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

[Michael Farkas]

I'd say they're both being mischaracterized. Which isn't productive. You sniped Hellebuyck's Hart consideration. That's where we're at.

 

[rmartin65]

You sniped Hellebuyck's Hart consideration.

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.

 

[rmartin65]

My hesitation on Lehman has always been this: the reputation is great, but how much of that is built through the weak competition he faced on the Coast? It would make total sense that the greats who played out West would think so highly of him, when he was year after year the best versus very little:

PCHA Net Competition
1912: Lehman, Bert Lindsay, Allan Parr
1913: Lehman, Lindsay, Parr
1914: Lehman, Lindsay, Parr
1915: Lehman, Lindsay, Mike Mitchell
1916: Lehman, Hap Holmes, Tommy Murray, Fred McCulloch
1917: Lehman, Holmes, Murray, Hec Fowler
1918: Lehman, Murray, Fowler
1919: Lehman, Holmes, Murray
1920: Lehman, Holmes, Fowler
1921: Lehman, Holmes, Fowler
1922: Lehman, Holmes, Murray, Fowler
1923: Lehman, Holmes, Fowler
1924: Lehman, Holmes, Fowler (Hainsworth, Hal Winkler, Red McCusker, Charlie Reid all in the WCHL, who played a split schedule vs. the PCHA this year)
1925: Lehman, Holmes, Hainsworth, Winkler, McCusker, Reid, Herb Stuart
1926: Lehman, Holmes, Hainsworth, Winkler, McCusker, Stuart

It's Holmes most of the time, Hainsworth and Winkler after Lehman was an old man, and then a whole lot of nothing. Clint Benedict had Holmes some of the time, but he had to beat out Percy LeSueur to win the starting job in Ottawa, plus he had Vezina to deal with for almost his whole career, and then John Ross Roach, Alec Connell, then Worters, Hainsworth... by Benedict's last great season in 1928, here were the goalies:

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.

NHL Net Competition
1928: Benedict, Gardiner, Worters, Hainsworth, Holmes, Connell, Roach, Winkler, Chabot

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.

He was still getting it done against that group, almost winning the Cup with the Maroons.

Lehman was still effective at that age as well.

I get that Lehman was more highly regarded than Holmes, and I don't think Lehman deserves a disproportionate amount of the blame for why he lost so often compared to Holmes, so I'd have to go with Lehman of the two. But when we're dealing so much with contemporary praise for these older guys, and the praise might be partly because of his poor competition... I just think there's other guys this round that we can be more sure of, including the other two older guys in Worters and Thompson. I mean, Thompson was maybe the best against strong competition for almost a decade, and Lehman was definitely the best against weak competition for a little over a decade. I'd take the former.

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]

If 1st/2nd/3rd AS teams are your thing, here are the post-war ranks

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]

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 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

 

[rmartin65]

I feel like it's fairly straightforward.

All the GMs and whoever else thinks Price is in a tier by himself in the league.

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

 

[Michael Farkas]

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.

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

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.

Ok, great, so everything needs context. Got it.

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".

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.

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.

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 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.

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

 

[rmartin65]

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

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.

Ok, great, so everything needs context. Got it.

Because you've accused me of just wanting to rank goalies by awards I felt the need to make that disclaimer.

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

Before we continue. Did this happen? It's the tenth time it's been said by you over these rounds. Did this happen?

 

[rmartin65]

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]

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.

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?

 

[rmartin65]

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]

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.

Let's both get back to helping this project move forward.

 

[jigglysquishy]

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

Hainsworth Stars
In that period of stress, Hainsworth rose to new heights of goal tending skill, performing miracle after miracle in front of his hard press sanctum. Only at that time did the Boston team outplay the visiting contingent. In the first period, the dazzling Howie Morenz ... raged over the ice like a fury. On more than one occasion Tiny Thompson shots from him that were labelled.

