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

[Dr John Carlson]

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.

Apparently not the only time in LeSueur's career that his team (or teammates) was considering jettisoning him. I always found this 1914 article interesting, which I'm sure I posted in the pre-merger list threads at some point:

That the Ottawa Hockey Club suffered this winter and has suffered for the last couple of seasons from trouble-makers, is the contention of one of the prominent men in the hockey club organization, and that the club will make every effort to break up a 'clique' which is said to exist was another statement.

It is well known that several of the players would not put up their best game with Lesueur in the nets, preferring Clint Benedict to the veteran goaler. It was against Lesueur that a considerable portio nof the enmity of the 'clique' was directed. While the Ottawas may let the veteran goal-tender go to the Coast, they will also see to it that the 'clique' is effectively broken up. For the last two seasons the Patricks have offered a good price for Lesueur but, on both occasions the Ottawas refused to part with him.

I wish there was more about this 'clique' but I guess it wasn't as well known as the second paragraph says. An Ottawa Citizen article on the same day says Benedict and Skene Ronan were strongly considering heading to the PCHA soon, so perhaps that's a hint as to one player in the 'clique'.

Ottawa may trade Captain Percy Lesueur to Vancouver for Frank Nighbor, the ex-Toronto player. Lesueur is in wrong with a clique of Ottawa players, and they have refused to do their best with Lesueur in the nets. If Ottawas lose Lesueur they lose their most valuable man.

The only other reference I could find. If we take the first article as gospel - which we maybe shouldn't, if he's being considered their 'most valuable man' by another paper - and assume that LeSueur was in decline by 1914, then we're looking at maybe an eight year prime for him? For goalies in this time period (post-professionalism, pre-forward pass) that's pretty short, compared to Vezina/Benedict/Lehman/Holmes/Hainsworth. Or, maybe Benedict was just that much better that it made Peerless Percy look... peerful?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yes.

This: HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Preliminary Discussion Thread

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

In short, he wasn't a very good goalie. The smartest team in the room knew it at the time too. He had some early success because of the unique "style" (and the absurd cheating), but the good teams figured it out. Good teams are teams that you generally play in the playoffs and he's just about the worst playoff player ever. It's not an accident.

It's one of those things that's hard to describe, but it kind of reminds me of the discussion in the other thread about the "magic formula" for points finishes in today's league versus the O6 or whatever. Tony O was fine to just sort of throw **** against the wall against some dog**** over-expansion teams...but I don't think he would have gotten more than a cup of coffee in the 1960's O6 era. To me, he's so far below that standard (and Plante winks at it) that it's jarring.

And I don't say that throw the whole era in the trash (I have a fair number of goalies from the 70's over him), I just think that our sights are poorly adjusted here. It's a wild time...guys that finish top 10 in scoring can be out of the league in two years. American high schoolers are having their way with the league (soon enough), a d-man is winning Art Rosses, there's just a lot of weird stuff going on, the league has the least amount of parity of any time in history, and I just don't think we can take the normal stuff (stat finishes, award voting, etc.) at the same level of face value here and have it accurately portray greatness or "top"...

I know folks will be upset because it's talent evaluation...but talent is part of what makes you scalable. We hate DOB bias. Well, if he's born 1933 or 1953, we have no idea who this player is except "he's Phil's brother who also played"...I have extreme reservations about him being able to do this at any other time, hell, if he goes to one of the expansion teams when Montreal gave him away to preserve a 40 year old, I don't think he makes a single list for this project.

I know it's anti-canon and all that...and you don't have to go a long with it...I'm just asking for him, of all these guys, to not get the free pass...

Thanks for this - I read through both of those posts. It's refreshing to have someone make a well-researched argument for an unconventional ranking.

I don't have a strong opinion on Esposito one way or the other. But I want to get your take on one question (sorry if this has been covered in a previous round). I get the comment that "good teams figured him out", and that potentially explains his lack of playoff success. It's true that the bulk of his success was early on. But as late as 1980 (his 11th season), he was a Hart trophy finalist, and was named first-team all-star (with nobody else even close). (He also looked really good through the lens of conventional stats - save percentage, GSAA, etc - but I realize that's not how you look at things). Maybe we can argue that it was a fluke for whatever reason - but he had another very good season in 1978 as well (3rd in all-star voting, 9th for the Hart). Doesn't that contradict the idea that he had been figured out?

