Goalies before 1950 research thread

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,702
144,267
Bojangles Parking Lot
Right, the goalie with the best GAA is not the best goalie anymore than the forward with the most points automatically is.

Well, yes. Clearly. But when a player at any position is statistically dominant, that is at least the starting point for AS discussion, right? So if the results go in another direction, it's natural to ask why, yes?



Good luck to you, but I don't know what you expect to find.

Well, I posed the question to the board in the hopes that a) someone would simply know and share the answer, or b) the climate of a "research thread" would be conducive to figuring it out ourselves.

The hart voting does provide a really good "aggregation" of what the people who saw them play thought, as does the all-star voting that began a few years later. You can probably expect it to carry a lot of weight in our rankings for goalies we haven't seen and whose strongest statistical cases are GAA-based.

I don't think we should take any of that information, voting or stats, at face value. If we know WHY players ranked highly in Hart voting or put up extraordinary stats, that is a much more informed angle than simply looking at the list of results. Hell, if we're just ranking these guys on vote totals we might as well skip the research round and get down to the ballots.

Maybe we're on a different page about the purpose of this thread.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,377
7,717
Regina, SK
Well, yes. Clearly. But when a player at any position is statistically dominant, that is at least the starting point for AS discussion, right? So if the results go in another direction, it's natural to ask why, yes?

It may satisfy the curiosity of some, sure. But what will those results tell you for the purposes of the project?

I don't think we should take any of that information, voting or stats, at face value. If we know WHY players ranked highly in Hart voting or put up extraordinary stats, that is a much more informed angle than simply looking at the list of results. Hell, if we're just ranking these guys on vote totals we might as well skip the research round and get down to the ballots.

I dunno man, it still sounds like you're looking for some excuses for Hainsworth or something.

I never said we should just skip research and get down to the ballots. but unfortunately there is relatively little to go by except the aggregated contemporary opinions for these super early goalies. If you think that all-star teams and hart voting is all that matters to us, wait till you see how far a certain goalie with 5 all-star teams from 1970 to 1980 falls. He'll be lucky to finish ahead of Grant Fuhr and Billy Smith...

Let me just ask you this - do you think Hainsworth was the best goalie in the league those seasons?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
I find Hainsworth to be terribly underrated. He was the 14th best goalie in the top 100. I just can't justify putting him outside the top 10.

I thought the top 100 list overrated Hainsworth and I would have been as guilty as anyone back then.

Now that we have greater access to newspaper reports of the time, I see little justification for ranking him over Georges Vezina or Charlie Gardiner, both of whom were widely thought of as "the best ever" when they played.

And can we really rank Hainsworth over contemporary Roy Worters? I get that Worters' teams did nothing in the playoffs, but the NHL managers seem to have voted him (not Hainsworth) a 1st Team All Star every season from 1926-27 to 1929-30.
 

Rob Scuderi

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
3,378
2
This is an updated version of the chart I posted in Hainsworth's profile (which has also been updated). Hopefully it will be of some use.