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

Then there was the cool George Hainsworth who imparted all of his frigidity to the remainder of the team when they needed it most. The psychological effect of Hainsworth on his teammates is almost incalculable. The goalie proved his worth last night. Shots from such noted sticks as those of Clapper, Gainor, and Weiland are not easy to stop, but they seemed easy for Hainsworth.

Most of the [Boston] glory was garnered by TIny Thompson in the nets. Left helpless by a defence that swung wide open to the Canadien attacks, Thompson prevented the count against the Bruins from mounting.

1931 Finals
Montreal wins 2-1 in a best-of-five series
Habs 1 Blackhawks 0

The Vancouver Sun · ‎Apr 4, 1931

Hainsworth Shines in Canada's 2-1 Win Before 17,000
Throughout the storm George Hainsworth saved his team time and again. The time-honored system of relieving the attacking pressure held forth at least three-quarters of that hectic final 20 minutes. At one time Hainsworth himself, unable to find a mate to whom he might safely pass, dropped the puck and swatted it all the way to Chuck Gardiner in the other goal.

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

Tommy Cook fired high, Hainsworth took the puck on the nose, which bled copiously.
Coach Irvin sent four men into Canadiens' end for a desperate attempt, but sturdy defensive work relieved Haisnworth of more pressure than he could handle.

Marsh and Cook broke through the Canadien defense, but Hainsworth made a sliding save of a hard shot.

Montreal wins 4-2
Habs 2 Blackhawks 2

The Vancouver Sun · ‎Apr 13, 1931

[Marty] Burke was steady as a rocky on defence, guarding Hainsworth perfectly and breaking up dozens of attacks in each period.

Montreal wins 2-0
Habs 3 Blackhawks 2

Meriden Record · ‎Apr 15, 1931

Hawks rushes...faltered in the face of some brilliant net-minding by Hainsworth.
Hainsworth handled two dangerous offerings from Ripley and Adams.

The Hawks pressed to the attack but could not beat Hainsworth.

Chicago put up a great fight in the final game tonight, but the speedy Hawks' forwards never did solve a tight Canadiens' defense. Morenz, Joliat and Goalie Hainsworth stood out conspicuously on the defense.

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

[Maroons] never stopped firing rubber at the veteran Hainsworth.

Hainsworth wobbled in handling a long shot from Trottier, but he immediately made up for it with a great save at Robinson's expense.

The Border Cities Star · ‎Apr 6, 1935

At the rate the heavy artillery of the Toronto Maple Leafs is failing to function in these crucial times, round-faced George Hainsworth, the world's most nonchalant goaltender, may be forced to the extreme measure of handing Montreal Maroons a shutout tonight if Toronot's Stanley Cup hopes are to be revived.

If anything, Hainsworth has become a better showman in late years. He has never taken so long to clear the puck while oncoming forwards sweep up to him - always too late. He has reached a point where he seems almost to close his eyes while catching high shots in a gloved hand.
His apparent indifference is something to appreciate, but so far the Maroons have been unable to discover an easy attitude that is genuine.

Maroons win 3-1
Maroons 2 Leafs 0
The Calgary Daily Herald · ‎Apr 8, 1935

Hainsworth Stops 16 Shots Against 42 For Rival [Connel]

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

Hainsworth Helpless
There was virtually no protective barrier for the veteran George Hainsowrth who stood solitary guard over the Toronto goal, after the Wings snapped in three goals in the first 10 minutes. Against the diversified passing plays launched at him, Hainsworth was helpless

The Leafs played a five-man offensive game during the second and third periods and Red Wings picked up goals readily when they found no defense at all between them and the solitary Hainsworth

Leafs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Leafs 44 Red Wings 30
Leafs 1 Red Wings 2

The Windsor Daily Star · ‎Apr 10, 1936

It is doubtful if any player in the Toronto dressing room was any happier than Goalie George Hainsworth. He had listened to boos from the crowd in the second period [after going down 3-0]. And he had kept up his courageous end to smother Detroit thrusts that followed.
"I'm as happy as a school boy," Hainsworth said after the game. "I felt terrible when Bruneteau got that goal. The same kind of a shot had bounced away from me once before this season. But I made up my mind I had to stay in there and do my part. I had a feeling that something was going to happen. And it did happen, right at the tail-end of my thirteenth season in professional hockey. Gues that thirteen jinx has finally left me."

