Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I'd say they're both being mischaracterized. Which isn't productive. You sniped Hellebuyck's Hart consideration. That's where we're at.
HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 5
- Thread starter Dr John Carlson
- Start date
No, I asked why it was fine to give his Hart consideration full freight when we were told that we shouldn’t give consideration to Price’s lack of all star voting. I never disparaged Hellebuyck’s Hart record, because I don’t think we should be discounting data points.
I think this makes a lot of sense, and it is probably why he is being discussed here instead of earlier. A lot of the early guys have quality of competition issues- talent simply wasn't consolidated and games weren't broadcast, so we get very regional opinions on who is the best. I think we can get an idea of how much he was valued by looking at his praise for when the team came East, but it is a small sample size, for sure.
I don't think this necessarily helps Lehman's career, but it is worth noting that he was an established/well-thought of goalie before his time in the PCHA. He spent some time in the OVHL (which I don't think was a particularly good league), a season in the IPHL (one of the top leagues around at that point), and then 2 seasons (and two separate Cup challenges) in the OPHL (better than the OVHL, but almost certainly not as good on a relative basis as the IPHL was).
The IPHL goalies in 1906-07 were Lehman, Jack Winchester, Billy Nicholson, Joseph 'Chief' Jones, and Darcy Regan. Lehman, Winchester, Nicholson, and to a lesser extent, Jones, were big names. The bad news for Lehman is that I have come across two all-star teams for the 1906-1907 IPHL season, and neither of them list Lehman as the pick at goal; the team originally published from Detroit has Nicholson in that spot, while the team originally published from Pittsburgh has Winchester at goal.
And for what it is worth, I think it should be noted that LeSueur (speaking of goalie names that never quite look right) was 33 when he lost his net to Benedict; that isn't ancient, but it makes sense for a team to be prioritizing the young up-and-comer. In fact, it is pretty close to the same age that Benedict was when Ottawa traded him to make room for Alec Connell.
The starters in 27-28 were Hainsworth, Connell, Worters, Winkler, and Benedict
Hainsworth was 35
Worters was 28
Connell was 26
Winkler was 34
Benedict was 36
Man, the ages skewed pretty old, didn't they? Benedict is the oldest, but not dramatically older than Hainsworth or Winkler.
Lehman was still effective at that age as well.
I definitely don't have an issue with this line of thinking. I may not agree with it 100%, but it seems like a logical conclusion. Certainly Lehman over Holmes is easy (right?).
Versus Worters and Thompson it gets a little trickier for me. I'd like to get more information/read people's thoughts on Thompson in particular before I make my final decision. Lehman has the competition issue. Worters may have been a bad team goalie. Thompson... I'm not sure what the issue really is. He gets replaced by Brimsek, who is better?
I really think a Lehman/Benedict discussion could have set us up nicely for Benedict/Lehman vs Thompson/Worters discussion in this round, and it is a bummer we didn't get that.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
If 1st/2nd/3rd AS teams are your thing, here are the post-war ranks
Obviously, these all come with some big asterisks.
Esposito is doing it in arguably the weakest period outside WW II. Smith never plays enough games to get real consideration. Worsley and Lumley are losing spots to Plante/Sawchuk/Hall (and Bower too).
Hainsworth/Thompson/Worters are doing it in a small league with incomplete records. Holocek didn't play in the NHL.
Whether you go by All-Star teams or Vezina shares, Hellebucyk is in pretty fine company. His Vezina share of 2.63 is the fourth highest 1982-2024 (Brodeur, Hasek, Roy) and he is poised to grow it this year.
Re: Lehman's competition. I think it's fair to point out for the western leagues, but I will note that when he played an eastern team in the SCF he was praised immensely in 1918, 1921, and 1922.
| Player | First | Second | Third | Total | Weighted Total |
| Tony Esposito | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 23 |
| Connor Hellebuyck | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 14 |
| Grant Fuhr | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 10 |
| Harry Lumley | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
| Gump Worsley | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Billy Smith | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Obviously, these all come with some big asterisks.
Esposito is doing it in arguably the weakest period outside WW II. Smith never plays enough games to get real consideration. Worsley and Lumley are losing spots to Plante/Sawchuk/Hall (and Bower too).
Hainsworth/Thompson/Worters are doing it in a small league with incomplete records. Holocek didn't play in the NHL.
Whether you go by All-Star teams or Vezina shares, Hellebucyk is in pretty fine company. His Vezina share of 2.63 is the fourth highest 1982-2024 (Brodeur, Hasek, Roy) and he is poised to grow it this year.
Re: Lehman's competition. I think it's fair to point out for the western leagues, but I will note that when he played an eastern team in the SCF he was praised immensely in 1918, 1921, and 1922.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I feel like it's fairly straightforward.
All the GMs and whoever else thinks Price is in a tier by himself in the league.
You followed with "why not all star votes?" (which goes against the narrative that some have about the media loving him, not necessarily you, but...folks...)
The answer is: Award voting tends to follow stats around. Stats follow specific types of play styles and teams around. Price wasn't exactly the most eligible for votes, particularly in this era.
We already did some breakdowns on Hellebuyck and how talented he is. You specifically tell me that this isn't a talent evaluation exercise. You're not alone in thinking that...so, when it's useful, I point out that a player gets award voting because you and, plural, y'all - like it.
So if I sit there and talk about his glove mechanics, you'll tell me it's not about talent. Now, if I point to award voting for you, then I take shrapnel there too. But it isn't that difficult...but if you're converted that this is much better as a talent evaluation exercise, you have my full support haha
Now that I'm thinking about it, I feel like the same thing is happening with GM opinions here, too. When they agree with you- like with Price- they are good. When they disagree with you- like with, I don't know, Tim Thomas' two Vezina wins- we should discard them.
And this isn't me saying "we should make this list off of awards voting" or "we should discard all awards". I think we should be looking at everything we have to try and figure this out, regardless if they agree with our current worldviews.
Again- what I'm getting from this is that you want us to discount award voting when it is inconvenient for your argument and give it value when you agree with it- "when it's useful".
Ultimately, it just doesn't make sense to me that we would use awards voting for one goalie and then discount it for another goalie of the same era. We need context for the awards voting, absolutely.
I appreciate all the detail you provide when you discuss things like glove mechanics. Seriously, it is interesting and informative. I enjoy the level of detail you provide when discussing why certain players are more the result of their team as opposed to their individual talent. That matters. I don't think this list should be just a blanket listing of talent, but I do think talent is an important thing to give weight to.
I don't intend to make you take shrapnel for using award voting. I don't. I like that you are using it! Like I said, I think we should be using every bit of information we have to try to form a holistic picture of these players' careers given the context of their environments. I am just confused why you seem so selective for when you think we can use the awards.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
My thoughts as we enter week 2 of this round.
Holocek, Lehman, and Hellebucyk sit at the top for me this round. The highest levels of praise. Holocek seems to suffer from consistency issues, when there are periods he outperforms Tretiak and times where Dzurilla outperforms him. Lehman has the weak western league problem, but the very very high praise out of Toronto is relevant to me. Hellebucyk having the highest Vezina shares outside Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy is pretty big.
I flip flop Thompson/Worters. I started with Worters ahead, then went Thompson, now Worters again. But reading through some more contemporary stuff maybe Thompson was viewed as better in the time.
Smith will go high for me. He doesn't bring much in the regular season and 1980 and 81 Stanley Cup runs are unspectacular. But 82 is. 83 and 84 are tremendous. The contemporary praise is high.
Esposito has the strongest regular season paper record of any goalie left. The contemporary praise is good but not great. And the technical inadequacies should be factored in.
I have Hainsworth firmly behind Worters and Thompson. But the longevity is impressive and his peak, statistics aside, is praised by his peers. He won't be a NR for me even if he's near the bottom.
Lumley didn't get much discussion this week. I don't blame him for getting ousted at 23 by Sawchuk, but nothing in the 50s from him really excites me.
Holmes is firmly behind Lehman and I think a real gap is present. I'm interested to see him in relation to Hainsworth.
Fuhr and Worsley are likely my NRs this week. Fuhr is in a weird space. The Oilers don't him give much defensive support in 84,85, or 87 (they do in 88). But no goalie in hockey history has gotten more offensive support. I was really hoping to see more contemporary praise but it's just not there. He's better than Andy Moog but that's not exactly praise.
Worsley is the clear cut worst for me. Everything I've read paints him as the weak link on the 60s Habs dynasty that won in spite of him. Contemporary reports are not flattering.
Holocek, Lehman, and Hellebucyk sit at the top for me this round. The highest levels of praise. Holocek seems to suffer from consistency issues, when there are periods he outperforms Tretiak and times where Dzurilla outperforms him. Lehman has the weak western league problem, but the very very high praise out of Toronto is relevant to me. Hellebucyk having the highest Vezina shares outside Brodeur, Hasek, and Roy is pretty big.