I also did a high-level calculation, looking at how he did against the top teams of the era - Boston, Buffalo, Rangers, Islanders, Flyers, and Habs. His save percentage - insert all the standard caveats - is about 6 points lower. (That's a simple average, not weighted by games played, in case anyone tries to replicate this calculation). A bit lower, but I would imagine most goalies look somewhat worse against stronger teams. If the stronger teams had "solved" Esposito, wouldn't there be a more glaring difference?

 

[Professor What]

So, I'm giving these guys a closer look, and I'm not sure that I'm ready for Vachon or Fuhr either. I had both of them fairly close to this range on my initial list, but I'm just not sure that they stand up to the competition here at a closer glance.

I think Vachon kind of reminds me of Quick. He stands out in 1974-75, but in this case the playoffs aren't there as strong, and He was clearly behind Parent anyway. He does have a better playoff in 1969, but he was really platooned with Worsley, who severely outplayed him in the regular season, despite being 16 years older. I still like Vachon more than Quick, but I feel like I should have had them closer to each other than what I did, and it's not because I've changed my mind about Quick.

As for Fuhr, I thought I was low on him to start with, but I'm getting lower. I really think there needs to be something of a gap between him and Smith. I don't think my initial list showed that well enough. I just can't get over the feeling that Fuhr was a product of the dynasty and that any halfway decent goalie could have done the job there. It's not like he was terrible, but the 80s weren't exactly a heyday for goalies, and I still don't feel that he was irreplaceable. I like him more than Vachon or Quick, as I think he's got a couple of seasons that stand out, in his rookie year, and his Vezina year, but I honestly feel like Edmonton fares as well with Moog between the pipes. Can someone convince me that Fuhr isn't as much a product of the dynasty as anyone ever was? I mean, some of the Montreal goalies have been criticized for that, but I feel like, even if it was true to an extent, they still brought more to the table than Fuhr.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

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

...

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.

Agreed on all fronts. Even just a quick once-over of the candidates from some of our quieter participants would be appreciated. For example...

- Tom Barrasso: I greatly appreciate that he turned out well considering how he was thrown to the wolves right out of high school. How many 18 year olds even started in the NHL, and how many of those weren't negatively impacted by that in their development? We've got one up for voting right now, and the list doesn't go much longer than that. Such an up and down career, though, and I value consistency a lot. I'll hold off on him for now.

- Tony Esposito: I find the arguments against him to be pretty compelling. The film study plus his record against stronger competition is a tough sell. One without the other wouldn't sway me much, but together they make a lot of sense to me. But as was said last round, him being available for voting at this late juncture shows that he's already been penalized plenty for this. It's probably been posted already somewhere and I'm just forgetting because it's late, but how much worse did he perform statistically versus the best teams compared to his contemporaries?

- Grant Fuhr: I've always found it tough to look past how Team Canada kept coming back to him in big spots. Was his rep really just a product of Gretzky's Oilers?

- George Hainsworth: I already offered my thoughts on Honeyboy in the last thread. For twenty years, he was good, and that's pretty much it. And that's coming in a pre-forward pass era where I'm not sure being consistently good was as difficult as it'd be in later eras.

- Hap Holmes: A similar story as Hainsworth - long and consistent career, questions about how great he was. But Holmes was surely buoyed a bit by Jack Walker, maybe the second best defensive player on his era, always tagging along with him (or was it Holmes who was doing the tagging along? hmm).

- Curtis Joseph: Workhorse, longevity, lacked goal support... a lot of the same things I liked about Henrik Lundqvist, but the playoff games I watched of him during the preliminary thread left me wanting. I thought there were too many games where I was more impressed by the opposing goalie, even in cases where I wouldn't have expected it, most notably Arturs Irbe vs Carolina. But the record is really good...