Red Wings win 3-2
Shots: Leafs 31 Red Wings 32
Leafs 1 Red Wings 3

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 13, 1936

George Hainsworth Outstanding in Leafs' Goal as Winners Carry Attack

They might have made the score one-sided but for the remarkable goaltending of George Hainsworth, staging a one-man comeback.

Wings couldn't get another shot past Hainsworth, perhaps playing his last game in a Toronto uniform. Reports have been current for weeks that the veteran would either retire after this season, or be traded.

Red Wings went to work on Hainsworth in a whole-hearted fashion.

Hainsworth...pulled amazing stops.

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]

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.

Although he qualified to vote only two months ago, husky Harry Lumley of Detroit Red Wings already looks like the bright star in the goaltending firmament of future years, now that the masters of blocking and kicking ’em out like Bill Durnan, Frankie Brimsek, Turk Broda and the rest are getting older by the day. In fact, Lumley on his play so far, stands a good chance of taking over the net-mindiners laurels this semester

...

This rosy-cheeked youngster who holds promise of becoming one of the best netminders the league has produced, is in his third season as regular goalie for the Red Wings. ... Although barely past the 16-year-old mark, Lumley had enough future prospect to make him look like a good bet to the canny scout, Carson Cooper, who spotted him.

Red Wing teammates hoisted goalie Harry Lumley into the middle of a cheering huddle...[Tommy] Ivan pointed to Reise and Lumley as the heroes of the final game (Game 7 vs. Durnan and Montreal)

Lumley is credited with stopping Mosdell on a breakaway as the turning point of the game.

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

The sparkling play of young Harry Lumley in between the posts for the Detroit Red Wings during the past weeks gives him, for the second time this season, the nomination as THE HOCKEY NEWS’ Player-Of-The-Week.

The 21-year-old goalkeeper has been the hottest man in his department of the National Hockey League of late.

...

He now leads the league goalers with the best average. In 34 games he has been scored upon 80 times for an average of 2.35. He also is tied with Canadiens’ Bill Durnan with four shutouts. A likeable young player with a sunshine smile, Lumley has been a key-figure in Detroit’s drive into a first-place tie in the N.H.L. race.

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...

Lumley, with virtually no defence in front of him, made 41 saves in a futile effort to stem the Detroit scoring tide.
...
Terry Sawchuk in the Detroit nets had a comparatively easy time...

Lumley, 24, was traded during the off-season to the Chicago Black Hawks, annually regarded as the team with everything - but a defense.

They are getting as good goaling as any other club in the League. Lumley 2.45 overage rates him the fourth best goaler in the loop.

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.

“We have 16 ordinary hockey players and an outstanding goalie In Harry Lumley,” Ebbie told Ralby. “We don’t have that leader, the man who can spark the team like Schmidt in Boston, Kennedy in Toronto, Richard in Montreal. Howe and Lindsay in Detroit and Laprade in New York

“It’s pretty tough to smile these days,” said Ebbie grimly

"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.)

For a while the feud [Sawchuk vs Lumley] had to be carried along on uneven terms. I Lumley didn’t have much opportunity for revenge while his efforts I were being wasted with the Black Hawks. But eventually he got the break of his career, was traded to Toronto and started making up for lost time.

Sawchuk and Lumley have battled each other in brillant style the past two seasons, earning for themselves recognition as the two best goalies in the game.

Results of their duel, which shows no signs of slackening, have been both interesting and spectacular. For instance, they combined for eight shutouts in the 14 Detroit-Toronto games last season and have added five more this season. The inter-club series has seen the lowest scoring in the loop over both campaigns.

