I think there's a pretty strong case that John Ross Roach might belong here...or, if not, is a strong enough case to eliminate Alec Connell from contention...and I've had Connell on my ballot the last two rounds (low, but still on it). But when researching Connell, I accidently stumbled upon a lot more good news about Roach. It might be anecdotal, but with these all-time greats, superlatives are not far out of reach. And generally, Connell just doesn't get them, Roach does. It seems odd, but it's very, very reasonable to assume that Roach was considered better than Connell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottawa Citizen - Oct. 18, 1928
One of the greatest goal tenders in professional hockey, John Ross Roach, of the Toronto Maple Leafs was traded today to the New York Rangers for Goalie Lorne Chabot and a cash consideration of about $10,000 (another source later says $12,500) adding a final bulwark to the great strength of the world champions. ||| Roach, one of the most popular goalies in the National League, is ranked second to Roy Worters of Pittsburgh. He has played with Toronto since 1925 and twice helped win the Stanley Cup...||| the article goes on to state that there's a lot of tension between the Rangers and Americans because the Americans had opened negotiations with Roach and the Rangers cut in and swiped him.
I can never find the post about the "unofficial managers all-star teams" from 1927-1930, but what does it say about 1927? If I recall, the full voting is from 1928, but 1927 we just know that Worters was first? If so, is it fair to read this as Roach being 2nd team All-Star for '27 given that - by my eyes - he's not second to Worters in any statistical category. If so, that would give him a 2nd team in a 10-team league to go along with his 1st team in '33, it's something at this point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Providence News - Nov. 15, 1928
The trade which brought the Rangers John Ross Roach, one of the finest goalies in the league, from Toronto...strengthened the New York team to a point where it is a favorite to walk off with most of the honors.[
Another source indicates that that was basically the "transaction of the offseason"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Border Cities Star - Oct. 6, 1932
Announcement of negotiations for the purchase of Roach, one of the outstanding goalies of the National League since 1921, was made... [he was bought for $11,000]
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times - Mar. 30, 1933
John Ross Roach, the almost-perfect goalie, was traded up the Red River...
I'm not gonna dumpster dive for little trinkets from individual games, but having researched both Connell and Roach, you get the impression that Roach was a bigger part of his teams and was more responsible for a positive outcome than Connell was for most of his teams. Maybe excepting the 1935 playoffs, which is regarded highly for Connell. It seems like a game to game, year to year, Roach was a more important member of his clubs.
At worst, I'm not sure that Roach can get too far away from Connell...whether that's 39 and 40 or 41 and 42, I'm not sure...
John Ross Roach has good longevity but that is about it.
Compare his GAA against Connell or Chabot, difference is roughly .4 - .5 per game in a low scoring era. Well behind the HHOF goalies of the pre Red Line era. Basically ahead of the Jake Forbes, Wilf Cude types by less than he trails the top HHOF goalies from the era.
To the Cheevers supporters...No one has argued he was better than any of his contemporaries that have already been voted in. So...What is so special about him (or his era) compared to the other candidates (or their eras) that he should be added to the list at this time despite the prime of his career coming during the time period that is easily the most represented already?
I can never find the post about the "unofficial managers all-star teams" from 1927-1930, but what does it say about 1927? If I recall, the full voting is from 1928, but 1927 we just know that Worters was first? If so, is it fair to read this as Roach being 2nd team All-Star for '27 given that - by my eyes - he's not second to Worters in any statistical category. If so, that would give him a 2nd team in a 10-team league to go along with his 1st team in '33, it's something at this point...
1924 - no records of GM voted teams; Roach was 2 points from winning the Hart.
1925 - no records of GMs voted teams; no goalie got a lot of Hart votes, but Jake Forbes got the most.
1926 - Roy Worters 1st on GM-voted team, no further records. Charles Stewart was 2nd to Worters in Hart voting among goalies, but not enough votes to make a conclusion I think.
1927 - Roy Worters 1st on GM-voted team, no further records. No goalie got much Hart consideration (Worters 1st among goalies in 10th).
1928 - Full records of GM voted Team - Roy Worters, Pit (7-1), George Hainsworth, Mon (1-4), Alec Connell, Ott (1-3), John Ross Roach, Tor (1-1). Worters 2nd in Hart voting, no other goalie close.
1929 - Roy Worters 1st on GM-voted team, no further records. Worters won Hart Trophy, no other goalie was close.
1930 - no records of GM-voted teams. No goalie was close to winning the Hart, but Gardiner was first among goalies in 7th.
If Roach was indeed the 2nd best goalie to Worters in 1927, that definitely adds something to his already stellar 1924 and 1933.
Seems like Roach was considered better than Chabot for most of the time they were in the league together.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-19-2013 at 06:58 AM.