I flip flop Thompson/Worters. I started with Worters ahead, then went Thompson, now Worters again. But reading through some more contemporary stuff maybe Thompson was viewed as better in the time.
Smith will go high for me. He doesn't bring much in the regular season and 1980 and 81 Stanley Cup runs are unspectacular. But 82 is. 83 and 84 are tremendous. The contemporary praise is high.
Esposito has the strongest regular season paper record of any goalie left. The contemporary praise is good but not great. And the technical inadequacies should be factored in.
I have Hainsworth firmly behind Worters and Thompson. But the longevity is impressive and his peak, statistics aside, is praised by his peers. He won't be a NR for me even if he's near the bottom.
Lumley didn't get much discussion this week. I don't blame him for getting ousted at 23 by Sawchuk, but nothing in the 50s from him really excites me.
Holmes is firmly behind Lehman and I think a real gap is present. I'm interested to see him in relation to Hainsworth.
Fuhr and Worsley are likely my NRs this week. Fuhr is in a weird space. The Oilers don't him give much defensive support in 84,85, or 87 (they do in 88). But no goalie in hockey history has gotten more offensive support. I was really hoping to see more contemporary praise but it's just not there. He's better than Andy Moog but that's not exactly praise.
Worsley is the clear cut worst for me. Everything I've read paints him as the weak link on the 60s Habs dynasty that won in spite of him. Contemporary reports are not flattering.
Last edited:
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Vezina ballot is not asking the same thing as what these polls are asking. I got bad news for you, your list is going to be logically inconsistent - let's not have a pretend epiphany ("oh...now that you mention it...") haha
Ok, great, so everything needs context. Got it.
Yes. It's not a big part of my process. I point it out for the talented goalies, I provide additional context for the circumstances.
You say "represent all eras!" and picket out front of the discussion until guys from 1910 are on the list. You don't do the same for guys from 1980. We all got problems. You already got it...we need context. Saying the same thing in three straight sentences doesn't change that.
I'm using the award voting for you. So, I point it out for goalies I like because the list should skew towards the most talented goalies and you like award voting a lot more than I do. We also - again - are quite aware that at some points, for instance, 1AS goes to the GAA leader...context. I think I've made this all pretty clear from day 1 of this project.
So, me breaking down Hellebuyck's talent to some degree and then following it up by going, "hey panelists, you guys love consistent award voting...look at that...give him a high vote" is a surprising thing to pick at, especially to this degree haha
Nah, I'm being completely honest and forthcoming- I hadn't thought about your stance on Vezina voting until I said it. I'm not here to win any arguments, I'm just looking to have a conversation about hockey.
Because you've accused me of just wanting to rank goalies by awards I felt the need to make that disclaimer.
I didn't need to do that for guys from 1980 because I don't see anybody saying that 80s goalies shouldn't be admitted because they played before iPods were a thing. Plus, a goalie whose career began in 1980 was literally the first goalie put on our list- where is the anti-80s bias? The guy number two on our list began his career in 85- again, where is the bias? The guy at seven played several seasons in the 80s. The 80s goalies are not being ignored, haha.
Plus... before this round, I went to bat for exactly one (1) 1910s goalie. I was definitely not pushing Benedict.
Let's look at our list, providing the number of goalies on our list that played substantial (at least 3 seasons) amounts of time in each decade:
1880s: 0
1890s: 0
1900s: 0
1910s: 2 (Vezina, Benedict)
1920s: 3 (Vezina, Gardiner, Benedict)
1930s: 3 (Gardiner, Durnan, Broda)
1940s: 4 (Brimsek, Durnan, Bower, Broda)
1950s: 4 (Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Bower)
1960s: 5 (Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Bower, Parent)
1970s: 4 (Plante, Tretiak, Dryden, Parent)
1980s: 4 (Hasek, Roy, Tretiak, Belfour)
1990s: 4 (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Belfour)
2000s: 7 (Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Lundqvist, Belfour, Luongo, Price)
2010s: 5 (Brodeur, Lundqvist, Vasilevskiy, Luongo, Price)
2020s: 1 (Vasilevskiy)
I'm just not seeing this vast conspiracy against goalies who played in the 80s or modern goalies in general.
My big issue is that you said questioning why- aka looking for context- Price's award voting is lower than it should be is a bad question, but apparently pointing out that Hellebuyck has strong award voting is fair game. Award voting for guys who have significant career overlap shouldn't be considered for one guy and ignored for the other. That just isn't consistent.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Before we continue. Did this happen? It's the tenth time it's been said by you over these rounds. Did this happen?
Have you not claimed that goalies had it easier before the forward pass, and that early goalies were basically the slowest, fattest, dumbest guys on the ice?
I don't believe you've ever made the iPod argument, no. But I also don't think that I've brought it up 10 times.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
No, no, no. We're not gonna slip out of this. "Shouldn't be admitted" is what you said - and have said - about my opinion. Is that true? Did that happen?
Ah, you are right. I shouldn’t have embellished, particularly after I had just asked you not to mischaracterize my arguments. I’ll own that; I apologize.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Let's both get back to helping this project move forward.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
George Hainsworth in the Stanley Cup Finals
1930 Finals
Montreal wins 3-0 against Boston in a best-of-three series
Habs 1 Bruins 0
The Border Cities Star · Apr 2, 1930
Montreal wins 4-3. Newspaper pours love onto Dit Clapper as "one of the greatest wing players in hockey"
Canadiens 2 Bruins 0
The Montreal Gazette · Apr 4, 1930
1931 Finals
Montreal wins 2-1 in a best-of-five series
Habs 1 Blackhawks 0
The Vancouver Sun · Apr 4, 1931
Chicago wins 2-1 in double OT. Morenz highly praised
Shots: Habs 33 Blackhawks 48
Habs 1 Blackhawks 1
No relevant comments
Chicago wins 3-2 in triple OT.
Shots: Habs 42 Blackhawks 47
Habs 1 Blackhawks 2
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · Apr 10, 1931
Montreal wins 4-2
Habs 2 Blackhawks 2
The Vancouver Sun · Apr 13, 1931
Montreal wins 2-0
Habs 3 Blackhawks 2
Meriden Record · Apr 15, 1931
Across both Habs series, Hainsworth gets some pretty immense praise. Morenz jumps off the page in almost every game, including some surprising defensive praise. I've noticed a few comments about Marty Burke being strong defensively in front of Hainsworth. He's never sniffed any of our projects and is a late late late ATD pick if he is even thought of, but he seems to be a strong defensive player. All in all, two very strong series from Hainsworth
1935 Finals
Maroons defeat Toronto 3-2 in OT in a best-of-five series
Maroons 1 Leafs 0
The Calgary Daily Herald · Apr 5, 1935
The Border Cities Star · Apr 6, 1935
Maroons win 3-1
Maroons 2 Leafs 0
The Calgary Daily Herald · Apr 8, 1935
Maroons win 4-1
Maroons 3 Leafs 0
No relevant comments
1936 Finals
Red Wings win 3-1
Shots: Leafs 28 Red Wings 21
Leafs 0 Red Wings 1
No relevant comments
Red Wings win 9-4
Leafs 0 Red Wings 2
The Calgary Daily Herald · Apr 8, 1936
Leafs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Leafs 44 Red Wings 30
Leafs 1 Red Wings 2
The Windsor Daily Star · Apr 10, 1936
Red Wings win 3-2
Shots: Leafs 31 Red Wings 32
Leafs 1 Red Wings 3
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · Apr 13, 1936
Hard to pull anything relevant from the 1935 Finals, but he does get noticeable praise in 1936.
Overall, his stock definitely rose for me. He's spoken of highly and stole a few games. I was pretty convinced on Worters/Thompson>Hainsworth but now I'm not so sure.
1930 Finals
Montreal wins 3-0 against Boston in a best-of-three series
Habs 1 Bruins 0
The Border Cities Star · Apr 2, 1930
Montreal wins 4-3. Newspaper pours love onto Dit Clapper as "one of the greatest wing players in hockey"
Canadiens 2 Bruins 0
The Montreal Gazette · Apr 4, 1930
1931 Finals
Montreal wins 2-1 in a best-of-five series
Habs 1 Blackhawks 0
The Vancouver Sun · Apr 4, 1931
Chicago wins 2-1 in double OT. Morenz highly praised
Shots: Habs 33 Blackhawks 48
Habs 1 Blackhawks 1
No relevant comments
Chicago wins 3-2 in triple OT.
