It really looks like you are judging them by their win/loss records, ignoring their teammates (Gardiner's were not very good; for a few years Durnan played behind mostly NHLers against teams full of AHLers), and ignoring every contemporary account of how they played (Gardiner was heavily praised in the playoffs for several years a row before his Cup winning year, Durnan was heavily criticized for 1945 and especially 1950).
Durnan's Canadiens, unlike every other NHL team, did everything they could to prevent their players from leaving the team and serving in WW2. As a result, they barely lost anyone (just Ken Reardon I think), while other teams were decimated. They were an almost-full-strength NHL team playing against teams full of AHLers. Montreal probably shouldn't have a lost a single playoff game from 1944-1945 - they more or less did what they were supposed to in 1944 (and 1946), but their loss in the 1945 playoffs to a war-decimated Toronto team is one of the greatest upsets in NHL history, and Durnan was at least partly at fault.
Then of course, in each man's final playoffs, one famously died winning the Cup, the other one retired in the middle of the freaking playoffs because of the stress.
_____
Really the only thing Durnan has going for him in the comparison is the Hart record, but I'm reluctant to compare Hart records between eras, as voting trends change so much. Defensemen were fairly dominant in Hart voting during Gardiner's prime, whatever that means.
1. No, I'm not.
Let me break this down so it's crystal clear
Charlie Gardiner played exactly 7 years in the NHL. That is weak, even by era standards. We can cry about that being so because he died but guess what? Doesn't matter. I'm not projecting and will dismiss anyone who does. So.
In those 7 years Gardiner was:
4 Time AS (3 1st and a 2nd)
The G's he was competing with were as follows:
Roy Worters, Tiny Thompson, George Hainsworth. Those are the ATD worthy goalies, all of whom rank outside the top 15 all time, universally. Worters being the only one capable of finding a top 20 placement. That is WEAK. THAT is why I don't fall down on my knees over the AS votes. And why? Compare those G's to the G's Bower or Durnan were facing?
Durnan was besting Frank Brimsek, Turk Broda, and Chuck Rayner specifically for AS nods. Those 3 goalies are quite superior collectively to the ones above.
Bower played in an era with a prime Plante, Hall, Sawchuk, Lumley, Worsely, etc, etc. He was literally best in the world over all of them, specifically the 1st 3 names in 1961. He got more Hart votes than Gordie Howe, Beliveau, HullThat bullet point is so far ahead of anything Gardiner did, I don't know why I even have to say this a second time. He was better than Hall in the playoffs, Sawchuk, Plante. And I'm not talking wins. I'm talking statistically. He made them look silly, more than once.
Bower against Sawchuk in the 63 Cup final?
Bower had 147/157 = .936
Sawchuk had 140/156 = .897
Bower was 38. Sawchuk 33.
Bower faced 1 more shot (we can throw the tired stereotype that Bower must have faced depressed volume and benefited mainly from the defensive teams. Sick of seeing it) and posted a vastly better SV% despite being 5 years older, well past the normal prime for a G.
That same year, Bower against Plante in the first round?
Bower had 152/158 = .962
Plante had 125/139 - .899
Bower was 38. Plante 34.
Bower faced more volume. Again. Came out way on top. Again.
This playoff run, right here, without looking at a single other season, puts him over Gardiner as a playoff G IMO (you'll see more evidence at the bottom). He whipped 2 very strong teams, 2 of the top 6 goalies of all time head to head, looking like an easy Conn Smythe player. Tougher era, tougher comp, higher scoring environment, significantly so. And again, Bower faced more volume (and looked better) than Sawchuk in the 64 SCF, a 7 game series that saw Bower shut out a Gordie Howe led roster in the deciding game 7.
Hell, maybe the most impressive thing he did was in 67, when he got in 3 games in the SCF and saved 100/103 shots against the Habs. That's a .971 sv%. At age 42. The vast majority of hockey players, ever, don't even play that long. And he was a brick wall, in a SCF. But hey, he platooned as if that is a surprise for a 42 year old human being??
Getting back to Durnan?
6 AS, all 1st team placements (over the likes of Brimsek, Broda, Lumley, Rayner)
Hart record of 2, 3, 5 (as i pointed out the 2nd and 5th place came well after WWII)
So he whips Durnan as an AS vote getter. Fact.
He beat better goalies to get better AS record. Fact.
And I have to listen to claims that his Hart record is the only thing he has over a guy with 4, in a weaker era?
People project out on Gardiner past his death and they are giving him waaaaay too much extra credit for not playing on the best team. See the last sentence bolded as perfect evidence and below for more evidence that the supposed minor league roster he carried to a title is rubbish. Dying gives him no extra credit. Doing that is ridiculous. It doesn't change how many SC's he won, or the fact he has only TWO meaningful playoff runs to his name. Literally TWO.
Gardiner doesn't even have a large enough career to begin to consider him a fringe top 10 G. It's absurd.