Among pre-1950 goaltenders


Rk | Name | Seasons Active | GP | Wins | GAA | SO | Vezinas | 1st AS | SCs | HOF?
1|Turk Broda|1937-1950|597|288|2.54|56|2|2|4|Y
2|Tiny Thompson|1929-1940|553|284|2.08|81|4|2|1|Y
3|Frank Brimsek|1939-1950|514|252|2.70|40|2|2|2|Y
4|John Ross Roach|1922-1935|492|219|2.46|58|0|1*|1|N
5|Roy Worters|1926-1937|484|171|2.27|67|1|0*|0|Y
6 | George Hainsworth | 1927-1937 | 465 | 246 | 1.93 | 94 | 3 | 0* | 2 | Y
7|Dave Kerr|1931-1941|427|203|2.15|51|0|1|1|N
8|Alec Connell|1925-1937|417|193|1.91|81|0*|0*|2|Y
9|Lorne Chabot|1927-1937|412|201|2.03|71|1|1*|2|N
10|Bill Durnan|1944-1950|383|208|2.36|34|6|6|2|Y
11|Clint Benedict|1918-1930|362|190|2.32|57|0*|0*|3|Y
12|Mike Karakas|1936-1946|336|114|292|28|0|0|1|N
13|Harry Lumley|1944-1950|325|163|2.75|26|0|0|1|Y
14|Charlie Gardiner|1928-1934|316|112|2.02|42|2|3|1|Y
15|Chuck Rayner|1941-1950|285|97|3.11|14|0|0|0|Y
16|Wilf Cude|1931-1941|282|100|2.72|24|0|0|0|N
17|Normie Smith|1932-1945|199|81|2.33|17|1|1|2|N
18|Georges Vezina|1918-1926|190|103|3.28|13|0*|0*|3|Y
19|Johnny Mowers|1941-1947|152|65|2.56|15|1|1|1|N
20|Hap Holmes|1918-1928|103|39|2.43|17|0|0*|1|Y
21|Hal Winkler|1927-1928|75|35|1.60|21|0|0*|0|N
22|Hugh Lehman|1927-1928|48|20|2.68|6|0|0*|0|Y

I'm not sure if you were trying to break up the Vezina by years, but Dave Kerr won it in 1940.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,702
144,267
Bojangles Parking Lot
It may satisfy the curiosity of some, sure. But what will those results tell you for the purposes of the project?

In this particular case, it would give us some extremely valuable insight about the head-to-head primes of Hainsworth and Worsley. And by extension, any other goalies in the league at the time.

And quite frankly, we don't have any business ranking these guys if we can't give a reasonably definitive answer as to why the Vezina/1AS went to X and not Y three years in a row. So to an extent, the legitimacy of the project depends on the depth of our research.


I dunno man, it still sounds like you're looking for some excuses for Hainsworth or something.

I'm not sure how much more dignity I should grant to that line of attack, though I admit I'm curious as to why you think I'd bend over backward for George Hainsworth of all people.


I never said we should just skip research and get down to the ballots. but unfortunately there is relatively little to go by except the aggregated contemporary opinions for these super early goalies.

Except for game summaries that take up virtually a whole page of broadsheet and literally give a shot-by-shot narrative of the goalie's performance. Biographies and retrospectives written by eyewitnesses and experts. The words of the players, coaches and GMs themselves.

I simply fail to understand what we're supposed to do in this thread if the "aggregate opinion" (ie, trophy voting) is the final word. We have a trophy voting thread stickied already... isn't new research the point here?


Let me just ask you this - do you think Hainsworth was the best goalie in the league those seasons?

I'm honestly not certain at the moment. In my mind the constellation is Hainsworth, Worters, Connell and maybe Gardiner (who as a young goalie on a horrible team would have spent a bit of time just getting his name out there). The order is what I'm trying to figure out. Worters and Hainsworth seem to lead the pack based on hardware, stats and voting. Stats heavily favor Hainsworth, voting heavily favors Worters.

And honestly, I'm not just casting aside Hart voting -- I'm just asking for verification that they got it right from season to season, especially in '29.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
I'll profile Lorne Chabot sometime before the playoffs are over.

Still need profiles on Dave Kerr, Harry Lumley, Bill Durnan, and the two really early guys

Edit: actually I might be a bad one to do Chabot since I don't have access to NY Times archives
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,377
7,717
Regina, SK
In this particular case, it would give us some extremely valuable insight about the head-to-head primes of Hainsworth and Worsley. And by extension, any other goalies in the league at the time.

And quite frankly, we don't have any business ranking these guys if we can't give a reasonably definitive answer as to why the Vezina/1AS went to X and not Y three years in a row. So to an extent, the legitimacy of the project depends on the depth of our research.

Why would we have no business ranking them if we don't pore over years of newspapers? I applaud you for donating your free time to do the research you do, but in this particular case, the people who saw them have done most of the relevant work for us. I'm not sure what learning more about the how and why would ultimately do to our rankings of these two players.

I'm not sure how much more dignity I should grant to that line of attack, though I admit I'm curious as to why you think I'd bend over backward for George Hainsworth of all people.

