HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 6

[Dennis Bonvie]

From a quick glance, it looks like Tony Esposito has fallen a decent amount from the Top 40 Goalies project (granted that was 12 years ago) and from the Top 200 players project (3 years ago). Does anyone have a high level summary of the reasons?

See Farkas, Mike.

 

[Michael Farkas]

*Miss America wave*

 

[jigglysquishy]

Percy LeSueur in Stanley Cup Games

1906 (Smith Falls)
Ottawa HC beats Smith Falls Seniors 6-5 in a best of three series

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 7, 1906

Lesueur is one of the cleverest goal keepers ever seen before a net here. He shared honors with Frank McGee as the most brilliant of players [McGee scored 5 of 6 goals]

Ottawa HC beats Smith Falls Seniors 8-2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 9, 1906

Their defence put up a sensational game at times and the truly marvelous work of Lesueur before the net earned him unstinted applause from the great crowd and stamped the Smith Falls' goal defender as undoubtedly the cleverest man in the position who has appeared in Ottawa in the memory of the present generation of hockey goers.

[LeSueur's] performance was beyond doubt the feature of the match.

1906 (Ottawa)
LeSueur played in the second of two games for Ottawa against the Montreal Wanderers. Montreal won the first game 9-1 in a total goal series, with Billy Hague in net for Ottawa. The team won 9-3, but lost the series on total goals 12-10.

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 19, 1906

The imported goal tend did his duty acceptably, although he was not overburdened with work. However, he nipped a couple of likely ones from Patrick, while twice he carried horseshoes when Patrick missed the goal, the net being vacated on each occasion by Lesuer, who had jumped out.

1910
Ottawa beats Galt 12-3 in a two game total goal series

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Jan 6, 1910

Percy LeSueur in goal was as reliable as of yore although he had few opportunities to scintillate while Fred Lake at point played a magnificent game.

Napoleon's route at Waterloo wasn't more complete than was that of the Galt Hockey team last evening.

Ottawa wins 3-1 to win series 15-4

The Morning Leader · ‎Jan 8, 1910

Their shooting was wild, and Lesueur had a comparatively easy time of it. Lehman in goal for the Galt team was busy, and performed exceedingly well, breaking up strong rushes in great style.

Ottawa beats Edmonton 8-4 in a two game total goal series

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Jan 19, 1910

Edmonton's defeat may be attributed to the great checking of the entire Ottawa team, the magnificent work of Lesueur, Lake and Shore on the defence, and the consistent, heavy play of Stuart, Walsh, Ridpath, and Roberts.

Ottawa wins 13-7 to win series 21-11

I can't find any comments about him outside the roster list


1911
Ottawa defeats Galt 7-4

The Toronto World · ‎Mar 14, 1911

It was the poorest exhibition of the season. The ice was covered with water in spots, and the conditions, in fact, were absolutely adverse to the Ottawa style of play.

Ottawa defeats the Port Arthur Bearcats 14-4

No comments



Overall, not much to pull from. Newspaper coverage for some of the Challenge games is weak, especially against smaller centres.


But there you have it. Every Stanley Cup game of every eligible player pre-2005 lockout.

 

[rmartin65]

I had assumed that LeSueur was up at this point because he dominated his competition in roughly the same way as Vezina.

Nah, that's what made Vezina so special- he was the first one to really clean up in accolades like that, at least, that's my understanding.

So, I thought there'd be less randomness in the all-star teams overall. 3 out of 7 is more than 2 of 19, but this isn't a math equation.

Randomness isn't the word I would use- guys weren't just pulling names out of a hat or throwing at a dartboard blindfolded. Variety is more accurate, in my opinion.

Lumley's competition is logically far, far greater, along with league quality. Like you said, it's not an AS counting competition.

Sure; that's why we are talking about LeSueur, arguably the greatest goalie of that decade (not my argument, but hey, it's out there), vs not the best of the 40s/50s/80s/whatever, but guys who are second or third (or fourth?) tier. I mean, Lumley is like the 5th guy from the 1921-1934 birth year bracket that we are discussing for this list. Barrasso is the 4th guy in that 1960-1970 bracket, and remarkably, the 4th guy born in 1965.

I think we are making the league quality and competition adjustments already.

But at this point in the history of sport, the first decade of the 1900s...how many leagues are we talking about that can overlap?