Shots: Habs 42 Blackhawks 47
Habs 1 Blackhawks 2
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · Apr 10, 1931
Montreal wins 4-2
Habs 2 Blackhawks 2
The Vancouver Sun · Apr 13, 1931
Montreal wins 2-0
Habs 3 Blackhawks 2
Meriden Record · Apr 15, 1931
Across both Habs series, Hainsworth gets some pretty immense praise. Morenz jumps off the page in almost every game, including some surprising defensive praise. I've noticed a few comments about Marty Burke being strong defensively in front of Hainsworth. He's never sniffed any of our projects and is a late late late ATD pick if he is even thought of, but he seems to be a strong defensive player. All in all, two very strong series from Hainsworth
1935 Finals
Maroons defeat Toronto 3-2 in OT in a best-of-five series
Maroons 1 Leafs 0
The Calgary Daily Herald · Apr 5, 1935
The Border Cities Star · Apr 6, 1935
Maroons win 3-1
Maroons 2 Leafs 0
The Calgary Daily Herald · Apr 8, 1935
Maroons win 4-1
Maroons 3 Leafs 0
No relevant comments
1936 Finals
Red Wings win 3-1
Shots: Leafs 28 Red Wings 21
Leafs 0 Red Wings 1
No relevant comments
Red Wings win 9-4
Leafs 0 Red Wings 2
The Calgary Daily Herald · Apr 8, 1936
Leafs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Leafs 44 Red Wings 30
Leafs 1 Red Wings 2
The Windsor Daily Star · Apr 10, 1936
Red Wings win 3-2
Shots: Leafs 31 Red Wings 32
Leafs 1 Red Wings 3
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · Apr 13, 1936
Hard to pull anything relevant from the 1935 Finals, but he does get noticeable praise in 1936.
Overall, his stock definitely rose for me. He's spoken of highly and stole a few games. I was pretty convinced on Worters/Thompson>Hainsworth but now I'm not so sure.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
The Future of Goaltending - Today!
Harry Lumley laid the groundwork for the first golden era of goaltending, but is left behind by history.
Before we continue, this post is sponsored by Lucky Strike cigarettes. The "toasted" cigarette! Over 20,000 physicians can't be wrong, "Toasted is better for the throat and soothes your Q-Zone!" Smoke a Lucky Strike - today!
The sponsorship era produced quite a haul for the NHL. It's patently unfair to the players in retrospect, but we can't go back and litigate that now. It did produce a lot of very well rounded players...developed players. Most clubs took their time with their players, they didn't force junior-aged players into the league very much...
Conversely, when players were forced into the league early, some had their development stagnate in some respects...Ted Lindsay (entered the NHL at 19 full time), for instance, played the game like he was being chased by bees...kind of similar to Bep Guidolin (entered NHL at 17) who played a reckless style of game. They sort of over-played it, and lacked "touch" in certain aspects.
It's tough even today for some players to make it early and hang in there...Nino Neiderreiter really struggled for a while, Luca Sbisa never got it, it took RNH how long to stay healthy, etc. - naturally, guys like McDavid, Crosby, Lemieux, Orr, Howe are supernatural and if you put them in the NHL at age 12 with a rake in place of a hockey stick, they'd still figure it out probably...
But generally, especially in this time period, rushed players had a really hard time rounding out their games.
Enter Harry Lumley. A goalie who played his first NHL game a month after his 17th birthday on Dec. 19, 1943.
Other newspaper accounts list him as the Wings "backbone" for the first six games of the series. He also may have been given one of the first delay of game puck over glass penalties ever...in the series (game 6?) when he caught a puck and nonchalantly threw it over his shoulder and out of play haha
Obviously, he got supplanted famously by a guy already on the list - Terry Sawchuk. Gordie Howe stated there was "a good chance" the Wings would've won all those Cups with Lumley in the crease. Which might be a Gretzky-like quote, to be fair. But he also didn't have to say it...they also won their first with Lumley.
Well, we know the O6 era well enough to know that when you get ousted from a contender, you rarely end up on another one. So Lumley went to some really bad situations and we know what bad situations can do to goalie stats and, therefore, award voting...
A bit neurotic and very protective of his crease (think Billy Smith before Billy Smith in some respects), Lumley was the first goalie in history to hit 300 wins.
"Correcting" the Al Rollins Hart Trophy of 1954?
There's a lot of debate about the Rollins Hart, which we won't litigate now. But the United Press conducted a poll for the NHL's Player of the Year (which isn't necessarily the same criteria).
Red Kelly won it by getting five more votes than Harry Lumley, who finished 2nd. (Others receiving votes: Gord Howe, Al Rollins, and Maurice Richard)
[Of possible interest...the UP had Bower as their rookie of the year, by one vote over Dutch Reibel; Camille Henry (actual Calder winner) had "heavy support"...followed by Mohns and Beliveau.)
Lost 1955 Vezina on goal that likely would have been wiped out by goalie interference...
Lumley tore thigh tendons later in the 1956 season, and he struggled to return from that. At that point he had already had 12 full NHL seasons as a starter before age 30...and he did it in some pretty uncomfy places...
He went down to the minors in 1957...didn't pout. He was a Second-Team AS there behind...another player already on the list...Johnny Bower, of course.
Stats misleading...
Lum battled with weight post-injury. But still was called in to Boston well into his 30's to help with stretch run...
On that, Milt Schmidt said...
This was in place of Don Simmons. Who is consistently referred to as inconsistent and unreliable around this time.
Became early goalie coach.
More importantly, let's check the tape...
Now, we give points here for being an adventer and/or inventor and I think that's just. Frank Nighbor gets a lot of points for "inventing" the pokecheck. Clint Benedict, rather silently, got a ton of support for breaking the rules and falling. Well...I think Lumley should get a lot of points for carrying the position to its modern state.
Whether this is a first-time view or a refresher, let's take a quick peak at two contrasting goalie styles in the previous generation...a short clip that can be viewed at 1x or 0.75x speed, I actually recommend the latter.
I've traced this game (mislabeled as they mostly are) to Dec 20, 1936.
On one side, we see some semblance of modern-ish goaltending with New York's Dave Kerr. We see some telescopic leg movements while remaining torso upright, etc. It's a little tougher with him, but there's obviously something there. That's for another time (though, probably not soon enough for my tastes).
On the other side, we have the opposite...we have George Hainsworth...who plays the position like a trash bag full of leaves...watch him surrender the late lead and then lose the game in overtime (by 2, as was the style at the time).
So, that's immediately what we came from. Most relevant goalies were somewhere in between this. Exception probably being Worters who was a scrambly goalie...who played more out of control than Kerr. But was also usually alone on the screen when facing attacks. So, he sort threw himself all over the place to compensate for his general loneliness and remarkably accurate depictions of his size at 5'2" or whatever he's listed at. That's probably on skates haha. This is kind of like what we saw with Rogie Vachon later. Fun and interesting. But not great.
On the "steadier" end of things, we have a lot of goalies that played a stand-up style, as you'd expect, passed down from Vezina. Some were more stick-led than others. Importantly, some were much better skaters than others. Like Durnan. Some were superb in terms of angles and really incorporating the glove...like Brimsek...and Durnan x2.
The golden era...saw Sawchuk - who modified the standup into something else. Saw Hall, who modified the falling into something actually useful. And we saw Plante, who never played from a deficit because of his skating, angles, and then his ability to pounce and cut down angles in a unique way.
But there's a missing link between ol' garbage bag Hainsworth and Jacques Plante. The answer is Harry Lumley for me...and I proudly boast him at 10th overall on my initial list.
The 1949 Final shows another gap between goalie evolution, but more so style, in some regard. We see Turk Broda give up the first goal in this clip...
Broda is sort of a one-and-done standup. Skating deficiency, sort of a lack of compete for second chance pucks, etc. produce this sort of result. He made it work in the very defensive Leafs situation and he deserves credit for that - I'm not trying to litigate him or that.
Now, let's get to 0:30 of the same clip. Thankfully, both teams are wearing dark colors. So it's immediately obvious what's happening...........................
As the Leafs come down the wing. Sophisticated post integration from Lumley. Shows off really good skating to move from post to post. We remember 20 years later, it takes Worsley three strides to make that trek successfully. He makes two saves in a row - which doesn't sound like a lot, but at this point in history...it's more than you think haha - let me leave it like that. Now...I don't know that any goalie is equipped to handle a third shot in a row in a scramble at this point in history. So, he ends up on his wallet by the third one...which I don't love. But there's a lot of compete there and it's not unreasonable what he's doing in the context of the other film that I've seen. If he routinely ended up sitting on his ass, I wouldn't be making this post because I wouldn't like him.
Now, go back and just watch DET5 absolutely clobber some poor Leaf in front. Whew boy...
Anyway, after Cruella De Vil stands up, we see at 0:43 Lumley getting set for a semi cross net-line pass. He gets good crease depth. He's almost in a Sawchuk-like stance but this game pre-dates Sawchuk of course. There's some blocker overlap it appears (not great, if true), it's a bit blurry on the freeze. Then as TOR24 lets the shot go...he's going to make a one-knee, kneeling block, stick blade backed by pad, moving into the trajectory of the shot (ya know, unlike Gump...who slides out of the way, randomly, of everything but a hot meal), very under control, with a mindset of playing the rebound out of danger.