Maybe I'm out to lunch but I got the impression right away that you were questioning the legitimacy of the voting results when they disagreed with the stats. Why did it look that way to me? (someone else can comment)

I guess where I'm going with this is, I'm just not sure what you would find in these reports that would make you go "Aha! so that's why they liked Worters more...It was all a scam and Hainsworth was better." I guess the reward vs. the time invested seems poor, but I don't want to condemn the willingness to do heavy research, of course.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
I think it's obvious while reading enough old reports that hockey observers at the time put a lot of weight on "carrying" a team. A lot of ink has been spilled on how Worters and later Gardiner "carried" their teams
 

vecens24

Registered User
Jun 1, 2009
5,002
1
I'll profile Lorne Chabot sometime before the playoffs are over.

Still need profiles on Dave Kerr, Harry Lumley, Bill Durnan, and the two really early guys

Edit: actually I might be a bad one to do Chabot since I don't have access to NY Times archives

Yeah....I might be able to jump on one of these tonight. Depends how far I get on a paper due in a couple of weeks.
 

vecens24

Registered User
Jun 1, 2009
5,002
1
Real quick one on Durnan. I can add to it later. I am pretty convinced to the point that I'm certain he was better than Broda, but am unsure of how he compares to Brimsek. For whatever it's worth, Durnan was the first of the big three goalies of the era to get inducted to the Hall, with his induction in 1964, Brimsek's in 1966, and Broda's in 1967. Whenever the top goaltenders are brought up in books, newspapers, etc. it's always Durnan and Brimsek that are brought up, not Broda. Broda was certainly a money goalie, but was not better than the other two.

Bill Durnan

images


Vezina Trophy winner: 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1950

Hart Trophy Voting: 2, 3, 5, 8, 8,

All-Star Voting: 1 (1944, war year unanimous), 1 (1945, war year, unanimous), 1 (1946), 1 (1947), 1 (1949), 1 (1950), 3 (1948),

LOH:
Bill Durnan entered the professional game late and didn't stay for long, but he packed an entire career's worth of awards and recognition into his seven National Hockey League seasons with the Montreal Canadiens. He won the Vezina Trophy as the league's top netminder an amazing six times, missing out on the award only once when Toronto's Turk Broda borrowed it in 1948.
In 1936, the ambidextrous Durnan played hockey in the northern Ontario league with the Kirkland Lake Blue Devils. He spent four seasons with the Devils, backstopping the team to the Allan Cup in 1940. Friends in Montreal convinced him to take a job with the Royals in that city following his success with Kirkland Lake. After three years in the Quebec senior league he finally caught the attention of a National Hockey League team when the Montreal Canadiens began noticing the goalie star in their own backyard.
Incredibly, the rookie netminder was a few months shy of his 29th birthday.
That first season the Canadiens had the offensive services of the Punch Line - Elmer Lach, Rocket Richard and Toe Blake - but it was the often spectacular play of Durnan that took Montreal back to the Stanley Cup after 13 years of frustration. He led the league in games played, wins and goals-against average in the regular season and in the playoffs, when he allowed only 1.53 goals per game as the Canadiens skated to the title. Durnan was awarded the Vezina Trophy, the first rookie to win the award, and was selected to the league's First All-Star Team.
Durnan was an easygoing man, friendly and calm, but over time the stress of playing - and the mental and physical toll of so many minutes and games between the posts - began to wear him down. In 1950 he abruptly retired from the game at the age of 35, while still in his prime
Pelletier on Greatest Hockey Legends:
Durnan had a very peculiar trait that helped him excel: he was ambidextrous. Instead of wearing a blocker, he'd wear gloves on both hands. He would then switch which hand he used to hold the stick depending on which side of the rink the opposition was attacking from. Thus, the shooter would always be facing his big glove. He became known as Dr. Strange-Glove
Although his career lasted only 7 seasons, it was long enough to earn him top consideration as perhaps the greatest goalie in hockey history. He won the Vezina trophy in his rookie season, and would win the Vezina every year he played in the league except one. He was a 6 time First Team All Star and led the Habs to two Stanley Cup championships.