Oooh, I can talk about this all day. But since I get the feeling that this is largely rhetorical, I'll just say that it varied from probably 3-7 leagues that had top tier names. Most of the leagues weren't particularly strong top to bottom, though; until professionalism took off, players were usually geographically bound to where their jobs were located. So you'd get leagues that had a couple big names but the overall quality of the league was fairly poor. The CAHL/ECAHA wasn't like that- while there were blowouts, I think the league was generally fairly strong outside of a couple exceptions. And you can see it when random players would pop over to other leagues or would come to the CAHL/ECAHA from those leagues, or in SC challenges.

This is partly why I made sure to note what league LeSueur was playing in for each season, and to provide some idea of where I think that league fit in talent-wise in the big picture of hockey at the time. Of course, I learn more every day; I find out that previous assumptions or understandings I've had were incorrect, but the more I delve into it, the more comfortable I feel making those calls, and, hopefully, the more correct I become.

It feels like we're talking about a relatively highly segmented hockey population in a very low-light setting, so to speak...I'd expect the - whatever number we're at - 28th? best goalie of all time to be unquestioned in that pocket of competition.

Ehhh, as I said above, we are already talking about players who were the 5th or 6th best goalies of their time. Or the 4th best of a single birth year. I don't think it is a stretch to be talking about LeSueur here. Maybe it isn't time for him to actually get voted onto the list, but he's definitely worthy of discussion.

I'd much rather wait for Moran than use a ton of time of LeSueur here from the sounds of it...that's the tone of this as far as I'm hearing.

If you don't want to put the time into talking about LeSueur, then don't. But so far you are the only one I've heard who seems to think that we should be putting off discussion on him.
____________________________________________________________________________

I mentioned this in the pre-project discussion/research thread, but forgot to post it here-

From The Province (I believe British Columbia... Vancouver?), 20 November 1908 Page 13, though the story is in several papers across Canada-

The Ottawa club, by the way, is hurting to get together a team. Negotiations have practically been completed for the signing of Jack Winchester of Toronto to play goal. Winchester played last year with Winnipeg Maple Leafs and is considered quite up to the standard of Paddy Moran. Winchester was reported signed by Wanderers, but Ottawa got there first.

Jack Winchester was a heck of a goalie, and I feel pretty comfortable in saying that he would be a much more well-remembered name had he night died from diabetes in the middle of his career. I had him on my list. But I don't think it is a great look for LeSueur that Ottawa was looking to replace him with Winchester. It also isn't a great look for Riley Hern, the Wanderers goalie, if we ever get to talk about him. You know who this does look good for (besides Winchester)? Paddy Moran.

 

[rmartin65]

To create a new post, or to edit the previous? I'll let the system decide, I guess.

I've also been turning around the idea that LeSueur maybe gets some "bonus points" from some observers when looking back at his career due to non-play reasons. We all know that he was pretty involved in things like stats for goalies, equipment improvements, nets, etc. Did his active involvement in that sphere keep him a little more in the front of peoples' minds than his play warranted? I don't think we'll ever really know, but I wanted to throw it out there in case anybody had any thoughts on the matter.

 

[blogofmike]

Day late and a dollar short with this, but since I was gone for a bit, here's a reply to something from last week:

Lumley also had to battle through the War-weakened years as just a lad. He's not entirely in a low GAA environment.

And Lumley was in a 7 game 1945 Finals series where each team scored 9 goals in 7 games. Regardless of the league or season averages, it might not be as wild an environment as it looks. Another lad named Frank McCool made it work in the same 7 games, so maybe they looked out for the kids?

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).

That certainly impacts the W-L record, but I'm not certain Cup counting was high on my list of issues.

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.

And they faced all winning teams in 1985 and had a pretty tough run in 1988 too. Being an Oiler helps you win. But we're not Cup counting.

Here's the 1987 run

1987 Playoffs, Goals per Game by Oilers opponents

Opponent​	Vs. Fuhr​	RS Avg​
Kings​	3.67​	3.98​
Jets​	2.25​	3.49​
Wings​	2.00​	3.25​
Flyers​	2.43​	3.88​

1949 and 1950, Goals per Game by Wings Opponents

Opponent​	Vs Lumley​	RS​
49 Habs​	2.00​	2.53​
49 Leafs​	3.00​	2.45​
50 Leafs​	1.57​	2.51​
50 NYR​	2.43​	2.43​

You're right that you only play who you play - but you neglected the part where Fuhr's opponents are scoring about a goal per game below their average. (The 87 Kings may not have won a bunch, but they were the best offensive team in the NHL after Edmonton.) Why is this bad? He's not getting killed while Gretzky scores a million points, especially after Hawerchuk gave 99 a concussion at the end of Round 2.