Who does that remind you of? If you said, "Martin Brodeur"...you'd be right. If you didn't fast forward in time that quickly and said, "Jacques Plante"...you'd be right. It's not just me that feels that way...
Now, second chances are really hard for goalies through history to stop...even now. But back then...given where the position was, where equipment was, where technique was, etc. - a second chance is............in. But watch after the initial save, which comes off of a really good pre-shot pass...watch at 0:45 as Lumley comes up with a brilliant save. The puck rebounds around to the other side of the net. Lumley doesn't dilly dally...he slides right over. Gets his head quickly around, robs TOR9 from 7 feet away. Tries to catch the rebound, bobbles it...and then still fights to try to get depth and angle on yet another chance in the sequence. Which, to be fair, he's not exactly in fine shape...but who would be at this point? The puck is saved by the d-man behind him on the near post, while Lumley takes up the middle of the net, remaining in good form...torso upright, reading the puck off the stick.
Watch that Hainsworth OT goal again...you think he takes one stride in these situations? You think Worsley is even on the same street as the arena in these cases? No chance. Zero.
Even with 200,000 kilometers on him here late in 1959, he's still very quick and very good technically. This is very high end goaltending overall from him...
Watch him fight off the Leaf power play as a member of the Bruins. Isn't throwing himself all over, making the first move...very composed. Slides post to post, stick blade is confidently in the right spot. I tee'd it up for you to see him make a save on a second chance opportunity on the other side of the net once again, just like he had done 10 years prior. Remember what I said before about "save process"...it's generally not gonna change too, too much for most goalies. Now, you either get a save or you don't, but that might be predicated on the team in front of you...which is my whole stance in this really.
But look at 1949...look at 1959...he does exactly the same thing. Players with a process don't stray super far from their mean...situations do though. That's why talent... *clears throat*
Anyway...here's the leave-behind...
- Forced into the league at barely 17
- Got booted from a dream spot by Sawchuk at 23, but the first Cup in that run is Lumley's (he got them to the Final the previous two years as well...before Howe had any 1st Team AS nods or top 5 scoring finishes)
- Several sources cite that Chicago basically sucks at defense and that he had no chance, and this would be a theme for most of the rest of his career
- Still found time to eek out some statistical and award voting recognition - I'll leave that to you guys I guess
- After 12 years in pro hockey and a serious injury, went down to the minors with a sad sack team, was considered right there with Bower for best goalie down there despite the situation.
- Comes back up for the stretch run with Boston for a couple years...one time getting them into the playoffs with his late season run in a tight race.
- Then became one of the first (?) known goalie coaches because of his technical advents and expertise
- And he might well be the Father of Modern Goaltending. Doing things in the late 40's that were not only picked up by the next generation, but things that are still en vogue today...that's a big deal.
We were handed a list of goalies, many of which have no business at these reaches of the list, Gretzky's goalie, Tony O...and 60 in the playoffs, ol' garbage bag Hainsworth, the second-best "Gump" in pop culture...I say if you like goalie advents, if you want to shine a light on the forgotten men of history - especially those given a raw deal team-wise, if you want the first 300-game winner, if you want the Production Line's first Cup...you want Harry Lumley #1 this round.
Harry Lumley laid the groundwork for the first golden era of goaltending, but is left behind by history.
Before we continue, this post is sponsored by Lucky Strike cigarettes. The "toasted" cigarette! Over 20,000 physicians can't be wrong, "Toasted is better for the throat and soothes your Q-Zone!" Smoke a Lucky Strike - today!
The sponsorship era produced quite a haul for the NHL. It's patently unfair to the players in retrospect, but we can't go back and litigate that now. It did produce a lot of very well rounded players...developed players. Most clubs took their time with their players, they didn't force junior-aged players into the league very much...
Conversely, when players were forced into the league early, some had their development stagnate in some respects...Ted Lindsay (entered the NHL at 19 full time), for instance, played the game like he was being chased by bees...kind of similar to Bep Guidolin (entered NHL at 17) who played a reckless style of game. They sort of over-played it, and lacked "touch" in certain aspects.
It's tough even today for some players to make it early and hang in there...Nino Neiderreiter really struggled for a while, Luca Sbisa never got it, it took RNH how long to stay healthy, etc. - naturally, guys like McDavid, Crosby, Lemieux, Orr, Howe are supernatural and if you put them in the NHL at age 12 with a rake in place of a hockey stick, they'd still figure it out probably...
But generally, especially in this time period, rushed players had a really hard time rounding out their games.
Enter Harry Lumley. A goalie who played his first NHL game a month after his 17th birthday on Dec. 19, 1943.
THN - Jan 14 1948 said:
Lumley is credited with stopping Mosdell on a breakaway as the turning point of the game.Ottawa Journal - Apr 6 1949 said:
Other newspaper accounts list him as the Wings "backbone" for the first six games of the series. He also may have been given one of the first delay of game puck over glass penalties ever...in the series (game 6?) when he caught a puck and nonchalantly threw it over his shoulder and out of play haha
Obviously, he got supplanted famously by a guy already on the list - Terry Sawchuk. Gordie Howe stated there was "a good chance" the Wings would've won all those Cups with Lumley in the crease. Which might be a Gretzky-like quote, to be fair. But he also didn't have to say it...they also won their first with Lumley.
Well, we know the O6 era well enough to know that when you get ousted from a contender, you rarely end up on another one. So Lumley went to some really bad situations and we know what bad situations can do to goalie stats and, therefore, award voting...
Ottawa Journal - Feb 8 1951 said:
Newport Daily Express - Mar 12 1951 said:
THN - Nov 24 1951 said:
A bit neurotic and very protective of his crease (think Billy Smith before Billy Smith in some respects), Lumley was the first goalie in history to hit 300 wins.
THN - Nov 24 1951 said:
"Correcting" the Al Rollins Hart Trophy of 1954?
There's a lot of debate about the Rollins Hart, which we won't litigate now. But the United Press conducted a poll for the NHL's Player of the Year (which isn't necessarily the same criteria).
Red Kelly won it by getting five more votes than Harry Lumley, who finished 2nd. (Others receiving votes: Gord Howe, Al Rollins, and Maurice Richard)
[Of possible interest...the UP had Bower as their rookie of the year, by one vote over Dutch Reibel; Camille Henry (actual Calder winner) had "heavy support"...followed by Mohns and Beliveau.)
THN - Feb 5 1955 said:
- A team that @Eric Zweig has cited in THN "wasn't very good".late season 1955 said:
Lost 1955 Vezina on goal that likely would have been wiped out by goalie interference...
Lumley tore thigh tendons later in the 1956 season, and he struggled to return from that. At that point he had already had 12 full NHL seasons as a starter before age 30...and he did it in some pretty uncomfy places...
He went down to the minors in 1957...didn't pout. He was a Second-Team AS there behind...another player already on the list...Johnny Bower, of course.
Stats misleading...
(Editor's note on the last bolded; Remember, this is still a league with Johnny Bower in it.)THN - Mar 2 1957 said:
Lum battled with weight post-injury. But still was called in to Boston well into his 30's to help with stretch run...
On that, Milt Schmidt said...
This was in place of Don Simmons. Who is consistently referred to as inconsistent and unreliable around this time.
Became early goalie coach.
THN - Apr 2 1960 said:
More importantly, let's check the tape...
Now, we give points here for being an adventer and/or inventor and I think that's just. Frank Nighbor gets a lot of points for "inventing" the pokecheck. Clint Benedict, rather silently, got a ton of support for breaking the rules and falling. Well...I think Lumley should get a lot of points for carrying the position to its modern state.
Whether this is a first-time view or a refresher, let's take a quick peak at two contrasting goalie styles in the previous generation...a short clip that can be viewed at 1x or 0.75x speed, I actually recommend the latter.
I've traced this game (mislabeled as they mostly are) to Dec 20, 1936.
On one side, we see some semblance of modern-ish goaltending with New York's Dave Kerr. We see some telescopic leg movements while remaining torso upright, etc. It's a little tougher with him, but there's obviously something there. That's for another time (though, probably not soon enough for my tastes).
On the other side, we have the opposite...we have George Hainsworth...who plays the position like a trash bag full of leaves...watch him surrender the late lead and then lose the game in overtime (by 2, as was the style at the time).
So, that's immediately what we came from. Most relevant goalies were somewhere in between this. Exception probably being Worters who was a scrambly goalie...who played more out of control than Kerr. But was also usually alone on the screen when facing attacks. So, he sort threw himself all over the place to compensate for his general loneliness and remarkably accurate depictions of his size at 5'2" or whatever he's listed at. That's probably on skates haha. This is kind of like what we saw with Rogie Vachon later. Fun and interesting. But not great.