- Mikka Kiprusoff: I find Kipper to be a tough nut to crack. Only seven years as the undisputed starter in the NHL, though one season was wiped out entirely due to a lockout, and another season saw him nearly steal a Cup. But I always thought he was so good in those years where he did start. Hmm, another guy who could go either way for me, but I'd probably lean upper half than bottom half right now.

- Percy LeSueur: Not yet for me, certainly not so soon after Lehman, and I'd take Holmes over him too. I think those are easy guys to compare to, who both lasted much longer. I also have fewer questions about competition with Holmes than I do LeSueur, considering the fractured leagues of the ~1910 period. So if I'm not quite ready for Holmes, and I prefer him to LeSueur...

- Harry Lumley: I appreciate Mike Farkas's film work on him, but it's hard for me to put as much stock into that the further back we go, for two main reasons: one, we just have less film available and thus we don't get as big a sample, and two, the expectations for how the position is meant to be played has changed so much. I think I'll have Apple Cheeks in the middle of the pack. As with Barrasso, I greatly appreciate that he started so young yet kept it up for so long. I also appreciate that the Leafs deemed him good enough to trade an enormous haul for him in 1952, as he toiled away on the loser Black Hawks.

- Chuck Rayner: Still too many questions for me. I mentioned earlier that it doesn't make sense to me how he got 'bad team goalie' Hart support when it's not clear why the Rangers were bad in the first place. Definitely someone we need more on.

- Jonathan Quick: To be honest, never passed the eye test for me... too low to the ice, too much movement. Not my kind of goalie, even if he's lasted longer than I thought he would. I'll probably be lower on him than the group, but I don't think he's my least favourite here, if that's saying anything.

- Rogie Vachon: I thought he was really good in the Canada Cup, certainly more than I liked the two Czechoslovaks he was up against in the final, one of which is already inducted. But that's a very small sample, and I'll admit to having not watched games of the hapless Kings of this time. Did he play differently behind a much more competent Canada team than he did in Los Angeles?

- John Vanbiesbrouck: I find him much preferrable to Barrasso. Less up and down, and I think at least just as good at his best. Liked him at the Canada Cup. He'll do well for me this week.

- Gump Worsley: I still think he's a comfortable NR. In the words of Canadiens1958 - where's the beef? A lot of years eating up minutes to little fanfare in New York, then an ultra-sheltered role with the Habs. Still a lot of guys I prefer.

 

[MXD]

If the Rayner Rangers were possibly not bad, then the Lumley Red Wings were an elite team that underachieved. Or we agree to retroactively amend prior lists so Jack Stewart, Sid Abel, Bill Quackenbush and Ted Lindsay get downgraded accordingly.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

- Tony Esposito: I find the arguments against him to be pretty compelling. The film study plus his record against stronger competition is a tough sell. One without the other wouldn't sway me much, but together they make a lot of sense to me. But as was said last round, him being available for voting at this late juncture shows that he's already been penalized plenty for this. It's probably been posted already somewhere and I'm just forgetting because it's late, but how much worse did he perform statistically versus the best teams compared to his contemporaries?

Here's a very high level look. We'll use save percentage as a starting point (I've explained several times why it's not perfect, but to get the conversation going):

I'm not going to post screenshots but anyone can verify this on NHL.com. Overall, from 1971 to 1980, Esposito had the 4th highest save percentage (out of any goalies with >200 games played). For those curious, Dryden is easily first, there's 0.3% separating Parent, Resche and Esposito, then there's a clear drop-off to everyone else.

How does Esposito rank against the top six teams? (There were a clear top seven teams in the NHL during this period, with one of them being his Blackhawks).

• Bruins? he has the 3rd highest save percentage out of 23 goalies with 15+ games (behind Dryden and Doug Favell)
• Sabres? he's tied (with Billy Smith) for the 3rd highest save percentage out of 23 goalies with 15+ games (behind Parent and Wayne Stephenson)
• Islanders? he has the 5th highest save percentage out of 16 goalies with 15+ games
• Flyers? he has the 5th highest save percentage out of 19 goalies with 15+ games
• Habs? he's 8th out of 19 goalies with 15+ games
• Rangers? he has the T-11th highest save percentage out of 22 goalies with 15+ games

I didn't know what the results would be when I started with post. For a goalie who ranks 4th overall, it looks like he perform pretty much in line with expectations against four of the top six teams. He really struggled (on a relative basis) against the Rangers.

