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.

 

[jigglysquishy]

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

The visitors in the first and second periods shaded the NHA champions and, but for the marvelous work of Holmes, who gave one of the best exhibitions of goal keeping ever witnessed on the local team, the westerners would have piled up a substantial lead in the three periods.

Toronto beats Victoria 6-5
Toronto HC 2 Aristocrats 0

The Toronto Sunday World · ‎Mar 18, 1914

The teamwork of the visitors was far superior to the locals, but Holmes in the nets was like a stonewall and his work so outclassed Lindsay's that he was able to stave off the fast coming Victorias.

Toronto wins 2-1
Toronto HC 3 Aristocrats 0

The Toronto Sunday World · ‎Mar 20, 1914

Holmes did some pretty work in the net and was a big factor in the Toronto victory.

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

For two periods the eastern cracks got the rubber puck by Holmes, the Seattle goalie, nearly at will on long shots.

Happy Holmes, Seattle's goalie, seemed to be affected with stage fright and could not fathom the long shots of the Canadiens.

Seattle wins 6-1
Metropolitans 1 Canadiens 1

Quebec Telegraph · ‎Mar 21, 1917

Holmes, the Seattle goal-tend was not nervous, as he was in the first game and was able to save from the occasional shots effected by eastern champs.

If not for the superior work of Vezina in the nets for the Canadiens they might have suffered an even more crushing defeat.

Seattle wins 4-1
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1

The Calgary Daily Herald · ‎Mar 24, 1917

Marvelous goal-keeping by both Vezina and Holmes.

Holmes at the other end frustrated more than one Canadien attack, playing one of the most brilliant games of his career.

Seattle wins 9-1
Metropolitans 3 Canadiens 1

The Toronto World · ‎Mar 27, 1917

It was the poorest game of the series from a spectator's point of view. Canadiens were never in it and any attempt that they made at the offensive was smothered by the pretty and effective back-checking of the new cup holders.

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

Corbeau, Lalonde, Pitre, and Berlinquette led in a bombardment of Happy Holmes that kept the local caretaker busy.

Seattle wins 7-2
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1

The Saskatoon Phoenix · ‎Mar 25, 1919

Happy Holmes and Vezina, his rival, were peppered with some pretty shots, all of which they stopped.

Lalone and Pitre got in several near shots, but Holmes stopped them.

0-0 tie after double OT
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 1

The Toronto World · ‎Mar 27, 1919

Holmes was on the job and kept the net locked.

Lalone made what appeared to be a good shot for a goal, but again Holmes had the net blocked.

Montreal wins 4-3 in OT. Series cancelled to flu
Metropolitans 2 Canadiens 2

The Spokesman-Review · ‎Mar 31, 1919

Holmes for Seattle and Vezina for Montreal were under continuous fire and by their fast work saved scored upon scored.

1920 Finals
Senators win 3-2
Metropolitans 0 Senators 1

The Toronto World · ‎Mar 23, 1920

Holmes Was Good

Ottawa kept a steady bombardment on Holmes.

Holmes was a regular stone wall in nets.

Holmes made a sensational save when Denneny raced in alone.

Ottawa wins 3-0
Metropolitans 0 Senators 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 25, 1920

Darragh shot from a foot out, but Holmes kicked it clear.

Denneny missed another chance through Holmes' timely save.

Ottawas peppered Holmes and the latter turned aside several hard drives.

Seattle wins 3-1
Metropolitans 1 Senators 2

The Calgary Daily Herald · ‎Mar 29, 1920

Holmes again guarded for the twine splendidly.

Holmes turning off several hard ones in wonderful style.

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

Holmes was left unprotected and the lifts were impossible to keep out of the net.

The famous Ottawa four-man defence came into being again.

The Seattle team quite and let Ottawa rain shots at Holmes without attempting to check.

1925 Finals
Victoria beats Montreal 5-2
Cougars 1 Canadiens 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 23, 1925

Holmes was his usual imperturbed self in Victoria's net, saving almost miraculous on several occasions.

Victoria wins 3-1
Cougars 2 Canadiens 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 24, 1925

Holmes stopped a low one from Morenz.

Joliat sent a hard shot, but Holmes saved

Morenz sent a lovely twisting shot on Holmes, but he saved. In fast play in front of the Victoria net, Holmes came out and cleared behind net Canadiens were using the wood.

Montreal wins 4-2
Cougars 2 Canadiens 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 28, 1925

Holmes cut down both Joliat and Morenz when they worked in on top of the net.

Boucher had a great opportunity, but Holmes blocked.

Morenz sent in a hot one, but Holmes worked fast.

Holmes saved on a fast one from Joliat.

Morenz hammered in another fast one, but Holmes blocked.

Victoria wins 6-1
Cougars 3 Canadiens 1

The Morning Leader · ‎Mar 31, 1925

Holmes is Unbeatable
The Frenchmen made a number of brilliant openings, but Holmes was in phenomenal form and outshone his rival Vezina. Morenz and Boucher found a way to force themselves through the Victoria defence, but when they did they found Holmes there as master.

1926 Finals
Montreal Maroons win 3-0
Cougars 0 Maroons 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 31, 1926

But for Holmes' sensational display int he Cougar cage, it would have ben more for the Maroons.

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

Holmes was the stumbling block to a larger score.

Unable to beat the veteran Holmes

Only the good work of Holmes saved the situation

Holmes was called upon to stop shot after shot from the sticks of Broadbent, Stewart, and Phillips.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[jigglysquishy]

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.

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.

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.

 

[blogofmike]

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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

- 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.

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]

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.

 

[The Pale King]

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?