So Durnan was partly to blame for 45? So what? He actually had numerous playoff runs, some of them quite good. Gardiner is like a mega-Bossy around there parts. Let's focus on 2 playoff runs, and ignore the fact that he doesn't have the multiple years that would have surely brought about subpar performances. Even Roy and Plante sucked in the playoffs at times. Happens to EVERYONE. Durnan breaking down mentally is something I don't knock him for much. He was in his mid 30's and mental health, has and continues to be a major travesty/injustice for our species. Can you imagine, in his day (75 years ago) trying to be open about struggling with emotions and anxiety and depression? People today are still ostracized, certainly less so but just look at the homeless and you'll see hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone, who likely ended up homeless in part because of mental health issues/subsequent drug use.
I'm more concerned that Gardiner is somehow this mythical player despite having such little resume, especially compared to anyone that he ranks around. Those ARE the facts.
Gardiner
4 AS
7th place Hart
1 SC (I'll even give him a unanimous CS) and one other good, but non winning playoff run.
And he died young.
Durnan
6 AS (all over better comp)
2, 3, 5 Hart (over better comp)
2 SC (the one in 46 you can argue he was the best player in the finals, though I'd lean Lach) and a strong run in 47 (losing effort)
Like I said.
The only way you get Gardiner over any of these guys I've mentioned and compared, is to A, project more AS caliber years beyond his death, and B, give him far to much credit for playing on bad to average teams but here we'll see why even that is closer to a crock than reality.
Best players on that SC team in 34?
Hawks:
Prime Paul Thompson (HOF)
Prime Lionel Conacher (HOF, he was a 1st team AS and Hart runner up this year)
Prime Johnny Gottselig
Art Coulter (HOF, 24, he'd be an AS and Hart finalist the following year)
Taffey Abel (33)
Here is who Detroit had?
Prime Ebbie Goodfellow (HOF)
Prime Coney Weiland (HOF)
Prime Larry Aurie
Prime Herbie Lewis (HOF)
Prime Doug Young
It's not like Gardiner won with a roster full of minor leaguers, or beat a dominant power house so we can dispense with his notion he somehow deserves more than a slight bump for this win. I give him a slight bump for winning that Cup, beyond the win itself, because he was impressive and yes he did die helping them win, but in no way shape or form did he carry a vastly inferior team to a title. That is a fallacy.
I'm not trying to crush Gardiner. I have zero dog in the fight. I didn't draft him, don't even know who did off the top of my head. I simply look at his career, even giving him a slight bump for gaining recognition on a roster that wasn't insanely good, winning a Cup. But his era is very weak for goalies. His AS and Hart shares are weak compared to almost any G near him in a traditional ranking scale and his playoff resume boils down to 2 runs.
That's it.
Now here I get bit annoyed. Last year you presented lot of stuff about Smokey Harris. And it was well done. But you pointed new All-Star findings for him. I pointed out to you that the All-Star you were quoting for 1912 was actually Frank Patricks choice to the All-Star game against East. Smokey Harris was late addition to the team as spare. He wasn´t in any of the media chosen All-Stars that year
Now in 1917 you went and used the refeees selection to point out he was All-Star that year. Official All-Star selection that year was the scorekeepers selection (I get back to that later). Harris wasn´t on any of those lists.
And then you added various non sourced Trail and Total All-Star selections to add this up. And you did not see any problem in it even though you knew it. That is the text book example why I´m critic of using All-Star selection as such. Without context outsider would actually believe reading that bio that he was All-Star every year (well obviously he was some sort of All-Star).
Now the "unofficial" media votes. I have scrutinized the background of many of those selectors. And those were the leading hockey voices of the west. And I believe you have quoted them many times in the bios you have made. The problem if you are so critical of those selections why would quote from them (or other media writer) from some point of the season would be important? Why that should be taken in count? If you go fully statitistical approach that is fine. And very important. It is important to give that view to people too.
Now overall small recap from the research I have made. It isn´t perfect and it is never ending work in progress. Because the claim Ion selected All-Star every year still exist.
1912-1916 No such thing as official selection did seem to exist. The most authority seemed to have Vancouver Province writer Jimmy Hewitt (he went to war after that and sadly died). Possibly because he was from east and was not "new market" reporter so to speak. Various challenging All-Star´s were also made by papers. And even asked from some hockey figures.
1917-1918 As the league started to expand more these years the "scorekeepers" selected the All-Star team. Those were A.P. Garvey, Royal Brougham, Lou Kennedy and for the first year J.S. Bain from Spokane. I guess you could say that the leading hockey writer from the city (who was also the league statistician in the city) gave selection. And consensus from that was made. Various others All-Stars most importantly the Referees selection already existed.
1919-1924 Now here we come to Mickey Ion and his sole selection. The reason for that is they did though that scorekeepers only did see the home town games and thus it was important to pick the selector who did see every game. It is fair to point out that in these years Ion may have had too much authority in selection. Less own newspapers selection seemed to be made (Atleast to my research to this day).