Obviously, there's a lot that can go into these results. We're looking at a small subset of data, so a few bad goals (or amazing saves) could skew things. I'm not getting into home vs road splits, whether the game was back-to-back, ES vs PK situations, etc. My takeaway from this is Esposito probably did a bit worse than expected, but his numbers fall off a cliff only against one of the top six teams from this era.

 

[jigglysquishy]

A couple things I've gleamed through newspaper reports.

The expectations for the Rayner Rangers were zero. The divide between the haves (Leafs, Wings, Habs) and have nots is already there. They never finish top 3 in any season while he's there. He gets a Hart basically in recognition of making the most of a bad situation.

Esposito does seem to struggle disproportionately against the Habs and Bruins. The media makes a lot of the Esposito vs Esposito matchups. And the Habs just dominate the Hawks.Esposito gets little in terms of defensive help and his prime lines up well to Bill White, who brought steadiness to the team.

He's getting kicked around a lot, but he's for sure the most consistently praised player available. For ~12 years he's always in contention for most praised Canadian goalie after Dryden.

If you take out backstopping the crazy deep Habs 1966-1969, neither Worsley nor Vachon would be available. And they're never in the top 5 most praised players on those teams. Truthfully, closer to 10.

Kiprusoff has the best three year consecutive stretch here. It sucks that newspaper coverage is so poor. I remember him being a titan. He is there for award voting. And puts up a Smythe calibre run on a bad team.

 

[The Pale King]

- Jonathan Quick: To be honest, never passed the eye test for me... too low to the ice, too much movement. Not my kind of goalie, even if he's lasted longer than I thought he would. I'll probably be lower on him than the group, but I don't think he's my least favourite here, if that's saying anything.

I'll start by acknowledging my bias here: Jonathan Quick is the goalie I've seen the most of in my time as a hockey fan and spectator. And no, as I'm sure most of you guys know, that's not him in my avatar. That's uh, Jamie Storr (who was not on my list, for what it's worth).

As for the bolded, I mean, would you prefer he didn't make the impossible post-to-post saves that really no other goalies in this group would make? His is a controlled and endlessly-honed movement. The muscle chains he's trained (and in some ways was fortunate enough to be born into) are beyond intuitive. He's not launching himself and praying. There's a bit of Hasek to his game, something I haven't really seen discussed anywhere. To borrow from Farkas, Quick clearly has a process for his save selection, and he has stuck to it to the point of selfishness (verging on uncoachability) towards the end of his Kings tenure. I'm happy he seems more open to changing his game now that he's moved on to the Rangers. Looking to other sports for parallels, as a Mariners fan, this is something an all-time great like Felix Hernandez clearly couldn't (or refused) to do.

Quick is "low", but he's low and explosive. He's not low in the sense that he's lying on his back and hoping the puck hits him. He's low and collapses his upper body forward, in a way that takes away the top of the net from the shooter. And he's really the best at this in NHL history (if I'm wrong here, let me know, but I don't think I am). He's 6'1, so he doesn't have the benefit of simply existing and taking away space. He was and is incredibly flexible, and he takes away more net than a lot of his modern contemporaries by virtue of attacking space in a controlled way.

I tried to give the really old-time goalers credit if they innovated the position in some way, and I want to give JQ that same benefit here as well. If the crease isn't going to be an exclusive domain for 6'4+ giants in the future, the "normal-sized" goalies of the future are probably going to look a lot like Quick in terms of play-style.

Quick is obviously extremely physically gifted, but there's also a top-tier ability to read the play here as well. I'm not saying he's necessarily Martin Brodeur, but he's in that next echelon of guys when it comes to reading the play and sometimes cheating smartly (ala Hasek). I think he gets a bit short-changed here because he is NOT good at handling the puck. Somewhere along the line, that quarterbacking ability became synonymous with "smart" goaltending, and I don't view them that way, especially post-trapezoid.