Between them, they have monopolized every goaltending honor of note the past few years.

Sawchuk won the All Star position three times before Lumley bumped him to the second team last season.

Lumley has been steadily excellent with the Toronto team this year

- A team that @Eric Zweig has cited in THN "wasn't very good".

Lost 1955 Vezina on goal that likely would have been wiped out by goalie interference...

The last one, he’ll always remember because it cost Harry Lumley at least $1,000, perhaps more if his contract had a bonus clause based on a repeat Vezina Trophy triumph, and if loss of the trophy should cost him first place in the AllStar balloting.

The goal was the easiest Howell ever made. Aldo Guidolin had charged into the nets from a corner, spilling Lumley and another Leaf. He swiped at the disk and it skidded out to direct center, 20 feet out. Harry was all alone. He merely lifted it over Lumley’s prostrate form.

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...

Let’s look at the record! Nurtured to popularity by the bellicose cries of election-minded politicians, this mere saying has grown in strength to he come almost irrevocably the yardstick by which athletic All-Star teams are chosen.

For the sake of example let’s look at the record. The goaltending record of Harry Lumley as a member of this year’s Buffalo hockey team, to be specific.

As of American League games played through Feb. 3, Lumley has been charged with 174 goals in 44 games for an unimpressive 3.95 goals-against average.

The record, taken by itself leaves no doubt but that Lumley is the poorest goaltender among the AHL regulars.

Nothing could be further from fact. For the cherubicfaced Lumley — statistics not withstanding — has been one of the standout performers In the AHL this season.

...

“Harry’s our most valuable player, and has been all season. He’s been the victim of terribly poor play in front of him at times, yet he’s still shown he possesses the ability to make the ‘big play’ when someone walks in alone on him.”

General Manager Fred Hunt admits to having spent anxious moments whenever goaling changes have been mentioned in the National League for fear he would either lose Lumley to the parent Chicago Black Hawks, or via the deal route.

...

Ruby Pastor, who has caught the fever and flavor of hockey in his first year as owner of the Bisons. stands ready to pay $25,000 for Lumley’s contract.

Pastor would hardly offer that kind of money for the “worst” goalie in the league, would he?

...

“I’d rather skate in alone on a one or two man break against any other goalie in the league than Lumley,” is a common comment.

One coach, who will remain anonymous at his request, said he’d “have my club in first place and laughing at the league if I had Lumley between the pipes.” (Editor’s Note: His own goaltender boast a far superior goals against record, too)

Why then is Lumley’s statistical standing mediocre? Perhaps, the explanation lies in another rival coach’s thumbnail listing of the goals his club has scored against Buffalo.

“Only about one of every five goals we’ve scored against Lumley has been what I’d call a ‘real good goal.’ the rest have been due to sloppy play and scrambles in front of the Buffalo net. We’ve scored more ‘good goals’ against every other goalie.”

And if all factors are weighed, the decision may well be that Harry Lumley is the league’s best—not worst — puckstopper.

(Editor's note on the last bolded; Remember, this is still a league with Johnny Bower in it.)

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...

What, Schmidt was asked, was he looking for in Lumley in the vital games of late February and March?

“Stability, steadiness,” replied the Bruins’ coach. “I’m not asking for or expecting miracles."

This was in place of Don Simmons. Who is consistently referred to as inconsistent and unreliable around this time.

Became early goalie coach.

Speculation here is that Patrick has offered Lumley, a great favorite, a job as goalkeeping troubleshooter and coach of young goalies for the Bruins’ organization. The hefty veteran is rated the best technician in the business.

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.

https://archive.org/details/1962-stanley-cup-finals-g-6_20240121/1930s/1935-36/NYR+vs+MTL.mp4

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...

Jacques Plante, Montreal's agile and acrobatic netminder, is the best goalie in the National Hockey League...

Many will argue his talents compared to such veteran backstops as Terry Sawchuk and Harry Lumley..."

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]

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.