Playoff Performance:
One thing overblown about Durnan is his playoff record. He seems to have been the same or slightly better in the playoffs throughout his career outside of his final season, which will be delved into later. During his first 4 playoff appearances, his GAA went down in the playoffs, three times by the considerable margin of .4 Goals against per game. The fifth playoffs he appeared in his GAA only went up .01 goals against per game. The final season was obviously a disaster, but for his career his GAA in the playoffs went down .29. For his career, his GAA in the playoffs is only .09 higher than Broda's in the playoffs throughout their overlapping careers (taking away that final season from Durnan, he is equal to Broda's 1.98 career GAA, but that's not fair to do in my opinion). Now of course, the Canadiens had a stronger defense, meaning these numbers aren't the be-all-end-all in comparison to Broda, and Broda was a better playoff goalie than Durnan. But Durnan was far from a slouch in the playoffs, and I actually believe him to be a solid playoff goalie.

Hal Walker said:
Over the years, I've seen some great playoff goaltending from the likes of Bill Durnan, Turk Broda, Tiny Thompson, Frank Brimsek, Glenn Hall, Terry Sawchuk and Ken Dryden to name a few...



Contemporary Quotes on his level of Greatness:
Ottawa Citizen February 6, 1945
Bill Durnan, says Dick Irvin - who should know or may be prejudiced, depending on the way you look at it – is “the best goaler in 20 years in the National Hockey League.â€

The coach admits he’s taking in a wide territory with that “20 years†business, but adds that he has formed his opinion while fully aware of the merits of such stars as Charlie Gardiner, Frankie Brimsek, Johnny Mowers, George Hainsworth and Turk Broda.
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, March 20, 1946
The National Hockey League announced its first 1945-46 season trophy winner Tuesday night, and it came as a surprise to no one to learn that Big Bill Durnan , goaltender for the champion Montreal Canadiens was awarded the Vezina Trophy
The Montreal Gazette, April 9, 1946 (Playing the Field by Dink Carroll)
If there has ever been any better goaltending exhibited in a Stanley Cup Final than that offered by Bill Durnan and Frankie Brimsek, no one can recall it. These two are high on the all-time list of great goaltenders.
The Calgary Herald, November 14, 1949
Big Bill Durnan has proven again that he’s just about the “hottest†goaler ever to don pads in the National Hockey League.
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, January 19,1950
Big Bill Durnan, as good a goalie as can be found anywhere, wielded his shutout brush again Wednesday night…
The Leader Post, July 13, 1950
Durnan told Frank Selke, Montreal Canadiens’ general manager Wednesday that he is through. Said Durnan, “I could never stand another season. My nerves are all shot and I know it.â€
Boston Globe, November 5, 1961
Chicago's Glenn Hall is regarded by a good many competent students as the best minder of a major league net since Montreal's Bill Durnan.
Pelletier on how Durnan’s career ended:
Durnan left the game he loved because of the pressures involved in tending the net.

"Hockey started to get rough for me at the end of the 40's. I had broken my hand and after it mended it felt as if my arm was falling off whenever I'd catch the puck," said Durnan. "One of my main reasons for chucking it all was because the fun was going out of the game for me. A lot of my old pals were leaving - or had gone - and much of the camaraderie was missing."

Durnan also cited the money as a reason he got out of hockey.

"My reflexes had gotten a little slow and, besides, the money wasn't really that good. I'll admit, if they were paying the kind of money goaltenders get today, they'd have had to shoot me to get me out of the game! But at the end of any given season when I was playing I never seemed to have more than $2000 in the bank, so I wasn't really getting anywhere that way. I wasn't educated and I had two girls to raise."

Things came to a head in the 1950 playoffs against the New York Rangers however. The Rangers were on the verge of an upset when they had the Habs on the brink of elimination 3 games to 1. Durnan pulled himself from the series.

"I was afraid I was blowing things. I really wasn't, I guess, but we hadn't won a game and I didn't want to be blamed for it. And I felt I wasn't playing as well as I did in the past.. The nerves and all the accompanying crap were built up. It was the culmination of a lot of thinking and I realized 'What the hell, I'm quitting and this is as good as time as any'"

Gerry McNeil stepped in and finished the playoffs.

