" - he may have a couple beer head start.

Is there any significant difference - perceived, I suppose - between say early-mid 1950's hockey and the hockey right before the league expanded (late 50's through mid-60's) in terms of talent level? Quality? The effects from the War were probably wearing off or almost completely worn off by the time the early 1950's rolled around. Is there any further talent bulge right before expansion that made the fans/league/players/coaches/any combination of the sort to believe that they had the pool to expand now (1966/1967 area)?

My question obviously directly relates to the goaltenders of the times in question. But not so much for the competition against other goalies (while relevant), but the defenders defending them, the shooters shooting on them.

Mike Farkas is online now   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 11:59 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.