On the "steadier" end of things, we have a lot of goalies that played a stand-up style, as you'd expect, passed down from Vezina. Some were more stick-led than others. Importantly, some were much better skaters than others. Like Durnan. Some were superb in terms of angles and really incorporating the glove...like Brimsek...and Durnan x2.
The golden era...saw Sawchuk - who modified the standup into something else. Saw Hall, who modified the falling into something actually useful. And we saw Plante, who never played from a deficit because of his skating, angles, and then his ability to pounce and cut down angles in a unique way.
But there's a missing link between ol' garbage bag Hainsworth and Jacques Plante. The answer is Harry Lumley for me...and I proudly boast him at 10th overall on my initial list.
The 1949 Final shows another gap between goalie evolution, but more so style, in some regard. We see Turk Broda give up the first goal in this clip...
Broda is sort of a one-and-done standup. Skating deficiency, sort of a lack of compete for second chance pucks, etc. produce this sort of result. He made it work in the very defensive Leafs situation and he deserves credit for that - I'm not trying to litigate him or that.
Now, let's get to 0:30 of the same clip. Thankfully, both teams are wearing dark colors. So it's immediately obvious what's happening...........................
As the Leafs come down the wing. Sophisticated post integration from Lumley. Shows off really good skating to move from post to post. We remember 20 years later, it takes Worsley three strides to make that trek successfully. He makes two saves in a row - which doesn't sound like a lot, but at this point in history...it's more than you think haha - let me leave it like that. Now...I don't know that any goalie is equipped to handle a third shot in a row in a scramble at this point in history. So, he ends up on his wallet by the third one...which I don't love. But there's a lot of compete there and it's not unreasonable what he's doing in the context of the other film that I've seen. If he routinely ended up sitting on his ass, I wouldn't be making this post because I wouldn't like him.
Now, go back and just watch DET5 absolutely clobber some poor Leaf in front. Whew boy...
Anyway, after Cruella De Vil stands up, we see at 0:43 Lumley getting set for a semi cross net-line pass. He gets good crease depth. He's almost in a Sawchuk-like stance but this game pre-dates Sawchuk of course. There's some blocker overlap it appears (not great, if true), it's a bit blurry on the freeze. Then as TOR24 lets the shot go...he's going to make a one-knee, kneeling block, stick blade backed by pad, moving into the trajectory of the shot (ya know, unlike Gump...who slides out of the way, randomly, of everything but a hot meal), very under control, with a mindset of playing the rebound out of danger.
Who does that remind you of? If you said, "Martin Brodeur"...you'd be right. If you didn't fast forward in time that quickly and said, "Jacques Plante"...you'd be right. It's not just me that feels that way...
Ottawa Journal - Feb 22 1956 said:
Now, second chances are really hard for goalies through history to stop...even now. But back then...given where the position was, where equipment was, where technique was, etc. - a second chance is............in. But watch after the initial save, which comes off of a really good pre-shot pass...watch at 0:45 as Lumley comes up with a brilliant save. The puck rebounds around to the other side of the net. Lumley doesn't dilly dally...he slides right over. Gets his head quickly around, robs TOR9 from 7 feet away. Tries to catch the rebound, bobbles it...and then still fights to try to get depth and angle on yet another chance in the sequence. Which, to be fair, he's not exactly in fine shape...but who would be at this point? The puck is saved by the d-man behind him on the near post, while Lumley takes up the middle of the net, remaining in good form...torso upright, reading the puck off the stick.
Watch that Hainsworth OT goal again...you think he takes one stride in these situations? You think Worsley is even on the same street as the arena in these cases? No chance. Zero.
Even with 200,000 kilometers on him here late in 1959, he's still very quick and very good technically. This is very high end goaltending overall from him...
Watch him fight off the Leaf power play as a member of the Bruins. Isn't throwing himself all over, making the first move...very composed. Slides post to post, stick blade is confidently in the right spot. I tee'd it up for you to see him make a save on a second chance opportunity on the other side of the net once again, just like he had done 10 years prior. Remember what I said before about "save process"...it's generally not gonna change too, too much for most goalies. Now, you either get a save or you don't, but that might be predicated on the team in front of you...which is my whole stance in this really.
But look at 1949...look at 1959...he does exactly the same thing. Players with a process don't stray super far from their mean...situations do though. That's why talent... *clears throat*
Anyway...here's the leave-behind...
- Forced into the league at barely 17
- Got booted from a dream spot by Sawchuk at 23, but the first Cup in that run is Lumley's (he got them to the Final the previous two years as well...before Howe had any 1st Team AS nods or top 5 scoring finishes)
- Several sources cite that Chicago basically sucks at defense and that he had no chance, and this would be a theme for most of the rest of his career
- Still found time to eek out some statistical and award voting recognition - I'll leave that to you guys I guess
- After 12 years in pro hockey and a serious injury, went down to the minors with a sad sack team, was considered right there with Bower for best goalie down there despite the situation.
- Comes back up for the stretch run with Boston for a couple years...one time getting them into the playoffs with his late season run in a tight race.
- Then became one of the first (?) known goalie coaches because of his technical advents and expertise
- And he might well be the Father of Modern Goaltending. Doing things in the late 40's that were not only picked up by the next generation, but things that are still en vogue today...that's a big deal.
We were handed a list of goalies, many of which have no business at these reaches of the list, Gretzky's goalie, Tony O...and 60 in the playoffs, ol' garbage bag Hainsworth, the second-best "Gump" in pop culture...I say if you like goalie advents, if you want to shine a light on the forgotten men of history - especially those given a raw deal team-wise, if you want the first 300-game winner, if you want the Production Line's first Cup...you want Harry Lumley #1 this round.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Tremendous post. One thing that I've been noodling with is that goaltending seems to oscillate between strong eras and weak eras.
1885-1895 era goalies dominate from the early 1910s through mid 1920s. Vezina, Benedict, Lehman, Holmes. The "also ran" from the era (George Hainsworth, 1895) is arguably the best goalie in the world in 1926-1927 in his early 30s after everyone else was old and broken from his birth cohort.
The 1895-1910 years only produce one truly great goalie in Charlie Gardiner. Overall, just plain weaker in contemporary opinion.
The mid 1910s produces some greats. Brimsek, Durnan, Broda are all born in a 24 month span. All the above at least roughly jives with war impacted years.
Then the 1925-1931 birth cohorts steal the spotlight early. Lumley is 17. Sawchuk is getting widespread greatest ever accolades at 21-22-23. Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Bower, and Lumley own the starting spots largely from the early 50s through late 60s. The "also ran" from the era (Worsley) stars for a dynasty in the mid late 60s. The 1932-1946 birth years of goalies struggle to surplant the older broken generation. That golden generation includes several wonder years at 38+ from Plante, Bower, and Sawchuk.
Goaltending is in a bit of a weak spot in the 40s and 50s birth years. Guys are criticized in newspapers compared to the older generation. They had technical challenges. Most had the sponsorship system stolen from them during crucial developmental years and it wasn't adequately replaced for decades. This is the same cohort that had starting positions explode in availability in the 70s and were all thrust in front of bad defenses at an early age.
Then the 1965-1972 birth years brings an influx of elite goalies. Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Brodeur. Could even include names like CuJo, Barasso, and Richter. But afterwords there's a weird trickle down. Brodeur holds the reigns until he's old. Outside Luongo and Lundqvist we don't have much. You have technically deficient goalies (Thomas, Elliot) getting the spotlight and a carousal of top guys.
Then 1987-1995 has some really high end guys come in. Price, Vasilevskiy, Hellebucyk, Shesterkin.
Is there something inherent about goaltending producing high/low periods? They don't coincide with scoring levels or anything. It's not an exact science but I'm definitely seeing a bit of a pattern.
1885-1895 era goalies dominate from the early 1910s through mid 1920s. Vezina, Benedict, Lehman, Holmes. The "also ran" from the era (George Hainsworth, 1895) is arguably the best goalie in the world in 1926-1927 in his early 30s after everyone else was old and broken from his birth cohort.
The 1895-1910 years only produce one truly great goalie in Charlie Gardiner. Overall, just plain weaker in contemporary opinion.
The mid 1910s produces some greats. Brimsek, Durnan, Broda are all born in a 24 month span. All the above at least roughly jives with war impacted years.
Then the 1925-1931 birth cohorts steal the spotlight early. Lumley is 17. Sawchuk is getting widespread greatest ever accolades at 21-22-23. Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, Bower, and Lumley own the starting spots largely from the early 50s through late 60s. The "also ran" from the era (Worsley) stars for a dynasty in the mid late 60s. The 1932-1946 birth years of goalies struggle to surplant the older broken generation. That golden generation includes several wonder years at 38+ from Plante, Bower, and Sawchuk.