"A lot of people thought it was a nervous breakdown but it wasn't. To this day, people still won't believe me."

Maurice Richard, on Bill Durnan in The Flying Frenchmen by he and Stan Fischler sums up Bill Durnan nicely. He starts it by talking about the 1950 series where Durnan had his troubles, but then goes into his opinion on Durnan and Durnan's style:

With Durnan in the nets, we lost the first three games of the series. The Montreal fans were unmerciful. Finally, Irvin threw McNeil in for the fourth game and we won, but New York bounced back and took the fifth game, and we were eliminated from the play-offs. Durnan couldn't take the punishment from the fans anymore, so he quit. On top of that, he had had a lot of trouble with his knees and they were hurting him so it was all for the best that he got out of the game. But as far as I'm concerned, Durnan was the best goaltender I've ever seen, with Boston's Frankie Brimsek right behind.

What put Durnan head and shoulders above the others was his style. He could switch hands with ease and use either his left or his right glove to spear shots. Very few goaltenders have ever been ambidextrous like Durnan and none has ever mastered the art the way he did. He'd rarely commit himself on a play and had a great knack of waiting for the forward to make the first move, which was the reason he was so hard to beat on breakaways. Brimsek was almost the same, but he could only use one hand.

In the same book, Stan Fischler comments on Durnan's ability, this about the 1946 season:

Goalie Bill Durnan, already acclaimed as the greatest since Vezina and possibly even better than Vezina...

Durnan won the Vezina Trophy for the third consecutive time and was now regarded as superior to Vezina.

Hockey Hall of Famer Jim Coleman named his team of the past twenty years (so from approximately 1940-1963):

Jim Coleman said:
If I was picking an all-star hockey team, over the past 20 years, I'd put Milt Schmidt at centre. For that matter, I'd put Bill Durnan in goal, Babe Pratt and Doug Harvey on the defense....
 
Last edited:

MXD

Partying Hard
Oct 27, 2005
51,744
17,657
... Awesome work guys!

The list is pretty complete.

This said, I can see one guy having a claim at deserving such a list -- Hal Winkler (WCHL all-star team). To be honest, I don't think he'd get any votes, but I don't think he'd be the worst player on that list either.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,702
144,267
Bojangles Parking Lot
Maybe I'm out to lunch but I got the impression right away that you were questioning the legitimacy of the voting results when they disagreed with the stats. Why did it look that way to me? (someone else can comment)

Reading over the exchange that began on page 3, I'm not sure why you would have taken it quite that way. I agreed with jigglysquishy that the voting results were hard to square with his stats, and threw out a few random ideas in post #59 about how it might have happened that way. I even said in a few places that I wasn't sure, needed to get more information, etc. Perhaps it came across that I was actually making an argument instead of spitballing possiblities?

I'm not sure what learning more about the how and why would ultimately do to our rankings of these two players.

If nothing else, it gives us a sense of whether Hainsworth was a strong or weak #2, which is important for ranking him against others. If he had a 1AS worthy season and just got beaten out by an insane season from Worters, that's a lot different than if he was just racking up massive stats in a Chris Osgood type role.

I guess where I'm going with this is, I'm just not sure what you would find in these reports that would make you go "Aha! so that's why they liked Worters more...It was all a scam and Hainsworth was better." I guess the reward vs. the time invested seems poor, but I don't want to condemn the willingness to do heavy research, of course.

Ideally someone would just have a book detailing that time period and talking about the goalies in detail.

In terms of newspapers, you never know when you'll stumble across an article that begins "You may be wondering why Roy Worters was the first all star this season. Here's why...". Pretty much every March in the history of hockey involves some kind of debate over which goalie had the best season. There are probably editorials to be found that give a detailed answer to these questions. It's at least worth looking.
 
