HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 5

[MXD]

And the answer is "clearly not". Losing record in the O6 playoffs (very much buoyed by (...) - his only full time run in that time, right?).(...) Sent down to the minor multiple times in his prime due to performance...and talent begets performance, of course.

What other O6 strong holds were getting sent to the minors in their prime at this time? Are they available for voting? Will they ever be?

Just to make sure, we're talking about Harry Lumley or Lorne Worsley here?

 

[jigglysquishy]

Just through reading newspaper reports and books, I think Bower is closer to Plante/Sawchuk/Hall than any other goalie is to him if we're talking the 1948-1970 timeframe.

It is kind of funny that both Lumley and Bower lost jobs to Sawchuk 16 years apart under wildly different circumstances. But Bower is two years older.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

And the answer is "clearly not". Losing record in the O6 playoffs (very much buoyed by 1966's run - his only full time run in that time, right?). Over 3 GAA in the O6 playoffs. Sent down to the minor multiple times in his prime due to performance...and talent begets performance, of course.

What other O6 strong holds were getting sent to the minors in their prime at this time? Are they available for voting? Will they ever be?

We're at - what - 20th? We're going to take a bottom half goalie (or if that's too strong) a league average goalie from his era right now (or ever)?

I don't know...this is gettin' kinda rocky this round haha

Cap it at 20 and call it a successful project. We're going to bat for a guy who had to wire a hammock between his legs to compete, and another who would sooner be found sleeping in one than working on his trade...

1. Um, you're working on a case for a guy who had a 29-47 record in the Original Six playoffs to be #1 on your list this round, correct?

2. Johnny Bower, because of Gump Worsley himself. In addition, I personally don't see a significant difference between platooning with Ed Chadwick and being in the minors for two months and then resuming as the starting goalie. We collectively put Bower on the list last round.

A couple of those minor league stints were clearly injury-related, as I mentioned.

In 1958, Worsley started 5-4-1, .924, 2.20 when he pulled a thigh muscle. Marcel Paille went on a hot 10 game run and the Rangers let him have the starting job for a bit, before Worsley came back in (and led the league in save percentage). In 1963, Worsley pulled a hamstring and got sent to the minors, and Charlie Hodge ran off with the starting job.

3. Why did Gump Worsley have a losing record in the Original Six playoffs?

1956: 74 point Rangers vs. 100 point Canadiens
1957: 66 point Rangers vs. 82 point Canadiens
1958: 77 point Rangers vs. 69 point Bruins
1962: 64 point Rangers vs 85 point Maple Leafs

I don't know, it truly is an unexplained mystery.

(And if you want to kill him for that Boston series, go ahead. Just pointing out that the Rangers, despite being the higher seed, played two games at home (where they went 1-1) and four games on the road (where they went 1-3) in a six game series because the circus was at Madison Square Garden, which was just a thing that happened at that time.)

Speaking of Bower, you know what his playoff record was as a Ranger? 0-0. Because he didn't even get there in the first place. You also know what Bower's career playoff record was against teams that finished 10+ points ahead of his own in the regular season? It was 1-12, with an .891 save percentage.

Let me repeat that: One win and twelve losses.

Somehow I don't remember anybody killing Johnny Bower last round because he got completely and utterly dominated by stronger teams in the playoffs. So it's truly weird that I should seriously view it as a strike against Gump Worsley that he lost three series to teams that finished 16 or more points ahead in the standings, on a team that (once again) nobody had a cumulative winning record for over an entire era of hockey, including 5 Hall of Fame goalies.

I think people massively underestimate how difficult it is to win on a big underdog team. I posted the stat before that the team with home-ice advantage was 35-6 in Stanley Cup Finals from 1939 to 1979. The better team won an awful lot of the time.

Honest question: You don't think goalies are that valuable as a position, right? You don't have a goalie in your top 15 because they don't make that much of an impact, it's all team effects, etc., etc. So why on earth are you so critical of goalies on bad teams? It really doesn't make sense based on what you yourself profess to believe.

Final parting shot re: Worsley and winning:

Montreal Canadiens, Playoffs, 1961-70:
Worsley 29-7
All other goalies combined 25-23

4. Look, we all have to pick a system. I'm going with results, which is why I'm going to NR Harry Lumley and have Worsley somewhere on the edges of my top 5 this round. You're going to put Lumley at #1 because he looked good in the net and could potentially have hypothetically accomplished a bunch of stuff that he never actually did, and you're going to NR Worsley because he had no technique. That's all good, it creates for interesting discussion.