Meanwhile Lumley also played behind the #1 team with the #1 offense in 49 and 50. While the Kings and Flyers were tough, Lumley's opponents weren't world-beaters at goal scoring.

There were 3 teams who scored, and 3 teams who didn't. Lumley's opponents were drawn from pool #2. NHL Stats

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.

4 GA? You mean a GA total where Smith was 8-15 and Fuhr was 10-14?

Giving up 4 GA isn't as bad or uncommon in 1980-something as it is in other eras.

 

[blogofmike]

For a guy who didn't have a ton team success, I'm pretty high on Vanbiesbrouck.

He got murdered by the 92 Pens (mostly without Mario) but beyond that he seems to be a very reliable thief of close games. If you need a goaltender to help you out against a tough opponent, I'd want him in net over, say, Tony Esposito. (Might be able to say that about a few people here.)

 

[Michael Farkas]

The Case for Tony Esposito

There's been a lot of talk as to why not induct Esposito, but I think it's time we turn the tide towards him. There's been talk of his inconsistency, technical challenges, flailing, and general struggles against great teams. But let's not forget he spent 10 years as one of the best goalies in the world and received numerous accolades

Leading the NHL goalies in All-Star voting three times is a very high bar. Not only is he the only eligible goalie to do so, but only three goalies post-expansion have done it too (Roy, Hasek, Dryden). His total AS resume of 3-2-2 is far ahead of any up this round.

In 1972, he split the goal with Dryden at the Summit Series and it's generally accepted he outplayed Dryden.

It's not just a line here or there. From 1970 through 1981, he is consistently mentioned as one of the best goalies in the league.

I'll play around with this because...well...what else am I doing? haha
We already saw it on the video, but Tony confirms that he has no clue what is going on on the rink at any time...

Tony claimed he didn't even know it was his brother who beat him twice. "I didn't know who shot either time...I look at the puck. I didn't know it was Phil until they announced it."

So...yeah, it's clear on the tape. But he has no idea where the best goal scorer is on the rink, he has no idea the caliber of these shooters, what they like to do, he has no book on them...I mean, Christ, it's your own brother and you don't even know it's him after he scored on you? What are you paying attention to?!?! haha that's crazy.

He's mostly just referred to as Phil's little brother as a prospect.

- He splits time with Rick Best all through his career at Michigan Tech; Best goes on to play one IHL season and then he's done. But even as a senior, Esposito is in a 15/15 split with him.

- Michigan Tech's own website lists Rick Best as "Arguably the finest goaltender ever to don a Huskies uniform" - which I find to be just amazing haha.

athletics halloffame Richard W Best

athletics halloffame Richard W Best

michigantechhuskies.com

Best also was the first goalie in NCAA tournament history to record a shutout, which I was surprised to learn in a newspaper article from the time, but was later confirmed in that short bio above.

- In the CHL, the Apollos turned to Phil Myre in the playoffs, not Esposito.

- Despite the situation in Montreal with Gump, Vachon, and Esposito...no one was willing to offer an asset to acquire Esposito. Montreal elected to protect 40 year old, uncomfortable-flyer Gump Worsley over Esposito in his mid 20's.

Even in his ridiculous rookie season, folks rightly question it...

Esposito, whose style varies from flip-flop to standup depending on the situation, credits his first half Vezina win to team effort.

...

...although Esposito recorded two shutouts in 13 games he played, he isn't exactly stylish in the nets and at times was considered lucky.

"I don't play like any goalie I've ever seen," admits Esposito, whose brother, Phil set an NHL scoring record with 126 points for Boston last year. "I just go there and flop around."

We're all aware of him losing the Cup in game 7 with a shot from center ice, but in case we aren't...



Though I can't readily find video of it, it sure sounds like he gave up a terrible goal to lose to Boston at home in game 6 of the 1974 Semifinal to end that season too.