I added those AS nods for Smokey Harris because they were new information. Period. Let's get that out of the way right now. You yourself said that 2 of them were not known by anyone, no? His unanimous choice as a RW in I think 15-16. His addition as a spare in 1912. I'm actually trying to contribute to hockey history research.
That's it. I didn't try and use them as some sort of massive leverage. I didn't promote Harris in a light that said, "OMG, I found a few more AS merits for him in a non consolidated league, I think he should be drafted 200 spots higher!". The highlights of his career, the ones that I used to really drive home Harris' value was his defensive reputation, which, again, just another major portion of someone's career, a depth ATD player that would in no way change whether I won or lost, and yet I spent lord knows how many hours pouring over newspapers trying to find as much pertinent information on Harris, because these guys, especially these depth ATD types, deserve to have their careers looked at.
Smokey Harris reads like a faster version of Northcott. Before my research I wouldn't have said that. But read that bio and you now see the heaps of praise he was getting for his defensive game and physicality specifically. When you're getting compared to Mickey MacKay for example (didn't see that in any previous bio) you were probably really good. That and the sheer volume of praise added for his defensive abilities is/would be the biggest source of increased value for Harris specifically as it pertains to the ATD. They have similar offensive values, defensive reputations, Harris was uber physical, from day 1 until his last. Harris was an elite skater. Northcott gets a bump for playing consolidated hockey but lining them up side by side? Where is the difference?
Hence what you saw this year as
@TheDevilMadeMe drafted him earlier than I did last year. 474 to 334. Now some of that is due to draft size (40, 2 GM's per team vs 24 teams this year) but Harris' stock increased regardless of those AS votes I found. Those don't matter much to me, and I don't think, as
@Dreakmur said, matter all that much to others either. But I watched them be flaunted by people in a HoH, top project and that annoyed me. It's always annoyed me, if we're talking about annoyances haha.
There is so much new information I've provided the past calendar year, and I'm aware it's appreciated. TDMM and many others, including yourself have thanked me and I genuinely appreciate you all for acknowledging it. I have the same admiration for people who do heavy lifting in similar areas and make it known as well. That's how this should work. That's how I want to conduct myself.
I enjoy challenging narratives, especially when it's my hard work that brings information about that makes it quite clear that those narratives are no longer valid (be it by a lot or even just slightly). Pete Green literally went from a "meh" to a man who should and hopefully will be inducted into the HOF one day. What if I had decided to not spend night after night, for weeks, until 2, 3 in the AM, to find that information?
That's the rub here and what annoys me, what makes me nearly leave year after year. People don't seem to understand how some of these exchanges look from my POV and they don't even care how it looks to the outsiders or even standing members who have left and are leaving.
I know right now, some in this thread think I'm just trying to over inflate the G I drafted for the express purpose of ATD post draft arguments. I'm used to it.
Last year on person (ATD member not posting in here) flat out said I was pimping Green excessively because I drafted him. As if Pete Green was going to change the trajectory of an ATD draft. I'm not sure if you've ever been a GM, but coaches matter little here. I know some GM's give coaches next to no consideration when evaluating rosters.
Did I get a little overexcited initially on Green by saying he might have a cases for 5th all time? Yeah. That was emotion. We're human beings. I quickly backed off that and went to a more reasonable conclusion that he would be in the conversation for me somewhere inside the top 10, based on win/losses/SC's but more importantly the many innovations to hockey he provided. Creating a defensive system that the NHL literally altered rules to attempt to make obsolete. The fact he was the man responsible for turning Cylone Taylor into a Dman. King Clancy literally said any greatness he accomplished was directly tied to Pete Green's tutelage. His career is incredible IMO. It would look incredible just based on a wins/losses but the stuff beyond that is significant.
For those of you who are in the ATD. I don't care about winning. I don't care if you ever vote for me, whether I have a better team or not. I trust the vast majority of people to be fair, but honestly could care less if I get bounced in round 1 (would actually make my life easier haha) or go all the way. I'm not going to make long arguments moving forward in the match up threads, because quite frankly, I don't have the energy. I gave everything I had last year and won't be doing it again. I'd rather use it to research because that is long lasting. That information will be there and cared about long after an ATD win.
I'm not infallible to mistakes. I'm not the smartest guy in this or most any room. But I do work harder than most to find information and bring it to light. And when you look at the names of people I'm spending ridiculous amounts of time on, it's pretty clear I'm doing it for more than just an ATD draft. Green, Harry Westwick, Smokey Harris, Bun Cook, George Vezina (though he's already studied quite thorughly), currently Hap Holmes. Even Nels Stewart a few years ago was a really in depth look at his splits between C and LW, and some highlights about his defensive game/speed (as told by Toe Blake).
If people choose to believe differently, still, then I'll probably do nothing to convince them otherwise, ever.