Last edited:

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,702
144,267
Bojangles Parking Lot
I think it's obvious while reading enough old reports that hockey observers at the time put a lot of weight on "carrying" a team. A lot of ink has been spilled on how Worters and later Gardiner "carried" their teams


^ This is pretty much the conclusion I'm finding after looking through the Montreal Gazette circa 1928-29 (btw, thank god that paper has been digitized for the public!)

Some support for the earlier suggested notion that Hainsworth was prone to stinkers when it wasn't his night.

Montreal Gazette 11/24/1928 said:
That goal gave the Canadiens a two-point margin in the game, and indicated that the team might open out. Instead, leg weary after three games on the road, entailing a lot of travel, players suffering from colds, chiefly George Hainsworth, the players eased up.

^ From the Habs' 4-3 loss, in which they got trounced late in the game by the Americans.

Montreal Gazette 12/5/1928 said:
Toronto were short-handed at the time and Bailey went up alone. He had hardly crossed Canadiens' blue line when he let fly his short. Hainsworth, who had an off night in the game, was caught wholly unawares and the Leafs took the lead on a lucky goal. ... [Art Duncan] decided that Canadiens' blue line was far enough and that he had better get back on defence to protect Leafs' one goal. Duncan let drive through Mantha's legs and again Hainsworth was fooled, though with the puck coming off Mantha in this play there was some excuse for the Canadien goalie being caught as his vision was partially blocked. ... the Canucks were the more threatening team on the attack and the run of offensive hockey should have won.

^ Pretty much puts the blame on Hainsworth for a 3-2 loss.

Montreal Gazette 12/20/1928 said:
The Canucks had no alibis for their defeat at the hands of the Cougars, other than to state that the play was much closer than the score would indicate. It was just one of those games which a team likes to write off and forget, a contest in which Detroit could do nothing wrong and Canadiens could get nothing to work right.

^ Doesn't say outright that Hainsworth was bad in a 5-1 loss, but it certainly doesn't suggest he was keeping the struggling team in the game.

Those games all took place in the first half of the season, when Hainsworth's results were pretty ordinary compared to his peers.

Jumping forward in time, to his epic hot streak of allowing 3 goals in 9 games:

Montreal Gazette 2/18/1929 said:
... except for a break in the middle session when they got their tally, there were few times when the Gotham sextette got in close for real chances on Hainsworth.

Montreal Gazette 2/27/1929
Canadiens simply waltzed through Pittsburgh last night... Canadiens had about all the advantage in play a team can command and still be held to four tallies... Hainsworth had little to do in goals, but did it well, and had the satisfaction of chalking up his eighteenth shutout of the season.

3/4/1929
Only once during the game did the Bruins attain a threatening offensive, and that was only momentary.

3/8/1929
The added no-goal triumph was practically a gift to the cool Hainsworth, for he spent the greater part of the game enjoying an impersonal view of the affair as he lolled back on the top cross-bar of his cage.

That last quote is a nice little image.

It's actually pretty remarkable how little praise the Gazette offers a guy who was absolutely killing the record book. Occasionally it throws him a bone saying he made a timely save or two, but there's no gushing about his dominance or anything like that. There is quite a bit of love for Morenz, Leduc and Mantha. And a lot of comments that pretty much imply the Habs should have been looking for a higher league to play in. Unlike what we might expect today, Hainsworth didn't have his totals inflated by a team that collapsed into a defensive shell around the crease -- rather he was literally standing around 150 feet from the puck while the Habs toyed with the opposition. That's how he racked up the numbers he did.

Contrasted with Worsley getting bombed for 50 shots a game (by the Gazette's count), it's easy enough to see how the voters could have leaned toward Worsley if they put a high value on goalies who carried their teams. Hainsworth was definitely not doing that in Montreal in 1929.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,929
10,376
NYC
www.youtube.com
I was checking out a few newspapers today looking for clues re: Worters over Hainsworth in Hainsworth's statistical peak. It's totally anecdotal, but almost fits your post...apparently in a game in late December (28th?) against Boston, the Canadiens lost 1-0 and it says that Hainsworth let in a "looping" goal from center ice that got stuck between his knees and when he got up it rolled into the net.