Chicago led that series 2 games to 1. Had a lead in game 4, but lost that in a 5-2 loss. Came back in game 5 by giving 6 goals on 23 shots through 37 minutes and getting pulled. He gets and blows another lead in game 6...then with the score tied late in the 3rd...

The shot is described in the Redlands Daily Facts (May 1, 1974) as having "no angle" and as a "desperation shot and went through"...

The goal scorer, Gregg Sheppard wasn't even trying to score..."It was a tough angle and I was hoping to hit the net and maybe get a rebound," Sheppard said. "I was lucky. I kept it low and it went right between his legs like a pinball machine back and forth and finally dribbled into the net."

##

As Chicago pulled themselves off the mat in the 1973 Final - following 8-3 and 4-1 losses - the Hawks go up 5-0 just 22 minutes into game 3.

But...wait...do I hear Tony Esposito's entrance music? I do! (It's "Thunder and Blazes") Esposito gives up 4 straight goals to make the last 12 minutes very tense.

Chicago finds a way to just outscore him enough to win game 3. Now with a chance to the capitalize on the momentum at home in game 4...he gives up this nonsense goal to Marc Tardif a minute in...



Hard to even figure out how he doesn't stop that. It seems harder to let that in than stop it actually...that's the first of 17 (!) goals that Esposito finds time to give up in the last three games of the Final en route to yet another crushing loss.

##

But if I sit here and look at his playoff failures and bad goals that caused them, this would be the longest post in HF history...

He played a ton of games, perhaps because Dollar Bill Wirtz didn't feel the need to invest in a worthwhile backup...Esposito played about 250 more games than every other goalie in the league from '70 to '80 (except Vachon, who was roughly within 100 games of him). So, not only was his goalie competition not amazing (more on that in a second), but he had the luxury of playing poor teams...and those were more or less the teams that were his size.

According to hockeygoalies.org, Tony O's strength of schedule for his career measures out to:
-1.85. Narrowing it down to just his alleged prime ('70 to '82), it measures out to -2.06. Meaning, really weak.

For comparison:
Vachon ('70 to '81): +1.75 (really strong)
Meloche ('72 to '84): -0.72
Parent ('69 to '79): -0.31
Gary Smith ('69 to '77): +0.28
Jim Rutherford ('72 to '79): 0.00
Dryden ('72 to '79): -0.60
Maniago ('69 to '77): -0.77

Those are the guys that played the most in this era...no one's schedule even approaches the weakness of Esposito's...even Dryden's (which means the team of the decade is removed).

The best I could readily find in terms of easiness was just limiting my scope to Bunny Laroque (who stinks) and his Montreal schedule at -2.50.

Worse yet, Espo's primary backup - Mike Veisor (who was over 1.5 goals per game (!) worse in his other stops than Chicago - seemed to be saddled with a tougher schedule...+0.91 (!).

It's weird usage for what was probably a minor leaguer...
1974: 3 of 9 decisions against Montreal and New York (two top 5 teams)
1975: 3 of 7 decisions against Montreal, Boston, and LA (three of the top 5 teams) - he gives up 12 in one game to Montreal, which I think I determined in a previous post is the only reason he has slightly worse career numbers in Chicago than Espo.

1977: 1 of 3 decisions against Montreal (best team ever)
1978: 3 of 12 decisions against Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia (three top 5 teams)
1979: 8 of 17 decisions against Philadelphia, Boston, Buffalo (three top 5 teams)
1980: 4 of 11 decisions against Philadelphia and Buffalo (two top 5 teams)

Considering how many NOT top 5 teams there were, and the quality of this backup, it seems odd that poor little "Worm" Veisor inherited such a share of elite teams in a very unbalanced league.

##

Esposito showing up to work most days was plenty enough to put him in position for award voting in this era. Many goalies were platooning at this point, there were few workhorses. With games played a big factor in voting and position competition being another, Esposito is dealt a pretty cushy hand...