Jonathan Quick should have a Vezina, and it should have been in 2012. Obviously you want a guy like Lundqvist to have won one somewhere along the line too but I'll try to dive into his 2012 season a bit more deeply here. It's up there as one of the best individual years a goalie has ever had.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Thanks for this - I read through both of those posts. It's refreshing to have someone make a well-researched argument for an unconventional ranking.

I don't have a strong opinion on Esposito one way or the other. But I want to get your take on one question (sorry if this has been covered in a previous round). I get the comment that "good teams figured him out", and that potentially explains his lack of playoff success. It's true that the bulk of his success was early on. But as late as 1980 (his 11th season), he was a Hart trophy finalist, and was named first-team all-star (with nobody else even close). (He also looked really good through the lens of conventional stats - save percentage, GSAA, etc - but I realize that's not how you look at things). Maybe we can argue that it was a fluke for whatever reason - but he had another very good season in 1978 as well (3rd in all-star voting, 9th for the Hart). Doesn't that contradict the idea that he had been figured out?

Thanks and fair question(s). 1978 isn't a season that I know the week-by-week goings-on of...but I flipped through some old Hockey News issues to try to figure it out. A couple of things jump out...

- Esposito had a nice late stretch, 5-2-2 with a .928.

- The pathetic Smythe Division that year...the Hawks went a yawn-inducing 32-29-19. They were the only team in the division to win more than 20 games. 59 point Colorado was next in line 19-41-20. So, he had some padding. The Hawks were under .500 against the other three divisions combined.

- Unlike the Adams voting, THN gave Coach of the Year honors to first-year Bob Pulford. Stating that his "ingenious" defensive system lopped 78 goals off their previous year total...and, like my whole basic premise for my list, Esposito saw a statistical resurgence and thus, an award voting resurgence, because of the conditions surrounding him. I doubt he was better that year. But his situation improved enough.

- The dominance of Dryden and the distance that young Don Edwards put the rest of the league in a situation where it's easier to maneuver around on the undercard. This wasn't a close race, so the voting below the top-2 was pretty scant. It's a 3. But it's a very weak 3. I believe I saw that the THN fan voting (which was the most votes they've ever gotten) had Dryden way, way out ahead, then Edwards, then Vachon and Esposito were close to each other off in the distance.

Re: 1980. I can't really explain that. It's weird because, again, I flipped through THN to see what the streets were saying...and most of the Hawks success is pinned on Terry Ruskowski...he's on the cover late in the '80 season with the caption "The Man Behind the Hawks Resurgence"...he was injured late in the preliminary series and he couldn't go in the series vs. Buffalo and that was evidently the contributing factor (Esposito was benched after game 1, but returned for game 3). Sather said he was the MVP in '79 (WHA) in his opinion. Yet, he got comparatively less Hart favor.

Obviously, you lose your main competition and all of a sudden you look better, even if you're doing the same thing. Two legit goalies in Dryden and Parent were done for the first time. Also, once the NHL proclaims "over expansion!" in the early 70's, there's a trend worth not(h)ing for volume goalies...they curry a lot of Hart favor. Chicken or egg is tough to reconcile, likely case by case.

Season | Goalie GP | Hart
1972 | 1st | 2nd
1972 | 6th | 6th
1973 | 2nd | 9th
1973 | 3rd | 4th
1974 | 1st | 2nd
1974 | 2nd | 5th
1975 | 1st | 6th
1975 | 3rd | 4th
1975 | 8th | 2nd
1976 | 5th | 4th
1977 | 2nd | 3rd
1978 | 1st | 4th
1978 | 3rd | 9th
1978 | 10th | 10th
1979 | 1st | 16th
1979 | 2nd | 11th
1979 | 3rd | 5th
1979 | 4th | 7th
1979 | 5th | 10th
1979 | 9th | 16th
1980 | 1st | 3rd
1980 | 2nd | 6th

The outliers...1972, Esposito led in goalie stats but was well behind GP leader Dryden for the Hart.
The skipped over 2nd in GP in '75 is Esposito's spot. Instead, voters went to Vachon (8th GP). Dryden is the 10th in GP deal in '78, he led in goalie stats. But overall, there's a high correlation between playing big minutes as a goalie at this time and getting some Hart consideration. But no one wins it...