Missed his 23rd shutout by that much. Does anyone wonder that maybe the whole idea that he's "insulated" by the team defense (or offense, as suggested above) then also combine with something of a "lasting image" from that season and effect the voting? Just throwing out ideas...
 

vecens24

Registered User
Jun 1, 2009
5,002
1
I added a little section analyzing Durnan's playoff performance, which I think sometimes hurts him in rankings. I believe him to be a fine playoff goalie. His final season gives him far too much of a bad playoff reputation when in the five years prior he certainly acquitted himself more than adequately in that regard.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,377
7,717
Regina, SK
If nothing else, it gives us a sense of whether Hainsworth was a strong or weak #2, which is important for ranking him against others. If he had a 1AS worthy season and just got beaten out by an insane season from Worters, that's a lot different than if he was just racking up massive stats in a Chris Osgood type role.

That is true.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
vecens said:
Vezina Trophy winner: 1944, 1945, 1946 (all three of the first ones were actually voted on), 1947, 1949, 1950 (these three were only for lowest Goals against a team)

Why do you think the first three were voted on? Edit: this quite makes it sound like the Vezina was voted on, but why do we never have records of vote totals? And why did it go to the goalie with the lowest GAA 100% of the time? Double Edit: See the last quote from post 98. The quote has been "cleverly" abridged to remove the reference to GAA.

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, March 20, 1946
The National Hockey League announced its first1945-46 season trophy winner Tuesday night, and it came as a surprise to no one to learn that Big Bill Durnan , goaltender for the champion Montreal Canadiens was awarded the Vezina Trophy

Re: the playoffs, I think am the biggest part of the case for Broda over Durnan is that Broda usually outperformed him head to head in the playoffs. I'm not sure if it's something worth exploring now, or if it should be saved for round 2 of the project
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
Vezina Trophy was definitely the equivalent of the Jennings even before 1946-47. Wikipedia is wrong.

Montreal Canadiens' Bill Durnan allowed 104 goals in 40 games, to win the Vezina Trophy given to the goalkeeper whose team has the least number of goals scored against them.

The Maple Leaf, March 23, 1946

Clarence S. Campbell, president of the National Hockey League said last night at a dinner in his honor that the league will review the system under which annual awards to players are made.

He said some changes may be made in the methods of selecting the winners of the Calder Memorial Trophy for the best rookie, the Hart Trophy for the Most Valuable Player and the Lady Byng Trophy for the Most Sportsmanlike Player.

These awards are now made after a poll of hockey writers in league cities.

He indicated that the selection process for the fourth award, the Vezina Trophy for the league goalie with the least number of goals scored against him, would not be altered.

"The Vezina Trophy is a matter of pure mathematics," Campbell said.

Windsor Daily Star, Oct 31, 1946

This is the only article cited by wikipedia for the "fact" that the Vezina criteria changed after 1946-47:

Another change was in the conditions of the award of the Vezina Trophy to goal tenders. In future, the award will go to the team with the fewest goals scored against it in the during the season. The goalie playing the most games for the club will get the Cup.

Ottawa Citizen, Feb 15, 1946

I have no idea what the cited article is talking about. By all indications, that's how the Vezina was always picked.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
More articles about the early Vezina Trophy.

Montreal Gazette, Apr 4, 1929:
George Hainsworth, sterling custodian of the Canadien Hockey Club nets, has again been awarded the Georges Vezina Memorial Trophy, according to a statement issued from the National Hockey League Headquarters. This trophy, which was presented to the league in 1926-27 season by the Canadien Hockey Club to perpetuate the memory of the late Georges Vezina, himself one of the greatest, if not the greatest, goal-keeper the game has ever known, is awarded each year to the goal keeper whose performance throughout the season entitle him to distinction.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=5841,665070&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en

The Telegraph Herald and Time Journal, Apr 4, 1929
George Hainsworth goalie of Les Canadiens, is the winner of the Georges Vezina memorial trophy for the third successive year. The trophy, offered to the National Hockey League by the Canadien Hockey Club in memory of Vezina, once a famous goaltender, is awarded annually to the outstanding goalie in the league.