1970: Beats similarly erratic Eddie Giacomin and 30 games of ancient Jacques Plante
1971: Loses to Giacomin and even older half-season Plante
1972: Beats Dryden and Cheevers who likely won't make this list (I hope)
1973: Loses to Dryden, beats 34 games of Villemure (who never gets more than 42 decisions in a season)
1974: Loses to Parent, beats Gilles Gilbert (goofball who has 3 or 4 seasons as an NHL starter)

1975: Loses to Parent, floppy Vachon, Gary Smith, return of Dryden, and the lone 50 game season of Billy Smith
1976: Loses to Dryden, Resch, one of two starting seasons for Wayne Stephenson, Bouchard, and the lone starting season of Wayne Thomas
1977: Loses to Dryden, Vachon, Resch, 44-decision Dunc Wilson, Parent, back-from-the-minors Cheevers
1978: Loses to Dryden and Don Edwards
1979: Loses to Dryden, Resch, that one weird Palmateer season, and Don Edwards

1980: Beats Don Edwards and rookie Liut before CC '81
1981: Loses to Liut, Mario Lessard (in one-quarter of his NHL games), Don Edwards, 43-decision rookie sluggish Don Beaupre, 39 decisions of Pete Peeters, and basically 29 games of Dan Bouchard after his trade to Quebec.

Then he gets no votes in '82...probably because luminaries like Rick Wamsley (3-AS) burst on the scene and who can compete with that...

That level of competition makes me want to learn more about who was beating Percy LeSueur for all star nods in one of the 17 leagues going on in 1907 haha

I know folks won't be able to resist this round because you don't want to venture too far away from whatever...but his erratic nonsense really only held up well against the fringe guys at the bottom of a split, unbalanced league...that effect became more pronounced once the book was out on him. He sort of Cechmanek'd the league for the first few years...but once more than just Montreal and Boston figured him out, he is losing out on AS balloting to some very suspect names...I don't need him to get by Dryden or healthy Parent...but he wasn't seriously considered for anything for the back half of the 70's (he was gifted '74 because Dryden quit) until Dryden and Parent retired for '80. And that competition in the first couple years of 1980 is repugnant.

Voting for Tony Esposito right now is like asking someone in their 60's or 70's, "Hey, who are some of the most influential entertainment people of the 1970's? Eastwood? Reynolds? Fawcett? Jagger? Carson? ...Dick Cavett?"

And they say, "Gene Rayburn".

 

[blogofmike]

I liked him a lot in Toronto, but his game didn't measure up to Ed Belfour who replaced him.

I have a lot of time for Joseph. He has some of the worst playoff goal support you'll find overall.

He also has the 2002 ECF against Carolina, where this happened:

Game 1: W 2-1
Game 2: L 2-1 (OT)
Game 3: L 2-1 (OT)
Game 4: L 3-0
Game 5: W 1-0
Game 6: L 2-1 (OT)

In 5 of 6 games Joseph allowed 1 goal or less after 60 minutes. And he comes away with a losing record in those games.

In 2003 he allows 10 GA in 4 games (plus another 48 OT mins) but the mighty Wings muster 6 goals in 4 games.

In 2004 he shuts the door on Nashville, and in Round 2, the Wings score 0 goals in the last 140 minutes or so of the series, as he loses 1-0 in Game 5, and 1-0 in OT in Game 6.

It WAS the tail end of the Dead Puck Era, but that is still some unbelievably sad offensive output. Joseph and Lundqvist are the guys who REALLY couldn't afford to give up a 2nd goal in the playoffs.

When giving 0 goals through 60 minutes, CuJo was 2-2 in OT.

When giving up 1 goal in 60 minutes, he was 2-6 in OT.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The discussion on Worsley has been exclusively on the Habs dynasty. Here's some playoffs in less favourable conditions.

Worsley firmly took the reigns with the Rangers in 1954-55. The team was awful throughout the O6, but did manage three successive playoff appearances in a row 1956-1958 (including finishing 2nd in 1958

1956 Playoffs
Montreal defeats New York 7-1
Shots: Rangers 22 Habs 44
Rangers 0 Habs 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 21, 1956

Gump Worsley was a very busy little man, being called upon to face a barrage of 44 shots. He has played better games than his one, but he was handicapped by an injured knee which hampered his movements.

The Rangers planned to play a defensive game. They went into a shell right from the opening faceoff, packing their own blue line and not making much of an effort to carry to puck in over the Canadiens' blue line. They were going to lie back and wait for their breaks.

Rangers win 4-2. Gordie Bell plays in replacement of the injured Worsley
Shots: Rangers 27 Habs 34
Rangers 1 Habs 1


Habs win 3-1
Shots: Rangers 10 Habs 23
Rangers 1 Habs 2

The Rangers only managed 10 shots all game and nothing positive is said of the team. Beliveau, though pointless, is called the outstanding player.


Habs win 5-3
Shots: Rangers 21 Habs 33
Rangers 1 Habs 3

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 26, 1956

As usual, Gump Worsley was busier than Jacques Plante. Jacques came up with one of his better games, making a number of big saves.

The Boomer fed the Rocket and little Gump Worsley came up with a big save, but Jean Beliveau was there to snap in the rebound.

Habs win 7-0. Gordie Bell plays in replacement of Worsley (no word on injury).
Shots: Rangers 29 Habs 36
Rangers 1 Habs 4


Man, the Rangers just got worked this series top to bottom, but Worsley doesn't look good. I can't find anything about him being injured in game 5 either.


1957 Playoffs
Habs win 4-1
Shots: Rangers 26 Habs 27
Rangers 0 Habs 1

No relevant comments


Rangers win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Rangers 38 Habs 47
Rangers 1 Habs 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 29, 195

Worsley and Plante, both under considerable pressure in the overtime had put on brilliant exhibitions, time and time again staving off threats.

Habs win 8-3
Shots: Rangers 22 Habs 46
Rangers 1 Habs 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 1, 1957

The Canadiens were allowed to pour a fusillade of 46 shots at Gump Worsley. The little guy was a sitting duck all night.

Habs win 3-1
Shots: Rangers 31 Habs 40
Rangers 1 Habs 3

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 3, 1957

The Rangers played a clever checking game, blocking nicely within their own area and getting great support from goalie Lorne Worsley

Habs win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Rangers 21 Habs 36
Rangers 1 Habs 4

The Calgary Herald · ‎Apr 5, 1957

The puck streaked past Gump Worsley, the game little New York goalie who time and again had come to the rescue of his mates.

A better series than 1956, but again the Rangers are just completely outmatched. Worsley gets more praise than in 1956, but in an era where they play nice to goalies getting worked, they don't play nice to Worsley.


1958 Playoffs
Rangers win 5-3
Shots: Rangers 30 Bruins 29
Rangers 1 Bruins 0

No relevant comments

Bruins win 4-3 in OT
Shots: Rangers 30 Bruins 25
Rangers 1 Bruins 1

The Calgary Herald · ‎Mar 28, 1958

Don Simmons, a replacement for Harry Lumley, ... made an excellent showing. He stopped 27 shots. Worsley saved 21.

Bruins win 5-0
Shots: Rangers 28 Bruins 36
Rangers 1 Bruins 2

No relevant comments


Rangers win 5-2
Shots: Rangers 35 Bruins 41
Rangers 2 Bruins 2

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Apr 2, 1958

The Bruins had a wide advantage in territorial play in the final 20 minutes, but were stopped time and time again by Worsley's sparkling net-minding.

Bruins win 6-1
Shots: Rangers 27 Bruins 42
Rangers 2 Bruins 3

No relevant comments

Bruins win 8-2
Shots: Rangers 44 Bruins 28
Rangers 2 Bruins 4

No relevant comments

Again, the Rangers get worked. It's not like 1958 Bruins are a great team, but they completely collapse.


Man, I was looking for something for Worsley here. Really trying to throw him a bone. But it's just not in the papers. The Rangers suck and he isn't praised. He starts for the dynasty Habs and isn't praised. I don't blame him for losing to the dynasty Habs and getting thoroughly outplayed by Plante. But the newspapers barely even throw him a half-positive quip. And then he gets outplayed by Don Simmons.

I'm really looking for something positive on Worsley here. But across 15 years, on awful team and dynasty, he just never gets consistent praise.

 

[Doctor No]

According to hockeygoalies.org, Tony O's strength of schedule for his career measures out to:
-1.85. Narrowing it down to just his alleged prime ('70 to '82), it measures out to -2.06. Meaning, really weak.

Clarification to add - the strengths of schedule on my site are minutes-weighted, so they need to be minutes-weighted when totaled for a career.

For Esposito, I get -7277/52585, or about -0.14 per game. Still low for a career.

I should just do the calculation on the page.

 

[Michael Farkas]

so they need to be minutes-weighted when totaled for a career.

Yeah, I tried to leave out some of the very low GP seasons because it felt like that was the case. Regardless, it's directionally accurate...Espo had it pretty easy and he stinks anyhow.

 

[Doctor No]

Yeah, I tried to leave out some of the very low GP seasons because it felt like that was the case. Regardless, it's directionally accurate...Espo had it pretty easy and he stinks anyhow.

What I'm saying is that the season totals aren't additive (so the total isn't -1.85).

(Similar to how save percentage is shots weighted, so you can't just add up each season's save percentage to get a career total - for Esposito, that calculation would give a career save percentage of 14.474.)

 

[MXD]

Why the f*** are we trying to give Harry Lumley mileage for a quarter season exactly like he's some sort of Andrew Hammond?

I'll be honest : I don't like the tangent taken by this project. It's more about advocacy than a fact-finding exercise in which we collectively try to come up with a coherent final result

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'll be honest : I don't like the tangent taken by this project. It's more about advocacy than a fact-finding exercise in which we collectively try to come up with a coherent final result

The project as a whole has not gone well. It's mostly a participation issue.

The following have not made a post in either round 5 or round 6 (almost 3 total weeks)
@nabby12
@tony d
@Vilica
@Weztex

The following have made five or fewer posts in the same time frame
@frisco
@Professor What
@DN28
@bobholly39
@The Pale King
@VanIslander


If I move to 6 or 7 posts in the 3 week span that number climbs by three. There's really only like 5 of us consistently here.

So of the 19 voters, 10 have more or less abandoned discussion. We're getting more participation from non-voters.

Are people upset about @Michael Farkas boosting Lumley or poopooing Esposito? Am I out to lunch about Gump Worsley? Well, it's a discussion forum. Discuss!

You're smart guys. I know it. I've read your stuff. You're still voting. I want to read what you guys think of the goalies.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Why the f*** are we trying to give Harry Lumley mileage for a quarter season exactly like he's some sort of Andrew Hammond?

Why are we reducing Lumley - the NHL's first 300 game winner - to a quarter of a season in his 15th pro season?

 

[frisco]

I know we're not supposed to really talk about guys off the list but what's the argument for Cujo over Marc-Andre Fleury?

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

I just can't get over Esposito's 14-game playoff losing streak spanning from 1975-1979. Anyone else? I mean he was in his 30's, the Hawks were usually outmatched, etc., but still. You'd think he would've stolen a game here or there as an elite goalie.

My Best-Carey

 

[Michael Farkas]

I just can't get over Esposito's 14-game playoff losing streak spanning from 1975-1979. Anyone else? I mean he was in his 30's, the Hawks were usually outmatched, etc., but still. You'd think he would've stolen a game here or there as an elite goalie.

My Best-Carey

It's actually 16.

From the '74 Semifinal vs. Boston to the '81 prelim round against Calgary...he went on a run where he won 6 of 34...yargh.

I know we're not supposed to really talk about guys off the list but what's the argument for Cujo over Marc-Andre Fleury?

My Best-Carey

I wouldn't make the argument, as I have Fleury quite a bit higher than CuJo...but the floor is probably the answer. Fleury's bad is really bad.

CuJo's Vezina record is better against tougher positional competition probably too.

 

[frisco]

It's actually 16.

From the '74 Semifinal vs. Boston to the '81 prelim round against Calgary...he went on a run where he won 6 of 34...yargh.

I think Espo did win the prelim round in 1980 vs. the Blues then lost three to Buffalo the next round when he lost a start to Mike Veisor in a four-game sweep.

My Best-Carey

 

[Michael Farkas]

That's right. Half of those 6 wins were against a .500 St. Louis team in a prelim round.

 

[frisco]

Playoff W-L

• Tom Barrasso 61-54
• Tony Esposito 45-53
• Grant Fuhr 92-50 Sure, a lot of it was with Edmonton, but Fuhr was a key part of those teams.
• George Hainsworth 22-25
• Hap Holmes N/A
• Curtis Joseph 63-66 Never made Finals.
• Miikka Kiprusoff 25-28 Did not win a playoff series in any year other than 2004.
• Percy LeSueur N/A
• Harry Lumley 29-47
• Chuck Rayner 9-9
• Jonathan Quick 49-43 One great run and one stupdendously great run.
• Rogie Vachon 23-23
• John Vanbiesbrouck 28-38 Take out 1996 and there's not much there.
• Gump Worsley 40-26

Quick, Fuhr, Barrasso and Worsley to an extent, look good. A lot of meh, otherwise.

My Best-Carey