Is there anything to the absorption of a bunch of minor leaguers (that wouldn't know Espo as well, as they were in a different league) and him sort of re-emerging? Almost like he sort of got to hit a partial reset on his career? Tough to say without living out the season again.

I also did a high-level calculation, looking at how he did against the top teams of the era - Boston, Buffalo, Rangers, Islanders, Flyers, and Habs. His save percentage - insert all the standard caveats - is about 6 points lower. (That's a simple average, not weighted by games played, in case anyone tries to replicate this calculation). A bit lower, but I would imagine most goalies look somewhat worse against stronger teams. If the stronger teams had "solved" Esposito, wouldn't there be a more glaring difference?

Does this include the postseason?

 

[Michael Farkas]

- Tony Esposito: I find the arguments against him to be pretty compelling. The film study plus his record against stronger competition is a tough sell. One without the other wouldn't sway me much, but together they make a lot of sense to me. But as was said last round, him being available for voting at this late juncture shows that he's already been penalized plenty for this. It's probably been posted already somewhere and I'm just forgetting because it's late, but how much worse did he perform statistically versus the best teams compared to his contemporaries?

"Penalized" and "this late" implies that there's a place that he belongs? But that's not how it should work. THIS is the ranking. Other rankings have no bearing. If I gave Ross Mahoney my draft list, and I had Connor McMichael at 128th...what changes would you want him to make to his list? haha

- Grant Fuhr: I've always found it tough to look past how Team Canada kept coming back to him in big spots. Was his rep really just a product of Gretzky's Oilers?

Over who though?

- George Hainsworth: I already offered my thoughts on Honeyboy in the last thread. For twenty years, he was good, and that's pretty much it. And that's coming in a pre-forward pass era where I'm not sure being consistently good was as difficult as it'd be in later eras.

Yup, I'm there too.

- Hap Holmes: A similar story as Hainsworth - long and consistent career, questions about how great he was. But Holmes was surely buoyed a bit by Jack Walker, maybe the second best defensive player on his era, always tagging along with him (or was it Holmes who was doing the tagging along? hmm).

As I've said, contemporary opinion had every opportunity to pump his tires given the Cups...they pretty clearly don't care that much.

- Percy LeSueur: Not yet for me, certainly not so soon after Lehman, and I'd take Holmes over him too. I think those are easy guys to compare to, who both lasted much longer. I also have fewer questions about competition with Holmes than I do LeSueur, considering the fractured leagues of the ~1910 period. So if I'm not quite ready for Holmes, and I prefer him to LeSueur...

Same. I'm open to a case for him. But there's a lot of...stuff...going on during this time. Even the resident "give me every year in a firehose" isn't sold on him being the guy from this era to go.

- Harry Lumley: I appreciate Mike Farkas's film work on him, but it's hard for me to put as much stock into that the further back we go, for two main reasons: one, we just have less film available and thus we don't get as big a sample, and two, the expectations for how the position is meant to be played has changed so much. I think I'll have Apple Cheeks in the middle of the pack. As with Barrasso, I greatly appreciate that he started so young yet kept it up for so long. I also appreciate that the Leafs deemed him good enough to trade an enormous haul for him in 1952, as he toiled away on the loser Black Hawks.

I appreciate that guy's work too. Heard he's a handsome fella.

- Chuck Rayner: Still too many questions for me. I mentioned earlier that it doesn't make sense to me how he got 'bad team goalie' Hart support when it's not clear why the Rangers were bad in the first place. Definitely someone we need more on.

I went to the library today because he was a Ranger, so I figured I could get some more New York clippings on him...and don't get me wrong, they like him (he also loses his job to Sugar Jim Henry in '48 and gets sent to the minors)...but like you sort of wink at, it's not super clear why. I'll post some stuff that I clipped in a bit.