Opposing teams were unable to score on Hainsworth in twenty-two games during the past season
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=2942,1342298&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en

Ottawa Citizen, April 18, 1933
Giving players on United States teams a clean sweep of the three personal awards (edit: Hart, Lady Byng, Vezina), "Tiny Thompson, goalie of the Boston Bruins, has captured the Georges Vezina Memorial Trophy, for the best goaltending record of the season.
...
Both Shore and Boucher (edit: winners of the Hart and Byng) were chosen by sports editors some weeks ago as Members of the Canadian Press All-Star Team, but the voters of that team selected John Ross Roach, of the Detroit Red Wings, for the goaltending assignment. Thompson beat out Roach for the lowest goals against record in the closing week or two of the campaign. Thompson let 88 pucks into his cage against 93 for Roach.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=6621,3298862&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en

The Montreal Gazette, March 20, 1936
Unless Rangers can pluck nine or more goals past Tiny Thompson Sunday, while Karakas of Chicago holds Maroons scoreless, the Boston netminder wins the Vezina Trophy
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=2107,2476396&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en

Windsor Daily Star, March 30, 1939: Frank Brimsek won the Vezina Trophy for "allowing fewer goals than any other NHL netminder." http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=3995,6772500&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en

The Vezina Trophy "standings" were a big deal at the end of 1940-41 as Brimsek, Broda, and Mowers were only a few goals apart for the winner of the trophy:
The Day, March 14, 1941
The Montreal Gazette, March 14, 1941

The Leader-Post, Dec 2, 1942
In 16 years of competition for the trophy awarded annually to the goalkeeper with the lowest "goals against" record during the regular season, only three backstops who have won the honor have allowed more than 100 goals in a single campaign
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=2931,3292164&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en

The Calgary Herald, March 20, 1945
Surprising nobody at all, the National Hockey League announced that Bill Durnan of Montreal Canadiens had been awarded the Vezina Trophy which goes annually to the goalie whose team is least scored upon in the regular season.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=1088,1804880&dq=vezina+trophy&hl=en
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
Based on the above, I think it's pretty clear that the Vezina always went to the goalie on the team with the lowest GAA, but it took the media a few years to catch on.

I have no idea what the Ottawa Citizen article is talking about in 1946 about the "change in criteria" or why wikipedia based its entire "history of the Vezina" section on that single quote.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,555
3,907
Ottawa, ON
I haven't said he was better based on stats. But his stats were definitely better. So the natural question is, why did the guy with better stats not get the awards recognition? Basically the same question being asked about the 1989 Hart a couple of threads over.

This is from the 1927-28 all-star voting, when Worters was still playing for Pittsburgh.

Leonard Cohen, March 24, 1928 New York Evening Post:
Voted the best goalie by the managers in 1926-27, Roy Waters (sic) again outclassed his rival net-minders. Alex Connell and Hal Winkler had better records in respect to the number of times they whitewashed opposing teams, but those excellent goalies had much sturdier back line duos helping them. Worters is cool, agile, a quick man on his skates, and a highly capable man at clearing enemy shots.

It appears that Worters was considered to be playing behind a weak defense, and the managers didn't feel that his stats reflected his performance.

Cohen didn't even mention Hainsworth, who had by far the best GAA that season, but the 10 managers voted Hainsworth (1-4 voting points) to the second all-star team that season behind Worters (7-1).
 

vecens24

Registered User
Jun 1, 2009
5,002
1
Vezina Trophy was definitely the equivalent of the Jennings even before 1946-47. Wikipedia is wrong.



The Maple Leaf, March 23, 1946



Windsor Daily Star, Oct 31, 1946

This is the only article cited by wikipedia for the "fact" that the Vezina criteria changed after 1946-47:



Ottawa Citizen, Feb 15, 1946

I have no idea what the cited article is talking about. By all indications, that's how the Vezina was always picked.

Hmm that's interesting. I always assumed it reverted in '47. Good to know it didn't. Feel free to edit that bio from earlier saying that they were voted on.

In any regard it doesn't matter as applied to Durnan since he also won the First Team All Star each year.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad