Paton has clear multiple awards as the best of the first era of hockey
Retroactive awards; I have not come across any contemporary all-star awards from Paton's time period.
I am also not sold on those retroactive awards, as they seem largely based on statistics and team success rather than the descriptions from the people who actually watched them.
Tom Paton is the first great goaltender in hockey history
Definitely debatable. He played the longest, was a good goalie, and was on the dominant team of his time, but I would contend that doesn't make him the greatest goalie around.
, winning the first ever Stanley Cup in 1893, nine years after he had won hockey's first award, medals in 1885
The 1883 Montreal Winter Carnival gave a trophy to the winners, so nope. Also, its a team award.
when he backstopped the winning team in the Montreal Winter Carnival, posting three shutouts in four games, including one in the final.
Games were low scoring back then. For most of the tournament (outside of Montreal AAA destroying Montreal FC because MFC was forced to play a man down all game), I believe no team scored more than 2 goals in any game.
He again won the carnival championship two years later,
Another team award
then the championship of the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada (AHAC) in 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892 and 1893.
More team awards. Plus, saying Montreal AAA won in 1892 is technically accurate, that is only because of the challenge style set-up of the league that year. Montreal HC went 1-3 in AHAC challenge games, and 2-4-1 counting all the games I have come across so far. Ottawa HC ran show that year, and Montreal HC only won the championship due to winning the last game of the season (against Ottawa HC), and likely only because the real stars of the early Montreal HC- Archie McNaughton and Archie Hodgson, who hadn't played yet that year- came out to play and combined to score the goal that game Montreal HC the win.
Montreal HC stayed strong even after Paton retired. They won the league in 1894 with Herb Collins in goals, then finished tied for second in 1895 (the rise of the Montreal Victorias). The bottom didn't fall out for Montreal HC until the 1896 seasons, where the finished 5th. Not coincidentally (in my opinion), Allan Cameron, Archie Hodgson, and Haviland Routh retired after 1895.
While it was common for hockey players to retire early - Mike Grant at age 28 and Graham Drinkwater at 24 as two examples of many - Paton actually began goaltending at age 30 and had a successful nine-year career (
His longevity is impressive; that and his team successes are why he is being discussed here. Of course, it wasn't unheard of for players to play a long time back then. Dolly Swift debuted in 1882 and played until 1899, for example.
six years with the lowest goals against average in all of organized hockey), ending with a 7-1 record and the Stanley Cup in 1893.
Organized hockey wasn't exactly widespread back then; there was, what, three relevant leagues (OHA, MHA, AHAC) at that point? Furthermore, GAA was a team based stat AND goalies served their own penalties back then- there is a lot of uncertainty baked into GAA from that era.
Ultimate Hockey says Paton deserved the Vezina in 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891 and 1893 (they didn't cover pre-1887) and that he deserved the Hart in 1889 as the best player in all of hockey.
As someone who has been through the game summaries, I'm going to challenge a lot of that, as it seems largely based on GAA and team success. The most egregious "award" there is the 18889 retro-Hart, which, to my mind, should 100% go to Jack Campbell.
But for the other years- outside of 1888 and 1893, those were all challenge style seasons. As Montreal AAA was the top dog, Paton played the most games, and was in the papers the most because of it. I mean, look at 1892- notice that Paton isn't the retro-Vezina that year? It's because Montreal AAA wasn't that strong, despite Paton being between the poles.
Tom was a pioneer goaltender in organized Hockey.. a founding member of the Montreal Amateur Athletic Association Hockey team (Montreal HC).. regarded in many history texts as being undefeated in 1890 and 1891..
This should have no bearing on his status as a goalie.
He was a stellar goalkeeper, putting together solid efforts from 1887 through the 1894 season. The short time he did spend playing for the AAA was well spent indeed. He was, simply put, a gem.
He retired in 1893, so not "through 1894". Solid efforts is a good description, better than "gem".
In the 1889 final match, the AAA bashed the Montreal Victorias 6-1, thanks in large part to his work between the pipes. According to records, he singlehandedly kept the AAA in the game long enough to ensure the victory.
What is the source for this?
The Montreal Gazette and Montreal Herald had pretty good coverage, and I don't see any praise for Paton. Eddie Barlow, JJ Arnton, Jack Campbell, Findlay, McNaughton, Hodgson, and Cameron all get mentioned, but I'm not seeing Paton with much, if any, praise.
Regarding the 1st Stanley Cup in 1893 it has been said
Paton's per-game positive quote/quality of of quotes is not particularly impressive. He was a good goalie for a good amount of time and on a good team- no doubt about that. But was he great? I don't think there is enough evidence that he was better than some of his peers, let alone those who came after.
Paton got hockey's first recorded award, medals to the champion goaltender of the 1885 Montreal Winter Carnival. (see ATD BIO)
Demonstrably false (1883 Montreal Carnival winners got a trophy)
The first Stanley Cup championship ring of Tom Paton's from 1893.(ALSO IN ATD BIO).
There were 6 other guys on the ice with him.
Let's have the best from EVERY era of hockey history on our list!
Hopefully no one accuses me of being biased against the earliest eras of hockey; I have been pushing for representation for the early guys all project. But that only works when we are supporting players who deserve it because of their play, not because of their era.
Moran, LeSueur, Stocking, Hern, etc, those guys show that they distinguished themselves from the peers by their play. On winning teams, on losing teams, they were being called great. I don't see that level of praise when I go through Paton's career.
Not voting for Paton isn't having a bias against the 1880s/1890s- its recognizing that the praise isn't there to warrant his admission.