- Jonathan Quick: To be honest, never passed the eye test for me... too low to the ice, too much movement. Not my kind of goalie, even if he's lasted longer than I thought he would. I'll probably be lower on him than the group, but I don't think he's my least favourite here, if that's saying anything.

This is basically what my Quick disclaimer was to start page 2 (post 26). I think this is very fair. I like Quick. I don't think I'm "in like" with Quick. There is a method to it, it has some scalability...but I think it's very fair to not like this guy.

- Rogie Vachon: I thought he was really good in the Canada Cup, certainly more than I liked the two Czechoslovaks he was up against in the final, one of which is already inducted. But that's a very small sample, and I'll admit to having not watched games of the hapless Kings of this time. Did he play differently behind a much more competent Canada team than he did in Los Angeles?

Maybe a little more under control for Canada. Maybe. But that might be just a product of not having to face as many A+ chances, so it's sort of a self-fulfilling deal. He didn't really have a style, so he just did whatever, wherever...

- Gump Worsley: I still think he's a comfortable NR. In the words of Canadiens1958 - where's the beef? A lot of years eating up minutes to little fanfare in New York, then an ultra-sheltered role with the Habs. Still a lot of guys I prefer.

That's a bingo.

If the Rayner Rangers were possibly not bad, then the Lumley Red Wings were an elite team that underachieved. Or we agree to retroactively amend prior lists so Jack Stewart, Sid Abel, Bill Quackenbush and Ted Lindsay get downgraded accordingly.

Ted Lindsay should be downgraded...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Does this include the postseason?

That was regular season only. I was taking it as a given that he wasn't great in the playoffs.

 

[BM67]

I went to the library today because he was a Ranger, so I figured I could get some more New York clippings on him...and don't get me wrong, they like him (he also loses his job to Sugar Jim Henry in '48 and gets sent to the minors)...but like you sort of wink at, it's not super clear why. I'll post some stuff that I clipped in a bit.

Rayner was the starter for the first 10 games of the 47-48 season, then was injured. Henry and the Rangers go on a heater in early December to climb from 5th to 3rd, where they stay until early March.

On March 1st they were 6 points up on 4th, and 13 up on 5th, with 9 games left in the season. Rayner is brought back with 2 games left in the season, with the Rangers sitting in 4th, 3 points back of 3rd, and 4 up on 5th.

Rayner plays the last two games of the season and all 6 playoff games.

Henry was then traded to Chicago in October of 48.

 

[blogofmike]

- Tony Esposito: I find the arguments against him to be pretty compelling. The film study plus his record against stronger competition is a tough sell. One without the other wouldn't sway me much, but together they make a lot of sense to me. But as was said last round, him being available for voting at this late juncture shows that he's already been penalized plenty for this. It's probably been posted already somewhere and I'm just forgetting because it's late, but how much worse did he perform statistically versus the best teams compared to his contemporaries?

There is some value in destroying the bad teams as he often did in first rounds. But he gave back that value a lot of times in later rounds against the powerhouse teams.

- Grant Fuhr: I've always found it tough to look past how Team Canada kept coming back to him in big spots. Was his rep really just a product of Gretzky's Oilers?

Over who though?

Patrick Roy was pretty upset about being cut, wasn't he? Hextall just won the Smythe and Vezina, and he didn't have a Marty St. Louis meltdown on Keenan, he understood that he was #2.

- Curtis Joseph: Workhorse, longevity, lacked goal support... a lot of the same things I liked about Henrik Lundqvist, but the playoff games I watched of him during the preliminary thread left me wanting. I thought there were too many games where I was more impressed by the opposing goalie, even in cases where I wouldn't have expected it, most notably Arturs Irbe vs Carolina. But the record is really good...

Joseph was a little more erratic and was prone to giving up a soft one, or getting blitzed for a high GA count.

But the upside was tremendous.

He had the bad luck to run into peak Irbe, peak Giguere, and peak Kiprusoff in consecutive seasons where he played well and his offense abandoned him. Just 2 years prior to this his team had 6 shots on Martin Brodeur in an elimination game where he gave up 2 GA.