John Ross Roach has good longevity but that is about it.
Compare his GAA against Connell or Chabot, difference is roughly .4 - .5 per game in a low scoring era. Well behind the HHOF goalies of the pre Red Line era. Basically ahead of the Jake Forbes, Wilf Cude types by less than he trails the top HHOF goalies from the era.
The main reason Roach's GAA is higher is because as an AVERAGE, it averages all years together, and Roach played in the early 1920s, when scoring was much higher than in the late 1920s or even the early 1930s. Roach played from 1920-21 to 1934-35. Connell played from 1924-25 to 1936-37. Chabot played from 1927-28 to 1936-37.
When they were all in the league together (1927-28 to 1934-35), these were their GAAs:
That time frame, however, includes Roach's declining phase but not the declining phases of Connell and Chabot. If you look at 1927-28 to 1932-33 (Roach's last season as a full starter), you get:
You can't just compare raw GAA from different time frames when league scoring changes wildly (as it did from the high scoring early 20s to the deadest of dead puck late 20s). Comparing apples to apples, Roach's GAA fits right in with Connell and Chabot. And Roy Worters, widely considered by NHL GMs the best goalie in the late 1920s, who still got significant recognition from writers in the early 30s, has the worst GAA of anyone who was able to keep his starting job during the time frame. Shows the impact of team effects on GAA, even in that era.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-19-2013 at 04:37 AM.
The main reason Roach's GAA is higher is because as an AVERAGE, it averages all years together, and Roach played in the early 1920s, when scoring was much higher than in the late 1920s or even the early 1930s. Roach played from 1920-21 to 1934-35. Connell played from 1924-25 to 1936-37. Chabot played from 1927-28 to 1936-37.
When they were all in the league together (1927-28 to 1934-35), these were their GAAs:
That time frame, however, includes Roach's declining phase but not the declining phases of Connell and Chabot. If you look at 1927-28 to 1932-33 (Roach's last season as a full starter), you get:
You can't just compare raw GAA from different time frames when league scoring changes wildly (as it did from the high scoring early 20s to the deadest of dead puck late 20s). Comparing apples to apples, Roach's GAA fits right in with Connell and Chabot. And Roy Worters, widely considered by NHL GMs the best goalie in the late 1920s, who still got significant recognition from writers in the early 30s, has the worst GAA of anyone who was able to keep his starting job during the time frame. Shows the impact of team effects on GAA, even in that era.
Really.
Let's look at the performance of NHL goalies from 1920-21 thru 1926-27:
Who is the only regular with a GAA above 3.00? John Ross Roach.
So all the others - Clint Benedict, Georges Vezina, Jake Forbes were at least 0.23 better per game. Effectively Roach was fourth in what was mainly a four team league.
Throw in your data and he was 4th - 6th in a larger league that ranged up to 10 teams. Basically a pick-em between him and Lorne Chabot.
As for declining phase arguments. Roach, Chabot and Worters all had 1900 birthdays, Roach the oldest by 3.5 months over Chabot 4 months over Worters. Hainsworth was a 1895 birthday. So Roach declined faster than the other three.
Either cumulative or split the GAA defines John Ross Roach very accurately.
John Ross Roach was a pedestrian goalie with good longevity.
Actually Gerry Cheevers(418) played fewer NHL regular season NHL games than Al Rollins(430).
The playoff games each played is a team function.
The HHOF issue does not matter. HHOF worthiness is not an indication that one was better than the other. Cheevers has a more complete resume - NHL, WHA, some international - 1974 mainly, 2SCs as the lead goalie vs 1 for Rollins as a minorty starter in a tandem. Cheevers definitely benefits from better eye candy like Worsley.
Al Rollins was a better goalie - the individual awards and honours are well known. Workhorse, whereas Cheevers had to be managed at the NHL level. Rollins was regularly in the top 4 of NHL goalies whereas Cheevers never was.. Personally never saw Cheevers as top six and rarely top ten.
Tofu is tofu like pennies, shiny or brown.
Yet for some reason it was decided to take the 38 year-old Cheevers on the 1979 all-star team that played the Soviets, as well as start him in the deciding game over Dryden.
Very telling since the opposing goalie in both games was Gerry Cheevers.
The scoreless tie was the best scoreless game I ever saw. The goaltending was incredible. The next night in the 7 - 5 Bruins win the goaltending was at best minor league.
This pretty well sums up the two goalies and the good twin / bad twin aspect of their career. Saw it regularly for Cheevers and Esposito especially in the playoffs.
The attributes of both have been mentioned but the prime objective is still winning the SC when the opportunity presents itself. Cheevers at least managed to win two SCs.
This was pretty common for Cheevers playing with the high scoring Bruins. He would lose interest with a big lead. It was inferred in some circles in Boston there was another reason he seemed to let teams back into games.
Anyway, it does somewhat explain his high GAA along with a great won/loss record in both regular season and playoffs.
Yet for some reason it was decided to take the 38 year-old Cheevers on the 1979 all-star team that played the Soviets, as well as start him in the deciding game over Dryden.
Al Rollins during his NHL career showed in the O6 era he could be part of a successful tandem as well as an elite #1 goalie capable of playing a full season.Played a full 70 game season three times.
Gerry Cheevers in the NHL/WHA played a career high of 59 WHA games, once, never topping 52 games otherwise, usually in the 40-49 game range. So without touching the talent question it is fairly obvious that at best he was the lead goalie in a tandem.
Chris Osgood. Without touching the talent question, fact remains that Osgood played 60 plus games during four NHL seasons. He won 401 NHL games or almost as many as Cheevers played. Osgood also a few SCs to his credit - 3 which puts him in between Cheevers and Worsley.
Two comments.
Rollins gets shorted because he could not hang-on as a tandem goalie for 11 seasons like Worsley did. Effectively this is how Worsley gets credit for 4 SCs even though in those eleven seasons he barely averaged over 25 games per season.
Cheevers gets the benefit of a "money goalie" perception without any Conn Smythe support and a blind eye to the fact he was dominated by the Canadiens when it mattered. Will grant that Cheevers was the best technical goalie of the goalies discussed in this post.
Going 12-1 with a 2.23 GAA in 1970 Cup winning season probably gets some Smythe support. Tough to win it though with Bobby Orr on your team.
And who exactly were the teams that were not dominated by the 1970s Canadiens in the playoffs?
Again, Cheevers playoff record was 53-34, 19 losses to Canadiens teams that won the Cup, most against the dynasty teams of the late 70s. Also lost 4 games to the dynasty Islanders in 1980 when he was 39.
Should also get some credit for playing extremely well against the Soviets for the WHA in their series in 1974, clearly playing better than Dryden Or Espo in 1972.
If anything, picking Cheevers in such situation is more evidence of a judgemental lapse than anything else.
You have to think his selection would have something to do with how well he played in the '74 series. The Soviets thought he was better than Dryden or Espo so he must have been doing something right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chidlovski.net - The Summit in 1974
When Team Canada 74 was formed everyone knew that any success the team would have depended on Gerry Cheevers. Gerry did not disappoint. Gerry played 7 of the 8 games and his played ranged from good to simply spectacular. Time and time again the brilliant Soviets attackers would roar into the Canadian zone only to be foiled by Cheevers' unbelievable goaltending. By the time Summit 74 ended the Soviets would call Gerry Cheevers the greatest goalie they had ever faced.
You have to think his selection would have something to do with how well he played in the '74 series. The Soviets thought he was better than Dryden or Espo so he must have been doing something right.
You would have to think that if Cheevers had played in the '72 series, his popular legacy as a "clutch" goaltender would either be a sacred cow, or nonexistent at this point.
...not that such narrative-building is what we're trying to do, but I always thought that while Hull and Orr's absence muddied '72's stories, Cheevers' absence muddied his own.
I did quite a lot of search couple of weeks ago trying to find those "unofficial all-star" votings. Only one that I have found is that 1928.
There was one unnamed NHL referee in 28 who ranked Ross Roach second best after Worters. Few sport columnist mentions that. Why would they speculate thing like that if there was GM votings available? No one ever mentions those. Just starting to be bit sceptical.
About the Ross Roach-Chabot deal. It may have looked like a good deal for Rangers, but if you look it afterwards I would say that Maple Leafs was the winner. Ross Roach had great first season but after that there is nothing much.
Chabot was a money goalie. This is mentioned many times through his career. Others ouplayed him in regular season but he seemed to be at his best when it really mathered.
Ross Roach last games in Rangers was the Stanley cup finals in 32 when they lost to Maple Leafs. And yes Chabot in Leafs goal.
I did quite a lot of search couple of weeks ago trying to find those "unofficial all-star" votings. Only one that I have found is that 1928.
There was one unnamed NHL referee in 28 who ranked Ross Roach second best after Worters. Few sport columnist mentions that. Why would they speculate thing like that if there was GM votings available? No one ever mentions those. Just starting to be bit sceptical.
About the Ross Roach-Chabot deal. It may have looked like a good deal for Rangers, but if you look it afterwards I would say that Maple Leafs was the winner. Ross Roach had great first season but after that there is nothing much.
Chabot was a money goalie. This is mentioned many times through his career. Others ouplayed him in regular season but he seemed to be at his best when it really mathered.