Goaltending is in a bit of a weak spot in the 40s and 50s birth years. Guys are criticized in newspapers compared to the older generation. They had technical challenges. Most had the sponsorship system stolen from them during crucial developmental years and it wasn't adequately replaced for decades. This is the same cohort that had starting positions explode in availability in the 70s and were all thrust in front of bad defenses at an early age.
Then the 1965-1972 birth years brings an influx of elite goalies. Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Brodeur. Could even include names like CuJo, Barasso, and Richter. But afterwords there's a weird trickle down. Brodeur holds the reigns until he's old. Outside Luongo and Lundqvist we don't have much. You have technically deficient goalies (Thomas, Elliot) getting the spotlight and a carousal of top guys.
Then 1987-1995 has some really high end guys come in. Price, Vasilevskiy, Hellebucyk, Shesterkin.
Is there something inherent about goaltending producing high/low periods? They don't coincide with scoring levels or anything. It's not an exact science but I'm definitely seeing a bit of a pattern.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Harry Holmes in the Stanley Cup finals
1914 Cup
Toronto beats Victoria 5-2 in a best-of-five series
Toronto HC 1 Aristocrats 0
The Saskatoon Phoenix · Mar 16, 1914
Toronto beats Victoria 6-5
Toronto HC 2 Aristocrats 0
The Toronto Sunday World · Mar 18, 1914
Toronto wins 2-1
Toronto HC 3 Aristocrats 0
The Toronto Sunday World · Mar 20, 1914
1917 Stanley Cup Finals
Montreal beats Seattle 8-4 in a best-of-five series
Metropolitans 0 Canadiens 1
The Spokesman-Review · Mar 18, 1917
Seattle wins 6-1
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 1
Quebec Telegraph · Mar 21, 1917
Seattle wins 4-1
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1
The Calgary Daily Herald · Mar 24, 1917
Seattle wins 9-1
Metropolitans 3 Canadiens 1
The Toronto World · Mar 27, 1917
1919 Finals
Seattle wins 7-0
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 0
Despite the shutout, no relevant comments
Montreal wins 4-2
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 1
Edmonton Journal · Mar 24, 1919
Seattle wins 7-2
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1
The Saskatoon Phoenix · Mar 25, 1919
0-0 tie after double OT
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1
The Toronto World · Mar 27, 1919
Montreal wins 4-3 in OT. Series cancelled to flu
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 2
The Spokesman-Review · Mar 31, 1919
1920 Finals
Senators win 3-2
Metropolitans 0 Senators 1
The Toronto World · Mar 23, 1920
Ottawa wins 3-0
Metropolitans 0 Senators 2
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 25, 1920
Seattle wins 3-1
Metropolitans 1 Senators 2
The Calgary Daily Herald · Mar 29, 1920
Seattle wins 5-2
Metropolitans 2 Senators 2
No relevant comments
Ottawa wins 6-1
Metropolitans 2 Senators 3
The Toronto World · Apr 2, 1920
1925 Finals
Victoria beats Montreal 5-2
Cougars 1 Canadiens 0
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 23, 1925
Victoria wins 3-1
Cougars 2 Canadiens 0
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 24, 1925
Montreal wins 4-2
Cougars 2 Canadiens 1
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 28, 1925
Victoria wins 6-1
Cougars 3 Canadiens 1
The Morning Leader · Mar 31, 1925
1926 Finals
Montreal Maroons win 3-0
Cougars 0 Maroons 1
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 31, 1926
Montreal Maroons win 3-0
Cougars 0 Maroons 2
No relevant comments
Victoria wins 3-2
Cougars 1 Maroons 2
No relevant comments
Montreal Maroons win 2-0
Cougars 1 Maroons 3
The Morning Leader · Apr 7, 1926
Overall, there's a lot to like here. He is praised in multiple situations and on multiple teams. I do think there's a real gap between him and Lehman in Lehman's favour, but Holmes is my sure-fire third top pre-merger goalie.
1914 Cup
Toronto beats Victoria 5-2 in a best-of-five series
Toronto HC 1 Aristocrats 0
The Saskatoon Phoenix · Mar 16, 1914
Toronto beats Victoria 6-5
Toronto HC 2 Aristocrats 0
The Toronto Sunday World · Mar 18, 1914
Toronto wins 2-1
Toronto HC 3 Aristocrats 0
The Toronto Sunday World · Mar 20, 1914
1917 Stanley Cup Finals
Montreal beats Seattle 8-4 in a best-of-five series
Metropolitans 0 Canadiens 1
The Spokesman-Review · Mar 18, 1917
Seattle wins 6-1
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 1
Quebec Telegraph · Mar 21, 1917
Seattle wins 4-1
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1
The Calgary Daily Herald · Mar 24, 1917
Seattle wins 9-1
Metropolitans 3 Canadiens 1
The Toronto World · Mar 27, 1917
1919 Finals
Seattle wins 7-0
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 0
Despite the shutout, no relevant comments
Montreal wins 4-2
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 1
Edmonton Journal · Mar 24, 1919
Seattle wins 7-2
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1
The Saskatoon Phoenix · Mar 25, 1919
0-0 tie after double OT
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1
The Toronto World · Mar 27, 1919
Montreal wins 4-3 in OT. Series cancelled to flu
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 2
The Spokesman-Review · Mar 31, 1919
1920 Finals
Senators win 3-2
Metropolitans 0 Senators 1
The Toronto World · Mar 23, 1920
Ottawa wins 3-0
Metropolitans 0 Senators 2
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 25, 1920
Seattle wins 3-1
Metropolitans 1 Senators 2
The Calgary Daily Herald · Mar 29, 1920
Seattle wins 5-2
Metropolitans 2 Senators 2
No relevant comments
Ottawa wins 6-1
Metropolitans 2 Senators 3
The Toronto World · Apr 2, 1920
1925 Finals
Victoria beats Montreal 5-2
Cougars 1 Canadiens 0
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 23, 1925
Victoria wins 3-1
Cougars 2 Canadiens 0
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 24, 1925
Montreal wins 4-2
Cougars 2 Canadiens 1
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 28, 1925
Victoria wins 6-1
Cougars 3 Canadiens 1
The Morning Leader · Mar 31, 1925
1926 Finals
Montreal Maroons win 3-0
Cougars 0 Maroons 1
The Montreal Gazette · Mar 31, 1926
Montreal Maroons win 3-0
Cougars 0 Maroons 2
No relevant comments
Victoria wins 3-2
Cougars 1 Maroons 2
No relevant comments
Montreal Maroons win 2-0
Cougars 1 Maroons 3
The Morning Leader · Apr 7, 1926
Overall, there's a lot to like here. He is praised in multiple situations and on multiple teams. I do think there's a real gap between him and Lehman in Lehman's favour, but Holmes is my sure-fire third top pre-merger goalie.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Working backwards...
Yeah, the position sucks and lacks depth and rarely is ahead of skaters. Coaches coach skaters. Practices are designed for skaters. Skaters make up a much bigger slice of the pie of the hockey population. Goalies also play. And to their credit these days, they mostly play from the deficit that I laid out briefly.
Why doesn't Canada produce goalies anymore? Well, they don't know how to develop them. They thought blocking butterfly was going to be the way...that wore thin and they went to their next idea...and that was basically ignore the problem. Price is a gutter flower, and damn fine one.
But a lot of the best goalies in the world are Americans - thanks to baseball, in some respects. And Russian, thanks to....uhhh...they're good at hockey and they brought over a bunch of Finnish goalie coaches to develop their goalies and Finns know goaltending.
But the new style of hockey wiped out the mess of goalies because they couldn't move with the play. Best ones hung on like Brodeur, Luongo, and Kipper. We had to deal with dog water nonsense while the depth of the position refilled. Took about 10 years because no one was ready to adapt. No one understood. Like I said, some bozos saw Steve Mason and went "yes, a big cardboard box...that will do it" and developed that...and they stink. A few people that can't see past their own nose thought, "ahh, just throw a battler in there...and just compete your way to pucks" ...those guys all bag groceries now because that doesn't work in the NHL for any good length of time. You need a process.
So, it was rough for a while and the position remains pretty fragile.
*checks Linus Ulmark's save pct.* Oop...must not be practicing as hard in Ottawa haha
Goaltending really out-technical'd skaters as the 90's wore on. The skaters got so used to goalies just throwing themselves off a balcony on every shot in 1983 that they themselves took it for granted. Defensemen stopped going for kill shots as their only means of defending (which was sort of the style from the guys that stood at their own line waiting for meat to pulverize). So, you introduce (well, improve) concepts like gap control and speed matching and all that fun stuff. And then goaltenders sort of borrowed from that and went, "ohh...you just stay in the net, and that keeps you in front of the puck...ohhhhhh...cool."