 

[Professor What]

"Penalized" and "this late" implies that there's a place that he belongs? But that's not how it should work. THIS is the ranking. Other rankings have no bearing. If I gave Ross Mahoney my draft list, and I had Connor McMichael at 128th...what changes would you want him to make to his list? haha

Well, I think there was a certain level of expectations for everyone, and they weren't necessarily the same as the last rankings. For example, I think that expectations for Benedict had fallen since the last time the rankings were done. Sure enough, he ended up lower. I think that change had taken place before the project though. Things like the pre-merger project seemed to do damage to him.

With Esposito it's different. I think there was a certain level of expectations for him coming into the project, and he's fallen -- significantly -- since we started. I think that's where it starts feeling like a penalty. I'm not sure that he'd really shifted much in perception on this board since the last rankings about a decade ago, but you've basically singlehandedly talked him down to at least this point. I think it was well-deserved though, so that's not a slight.

I don't know. I feel like he could go now and it wouldn't be a travesty. Although, that said, I kind of felt that way last round, and I've rethought that.

Rayner was the starter for the first 10 games of the 47-48 season, then was injured. Henry and the Rangers go on a heater in early December to climb from 5th to 3rd, where they stay until early March.

On March 1st they were 6 points up on 4th, and 13 up on 5th, with 9 games left in the season. Rayner is brought back with 2 games left in the season, with the Rangers sitting in 4th, 3 points back of 3rd, and 4 up on 5th.

Rayner plays the last two games of the season and all 6 playoff games.

Henry was then traded to Chicago in October of 48.

This makes me feel better about Rayner. I think I'm ready for him, but the questions being asked were hanging with me. This feels like it rounds it all out for me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't know. I feel like he could go now and it wouldn't be a travesty. Although, that said, I kind of felt that way last round, and I've rethought that.

Well, let's look at it from the other perspective. Tony Esposito was 44th last list. Then what's the feel?

This makes me feel better about Rayner. I think I'm ready for him, but the questions being asked were hanging with me. This feels like it rounds it all out for me.

I think Rayner going now is a real stretch. War-weakened years, short and not super impressive peak...no longevity.

Even the Hart is a little weird. He didn't even clearly win team MVP honors.

Goalie Chuck Rayner and Edgar Laprade, injured center, have been named as co-winners of the West Side Association Trophy, which is presented annually to the most valuable member of the New York Rangers during the regular NHL campaign. The result of this season's vote was announced yesterday by the New York Hockey Writers Association.

...

Only once before in the ten-year history...of the award have writers named two players to share the honor. This happened in 1944, when Ott Heller and Bryan Hextall were selected.

Rayner was the starter for the first 10 games of the 47-48 season, then was injured. Henry and the Rangers go on a heater in early December to climb from 5th to 3rd, where they stay until early March.

On March 1st they were 6 points up on 4th, and 13 up on 5th, with 9 games left in the season. Rayner is brought back with 2 games left in the season, with the Rangers sitting in 4th, 3 points back of 3rd, and 4 up on 5th.

Rayner plays the last two games of the season and all 6 playoff games.

Henry was then traded to Chicago in October of 48.

Yes, he was hurt, but it also says that he wasn't able to re-take his job. Not sure the exact mechanics. Might be worth noting...also maybe worth less...

Rayner, who started the season as the Rangers' regular goalie, was out for a period with injuries, and upon his return was unable to win his job back from Jim Henry. Rayner, rather than sit on the bench, asked to be transferred to New Haven.

 

[MXD]

I think Rayner going now is a real stretch. War-weakened years, short and not super impressive peak...no longevity.

More NHL games than Durnan, who is already in, and that's with Durnan playing games past 1942. Rayner's team also folded, so that was kindof a hurdle to actually playing games (on top of, well, the war itself). Rayner also played a full season in the WHL, which had to be at the very worst better than the NOHA and similar to the QHL. Durnan is obviously better (but we admitted him a while ago).

To be honest, this is probably a wee bit early for Rayner (and by that, I mean that I'm pretty certain there is four better netminders than him in this group, and I'm taking for granted we're not voting in more than 4). It's just that I'd prefer someone who brings collective overachievement than collective underachievement (like Lumley tended to do).