Ross Roach last games in Rangers was the Stanley cup finals in 32 when they lost to Maple Leafs. And yes Chabot in Leafs goal.
Negative W-L in the playoffs defines him well given his strong W-L regular season numbers.
I did check those before. But still he had a good reputation of being a money goalie.I´m not the one whos giving him that.
This was more of anti Ross Roach case. I do believe that he is starting to be bit overrated. From what I have read I would take Connell and Kerr over both of them.
edit. Okay that sounded bad. I have no reason whatsoever to mock Ross Roach. and yes then it would be wiser just to make a case for Connell and Kerr. Writed this only becauese the Ross Roach-Chabot deal have mentioned couple of times.
I'm not even trying to pimp Roach (or anyone for that matter), but it seems fairly reasonable that Connell and Roach were right in the same ballpark as far as I can tell. So where one goes, the other one probably should as well...whether that's on our list or off of it...
So, all told of what's known, what does Connell's All-Star Team + Hart (nothing, right?) record look like vs. Roach. Assuming Roach gets this 2nd teamer award in 1928?
I'm not even trying to pimp Roach (or anyone for that matter), but it seems fairly reasonable that Connell and Roach were right in the same ballpark as far as I can tell. So where one goes, the other one probably should as well...whether that's on our list or off of it...
So, all told of what's known, what does Connell's All-Star Team + Hart (nothing, right?) record look like vs. Roach. Assuming Roach gets this 2nd teamer award in 1928?
Roach has a better Hart record, but I wouldn't put much stock in that. The same reason Connell has such good GAA numbers (stacked defensive team) would hurt him in Hart voting.
The problem with AS voting is that for most years, we only have Roy Worters in first and that's it. Roach definitely did not get 2nd Team in 1928 though - Hainsworth did (barely). 1928 is the only year from the late 20s for which we have full AS records:
Roy Worters, Pit (7-1), George Hainsworth, Mon (1-4), Alec Connell, Ott (1-3), John Ross Roach, Tor (1-1)
Out of curiosity, do have a link to the article that said "Roach ranked second?" I'm curious as to whether it was just the opinion of one reporter or if it was a general sense of things.
The elephant in the room then is why Connell made the HHOF (by people who saw him play, he was inducted 21 years after he retired), while Roach did not.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-19-2013 at 06:29 PM.
Absolutely agree. I've gone on record saying that I thought he was second only to Miller that season. Which is why it bothers me when Rask has been used to discredit Thomas in these threads since Round 7.
Statistics from Doctor No:
Goals Above Replacement-Level: Regular Season + Playoffs
Thomas: 371.4 in 428 games
Lundqvist: 364.9 in 523 games
I just want to point out how the choice of what counts as "replacement" or "threshold" has a pretty big effect on these numbers:
Based on Tom Awad's Goals Vs Threshold (through 2011 on the downloadable spreadsheet, 2012 numbers listed here).
GVT Regular season
Thomas: 158.6 over 378 games (0.420 per game)
Lundqvist: 195.2 over 468 games (0.417 per game)
Effectively the exact same rate of average performance (an advantage of 0.003 GVT per game is the equivalent of saving 0.246 additional goals per 82 games, or 1 goal every 4 seasons of playing every game with no rest), but Lundqvist maintained that level over significantly more games.
This is regular season only, however. Playoff numbers from 2011 and 2012 are not easily available, and there is no point in posting the numbers through 2010. But Thomas definitely has a playoff advantage.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-20-2013 at 08:22 PM.
Is there any goalie available other than Lundqvist or Thomas who has any case for "best goalie of his generation?" Or does Thomas count more as part of the older Brodeur generation because of when he was born, rather than when he peaked?
I realize that someone from a generation that is only halfway through their careers can't be rated over the best of a generation that is over, but he has to be rated above guys who were the 5th-7th best of their generations, which basically what we have left otherwise, right?
Is there any goalie available other than Lundqvist or Thomas who has any case for "best goalie of his generation?" Or does Thomas count more as part of the older Brodeur generation because of when he was born, rather than when he peaked?
I realize that someone from a generation that is only halfway through their careers can't be rated over the best of a generation that is over, but he has to be rated above guys who were the 5th-7th best of their generations, which basically what we have left otherwise, right?
I'll get the Roach link next time in the Google Archives.
I'm not sure if you can assign "best goalie" for any extended length of time since the 2005 lockout. Too many dependent circumstances. You can maybe have a shortlist, but any sort of ranking would be pretty questionable I think. Those goalie "tiers" don't exist anymore because the gap has narrowed in terms of talent level, so it's hard to really say what's what unless you looked at it from a talent level standpoint - in which case the math guys here wouldn't be terribly thrilled with the results...