So that's part of why those washed minor leaguers that came from the WHA and all that died out later in the 80's. It's because d-men and goalies were outplaying poorly conceived and poorly rounded forwards. They were about to take over. But it takes a while to refill the goalie chest. But when they did, it ushered in probably the second time in history where goalies actually dictated the terms of the game. Brodeur, Hasek, Roy, Belfour...whoever...that was their game, that was the defense's game. When it got to the point where it looked like a lot of mid tier forwards were chuckin' rocks at a tank...we shut the league down in protest and made new rules haha
Going back before the goalie boom, I think it goes without saying, "everything is happening" - we still have the effects of the 1965 backup goalie rule that goes down through the levels, we used to have 6 teams, now we have 600 teams. There was a good foundation with Plante, Sawchuk, Hall but there just wasn't enough competent bodies to pass that down to (that's why those guys kept it going way past the normal expiration date, despite nerves and injuries and all that - no one was better). And worse, the ones that got the message didn't necessarily land on the right teams. Dominik Hasek wins, what, 10 games for the '75 Capitals? Some teams were just so far out to lunch that they missed dinner. I point to guys like Meloche and Bouchard...they just didn't have a chance. Meanwhile, we celebrate Mike Vernon-North because Gretzky could outscore his GAA.
It all sort of survived the "Great Doubling"...there was some ok stuff happening in the late 60's. Ya know, Charlie Hodge got a longer look...that's a good goalie. Parent got a look, that's a good goalie, even below the line guys like Les Binkley...not bad. Not good. But serviceable. Given the situation, that's not bad. It's fine.
But once it started to go further, the whole thing fell apart really. Dryden did his thing, and that was okay but overrated. Esposito and Vachon were goofs. Plante saved Parent and made him into something really really good. But there just wasn't a lot of teaching going on. It was nerves and voodoo and neuroticism...in the 1970's, most dudes wanted to get their untrimmed disco balls out on the floor, have 200 Schlitz's, maybe some blow, and then sweat it out in the morning skate the next day. The preparation necessary to be an actually good goalie and be able to play a lot of games is beyond that level, beyond that lifestyle in some respects. And I mean, we can see it in the games. There's a level of slop from the mid 70's to the mid 80's that isn't present in the generation before it or after it.
But the first real wave of real modern goaltending was in response to skater rules. In the pre-liberalized passing situation, guys are coming in 1 on 3 and shoveling a shot from 42 feet out, getting clotheslined by Eddie Shore, and then backchecking. We're talking about "high danger chances" in another thread...it looks like that answer is about 0 to 1 a game back then. So, guys could stand there and whatever. Converted wings, converted D, guys that can't skate, guys that are fat, guys that are bald, guys that wear a hat, guys that own a cat...it didn't matter that much. Anyone could be a goalie, because anyone could stand there. I'm sure there was levels to it that we'll never ever know. But the origin story is..."someone stand by the door in case of emergency".
And that was probably fine through the 20's. Then once it opened up - now remember - the league opened it up and threw away the key for a bit, right? There was no offside for like a week, and that week saw more goals than the entire second half of the 1920's or whatever (someone will have to check the math). So that must have been jarring. Gardiner would have been fine through that because he had a save process...he could go to the ice and move into a save. Tiny Thompson would have been fine in that environment. But guys like Hainsworth, Connell, old Benedict...they probably sucked at that. The only one I can't guess on is Worters...he's a wild card for everything. He was either great because he threw himself into every thing or he was the worst at it because he threw himself out of the way.
But anyway...in the 30's, you saw the game really open up. You can't just stand there. You have to be able to move with the play, move with passes, there was pre-shot passes more often, there was combination plays. Ya know...just like after 2005. Gardiner fought back, Tiny Thompson fought back, Worters kamikazed them a lot whatever that's worth, Dave Kerr showed early signs of being a tactician.
So, again, turnabout is fair play. The forwards were cruising on "relatively easy" street now. Passing is liberalized, so they don't have to skate head down into a buzzsaw of Shore and Hitchman if they don't want to. They can...but they shouldn't. But then again, another rule change...red line. 1942 or whatever it was. '43? So, now that spacing between forwards and defense is different for some. So not all the d-men are still back there sitting on their heels. They're workin', they're moving, they're trying to match speed, and force guys wide and all that. Well, now goalies are picking that up...Harry Lumley, as I detailed just above this, is on the cutting edge as I see it. And it's the forwards that got run out of race track in some respects when Lumley gave way to Plante and Co. And the forwards tried their **** to fight back - Boom's slapshot, Hull's curved stick, etc. to try to get back on top and eventually they prevail again - part curved stick, part artificial league expansion.
But the cat and mouse aspect of this is really..."this position gets nuked" -> they work hard to build it back up -> then a fresh coat of "nuked" is applied -> start over-ish.
It's reactive, it's rarely had great depth, so...like most goalies, it's subject to team effects and the position as a whole is subject to league effects, if you will. It's a weird position. Probably the weirdest in sports. Tough eval.
overpass
Registered User
This is a fun topic. The offside rule was implemented on December 16, 1929. And Gardiner actually had the best goal prevention record before the change.
Forward passing/no offsides, 1929-30 through December 15
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
Gardiner: 11 GP, 2.17 GAA
Thompson: 12 GP, 2.92 GAA
Hainsworth: 13 GP, 3.04 GAA
Worters: 11 GP, 4.15 GAA
After the offsides rule, 1929-30 December 16 and on.
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
Thompson: 32 GP, 1.93 GAA
Hainsworth: 29 GP, 2.14 GAA
Gardiner: 33 GP, 2.50 GAA
Worters: 26 GP, 3.27 GAA
Thompson, Hainsworth, and Worters all had a GAA about 1 goal lower after the rule change.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I was just kidding of course when I said it was "for a week", but man, I was thinking it was longer than 11 games haha
Cool to see Gardiner on top of that list though anyhow.
Cool to see Gardiner on top of that list though anyhow.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
It's interesting how much Lumley's legend fell off. 14 goalies were named to the NHL 100, but not him even though he'll go higher than at least one on the list (Fuhr). I can't believe they missed Brimsek too.
The Hockey News named 17 goalies in 1998, but not Lumley.
Scotty Bowman named 11 Canadian goalies (including Worsely), but not Lumley.
He was 20th/21st named to the HHOF along with Worsley.
Re: 30s goalies
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Tiny Thompson was the premier goalie after Gardiner. He gets more contemporary praise than Worters. He gets more AS nods. He is remembered better in the mid 40s through mid 60s. I just keep seeing papers where he's praised more than Worters.
If we take away the era-oddness of the Hart voting, Worters just doesn't stand out the same way to me. The Hart voting is incredibly strong. It's hard to overlook. But it keeps looking more like a "you were good and your team sucked" voting. The newspaper reports aren't exactly glowing on Worters even in the context of his Hart wins. If you step back from the Hart wins, Thompson is just plain praised more throughout the 30s.
Which gets us to Hainsworth. I was pleasantly surprised at the SCF reports. I keep finding nice things throughout the 20s. Overall, I feel like he's praised more than Worters.
I'm increasingly coming around to Worters being the lowest of these three, but for sure that Thompson is first.
The Hockey News named 17 goalies in 1998, but not Lumley.
Scotty Bowman named 11 Canadian goalies (including Worsely), but not Lumley.
He was 20th/21st named to the HHOF along with Worsley.
This is hockey and life at its best. Big mustaches, WKRP, Fleetwood Mac, everything is earth tone. The hockey was messy, but I love the silly 70s video effects and over the top suits.
Re: 30s goalies
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that Tiny Thompson was the premier goalie after Gardiner. He gets more contemporary praise than Worters. He gets more AS nods. He is remembered better in the mid 40s through mid 60s. I just keep seeing papers where he's praised more than Worters.
If we take away the era-oddness of the Hart voting, Worters just doesn't stand out the same way to me. The Hart voting is incredibly strong. It's hard to overlook. But it keeps looking more like a "you were good and your team sucked" voting. The newspaper reports aren't exactly glowing on Worters even in the context of his Hart wins. If you step back from the Hart wins, Thompson is just plain praised more throughout the 30s.
Which gets us to Hainsworth. I was pleasantly surprised at the SCF reports. I keep finding nice things throughout the 20s. Overall, I feel like he's praised more than Worters.
I'm increasingly coming around to Worters being the lowest of these three, but for sure that Thompson is first.
Last edited:
Defenses also took to obstructing players without the puck, skilled players had to deal with a league where hooking was legal if you moved your feet a little, and even Mario Lemieux basically retired because he didn't want to deal with that nonsense.
They may have looked like that because part of the goaltending evolution included the Michelin Man style pads. As good as they were, even Roy and Hasek of 2001 wouldn't be as great at stopping pucks if they wore the same pads they wore in 1986.
We celebrate Grant Fuhr because of his dynasty role, but also because GMs, coaches, and players agreed he was the best in the world.
People held him in higher regard than Andy Moog, against whom you could level the same criticisms. Of course Moog went to Boston and won the Jennings because GAA is very much a team-influenced stat.
Following the 1987 Canada Cup, Fuhr was regarded as the best in the world: https://vault.si.com/vault/1988/01/11/the-puck-stops-here-grant-fuhr-has-been-called-hockeys-premier-goalie-and-he-had-better-be-if-edmonton-is-to-win-another-cup
Of course, while the Oilers outscore Fuhr's GAA
I assume this was Lumley in 1959?
We want to vote in another goalie from a low GAA era as opposed to the best goalie in the world in a high GAA era?
Lumley "gets them back into the playoffs" with solid goal support
1959 Records
| GA | Lumley (BOS) | Sawchuk (DET) | Worsley (NYR) | Simmons (BOS) | Plante (MTL) | Hall (CHI) | Bower (TOR) |
| 4 | 1-1 | 0-7-1 | 2-9-2 | 4-6-3 | 1-4-1 | 0-9 | 1-3-1 |
| 3 | 4-0 | 2-8-1 | 6-4-2 | 3-6-3 | 4-3-4 | 5-3-5 | 2-5-1 |
| 2 | 1-1-1 | 5-7-4 | 10-6-4 | 7-2-2 | 5-3-5 | 13-4-5 | 2-3-4 |
| 1 | 1-0 | 11-0 | 5-1-3 | 7-0 | 19-0-1 | 9-1-2 | 6-0-1 |
| 0 | 1-0 | 5-0 | 2-0 | 3-0 | 9-0 | 1-0 | 3-0 |
Everybody gives up 2.
Lumley got a little bit luckier over a small sample and got to give up 3. Lumley barely played and had more wins in 3-GA games than Simmons, Bower and Sawchuk. Sawchuk had it rough even in 2-GA games. Looking at Simmons, (and if Worsley being in the AHL bothers you, keep in mind Lumley was in the AHL when Simmons was his competition) it look s a lot like Lumley rolled 7s on goal support.
And in the playoffs, after earning a 2-0 lead in the playoffs as the #2 seed, his boys were eliminated, in part by Lumley's penchant to give up more than 2.
x-GA games by Goaltender, playoffs
| Fuhr | Lumley | |||
| GP (148) | GP (76) | Share | ||
| 0-GA | 6 | 4.1% | 7 | 9.2% |
| 1-GA | 20 | 13.5% | 13 | 17.1% |
| 2-GA | 34 | 23.0% | 18 | 23.7% |
| 3-GA | 42 | 28.4% | 18 | 23.7% |
| 4-GA | 26 | 17.6% | 11 | 14.5% |
| 5-GA | 14 | 9.5% | 7 | 9.2% |
| 6-GA | 3 | 2.0% | 0 | 0.0% |
| 7+ | 3 | 2.0% | 2 | 2.6% |
If you have an "everybody gives up 2" mindset, Lumley is not a great choice.
Given their eras, Fuhr is the better choice than Lumley overall, and the 1959 series is far less valuable than say, Fuhr's 1997 series with the Blues vs the Wings.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Everybody gives up 2 is in reference to save pct. diddlers...
I'm not focused on the last year of Lumley for his case, in the same way that no one is looking at Fuhr's .888 save pct. in his DPE years.
Lumley also had to battle through the War-weakened years as just a lad. He's not entirely in a low GAA environment.
I'd question a little bit the level of competition for each in the playoffs...Lumley only played on two first place teams in his career (Production Line Wings).
I mean, did the Oilers Campbell Conference opponents in 1987 combine to even be a .500 team? You can only play who you play, but playing the 4th worst team in a watered down league with Gretzky on your side might not necessarily be the same deal as being on a middling or outcast O6 team and having to face the Montreal or Detroit juggernauts.
But even so, it looks like Fuhr basically puts one-third of his games into "should be unwinnable" territory in the postseason. Wonder how he won them...?
If you want a high GAA era goalie, take Smith. He's multiple tiers better than Fuhr.
I'm not focused on the last year of Lumley for his case, in the same way that no one is looking at Fuhr's .888 save pct. in his DPE years.
Lumley also had to battle through the War-weakened years as just a lad. He's not entirely in a low GAA environment.
I'd question a little bit the level of competition for each in the playoffs...Lumley only played on two first place teams in his career (Production Line Wings).
I mean, did the Oilers Campbell Conference opponents in 1987 combine to even be a .500 team? You can only play who you play, but playing the 4th worst team in a watered down league with Gretzky on your side might not necessarily be the same deal as being on a middling or outcast O6 team and having to face the Montreal or Detroit juggernauts.
But even so, it looks like Fuhr basically puts one-third of his games into "should be unwinnable" territory in the postseason. Wonder how he won them...?
If you want a high GAA era goalie, take Smith. He's multiple tiers better than Fuhr.
The Pale King
Go easy on those Mango Giapanes brother...
I view Grant Fuhr's 1996 season as one of the most overrated single seasons posted by a goalie. Up there, somewhat ironically, with the guy he replaced in St. Louis: Curtis Joseph and his 1999 season (we'll talk more about that in a couple rounds... or next round).
Fuhr gets a lot of mileage out of his 1996 season. He was absolutely abysmal in the few seasons leading up to it (look at his stats with the Kings and Sabres over that time, watch the footage if you can), and I do think he deserves credit on a personal level for being a serviceable starter the year in question. This season screams "Masterson" Award to me, but Vezina??
I'm of the opinion that the 79 or whatever starts he had that season were less due to him being incredible, irreplacable or what-have-you, and more due to noted egotist GM/Coach Mike Keenan doubling down on his mistake in letting Cujo walk following the 1995 season.
There is no other team environment wherein a 33 year-old Grant Fuhr starts nearly every single game, outside of one where a very selfish, egotistical coach and GM wants to prove the world wrong by starting this guy every game - "See, I didn't need him anyways!" Props to Fuhr for actually playing the games, but he gets a lot of credit for those 79 games. If he posts the same numbers over 65 games, it's unlikely he gets that late career 6th showing in the Vezina vote that can trick us into thinking he was a solid performer through the 1990s.
The 1995-96 Blues finished the year on an 0-5-4 run, with Fuhr posting slightly below his season numbers with an .895 SV%. Some very good games, a couple of games where it's clear they would have been better off resting him. Not blaming Fuhr there, he was passable and I credit a guy for always wanting to go, but they definitely should have leaned more heavily on Jon Casey and perhaps they wouldn't have had to play the juggernaut Red Wings in the first round. Or, perhaps Fuhr doesn't get hurt in the infamous game 7 because he hasn't played *checks notes* twice as much hockey that year than in the previous three seasons combined.
It's even weirder when you think about Keenan as being one of the most trigger-happy coaches in NHL history when it comes to replacing his goalie. Was 1996 Grant Fuhr that much better than every other goalie Keenan coached over his career? (hint: he wasn't). Or where there other ego-related factors at play here?
Fuhr gets a lot of mileage out of his 1996 season. He was absolutely abysmal in the few seasons leading up to it (look at his stats with the Kings and Sabres over that time, watch the footage if you can), and I do think he deserves credit on a personal level for being a serviceable starter the year in question. This season screams "Masterson" Award to me, but Vezina??
I'm of the opinion that the 79 or whatever starts he had that season were less due to him being incredible, irreplacable or what-have-you, and more due to noted egotist GM/Coach Mike Keenan doubling down on his mistake in letting Cujo walk following the 1995 season.
There is no other team environment wherein a 33 year-old Grant Fuhr starts nearly every single game, outside of one where a very selfish, egotistical coach and GM wants to prove the world wrong by starting this guy every game - "See, I didn't need him anyways!" Props to Fuhr for actually playing the games, but he gets a lot of credit for those 79 games. If he posts the same numbers over 65 games, it's unlikely he gets that late career 6th showing in the Vezina vote that can trick us into thinking he was a solid performer through the 1990s.
The 1995-96 Blues finished the year on an 0-5-4 run, with Fuhr posting slightly below his season numbers with an .895 SV%. Some very good games, a couple of games where it's clear they would have been better off resting him. Not blaming Fuhr there, he was passable and I credit a guy for always wanting to go, but they definitely should have leaned more heavily on Jon Casey and perhaps they wouldn't have had to play the juggernaut Red Wings in the first round. Or, perhaps Fuhr doesn't get hurt in the infamous game 7 because he hasn't played *checks notes* twice as much hockey that year than in the previous three seasons combined.
It's even weirder when you think about Keenan as being one of the most trigger-happy coaches in NHL history when it comes to replacing his goalie. Was 1996 Grant Fuhr that much better than every other goalie Keenan coached over his career? (hint: he wasn't). Or where there other ego-related factors at play here?
Last edited:
