Roman Cechmanek vs John Vanbiesbrouck

[Crazy Cizikas]

Is your name Trevor Daley...?

No. Does it have to be?

 

[nabby12]

No. Does it have to be?

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

jVB’s hatred of others doesn’t count until it’s about you and your group. So I vote Jvb over cecmanic

 

[Michael Farkas]

You have Bobby Orr as the best player of all time, right? Why?

He only played 600 some games. Sure, he won a bunch of Norrises, but against who? Bill White? He's only 3x time MVP and even one of those almost went to a teammate. Lidstrom won 7 Norrises against way tougher competition. A number of players - including contemporary Bobby Clarke - has 3 or more MVPs. I can't imagine he's even top 10 in points among d-men all time. Just two Cups, one against an expansion team.

By accolades alone, he has no case for #1. But I bet you could sum up your case for Bobby Orr being #1 in a single sentence, couldn't you?

Just in case DB isn't willing to play ball after his comment, I'll try to answer for him with his own words...

TBH I don't understand how can anyone rank Gretzky below both Orr and Howe. You could argue peak Orr over peak Gretzky (even though I strongly disagree), but there is no question Howe's peak is inferior to both. If you value career and longevity, you can put Howe above Gretzky, but Orr would be a distant third in this triumvirate. Putting Gretzky at #3 is simply indefensible. Of course, it's better than putting him at #7, but that's straight-up madness.

Pretty simple, really.

They were both better hockey players than him.

Now...Orr's the best he ever saw. Frankly, 1970 Bobby Orr is the best player I ever saw. So, we look past - say - 18, 19, 20 years of Gretzky dominance, the same for Howe...to put Orr ahead.

It's absolutely defensible. It's absolutely logical.

You look at that goalie list. Dryden and Tretiak - back to back? That's pretty convenient. Vezina/Benedict/Gardiner in a tri-set. Tony O and Parent back to back. Smith and Fuhr a space a part as the only primary 80's guys basically. Luongo/Lundqvist a space a part with another "current" goalie (at the time) in there.

I mean, maybe...guys can be back to back that played in the same era. No problem. But there's a lot of really convenient things going there...did we really dive in and learn about the evolution of the position there?

We have Dryden - a one situation goalie of the 70's and Tretiak - a one-situation goalie of the 70's. How much work was put in to see if one or the other would potentially flounder or be even better in another situation? That potential answer is on tape. Did we do that? No...we threw them on the list together and moved on.

I don't need a panel people to tell me who has the most top 5 Vezina finishes. I'll read a book. I'm not saying discount accolades. But we know that goaltending is susceptible to team effects in a big way. If anyone wasn't sure in 2012, they better be sure now. It's plain as day.

I think we took some shortcuts in that project...I was part of that project, I took those shortcuts too. I don't want a Buzzfeed article here. I want something that can be the best of its kind or directionally towards "better".

That's what I'm after. And I'm going to challenge folks to be better too. And that doesn't mean sitting up all night watching Lemelin vs Moog...there isn't anything in that Thomas vs Cechmanek post about them as players. It's about accolades only. Cechmanek has a clear advantage. Cechmanek is a joke. Thomas is celebrated. Something has to give there or the accolade train is going right off the tracks too...

I'm still waiting on the answer to that question.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Vanbiesbrouck in my opinion.

 

[Dingo]

Exactly. Hockey sense is the thing that changes the least in your pro career.

And like I said, the whole "he wasn't Datsyuk till he was..."

Negative.

The league's rules changed and guys like Yzerman got out of the way allowing him 8 more minutes a game without being broken in half by a Derian Hatcher type.

Hell, that famous move on Marty Turco that was basically our And1 mixtape...that was 2003.

Essentially the same player within reason.

you ignored the Brett Hull example and went with the one you think you have explained.

Surely someone would have picked him before 170th if he were so obvious to spot. Hull? Late draft and late to come to fruition. Franzen? Holmstrom couldn't even skate. Adam Oates wasn't even drafted and took until his late 20s. He was being outscored in the ECAC when he was twenty by guys younger than him. Surely his obvious IQ stood out but the NHL scouts just didnt want him because they all hated "Maneater" and dreaded the possibility of him being paired with the fat guy from Penticton?

 

[Michael Farkas]

you ignored the Brett Hull example and went with the one you think you have explained.

Surely someone would have picked him before 170th if he were so obvious to spot. Hull? Late draft and late to come to fruition. Franzen? Holmstrom couldn't even skate. Adam Oates wasn't even drafted and took until his late 20s. He was being outscored in the ECAC when he was twenty by guys younger than him. Surely his obvious IQ stood out but the NHL scouts just didnt want him because they all hated "Maneater" and dreaded the possibility of him being paired with the fat guy from Penticton?

I didn't intentionally ignore it. My apologies.

So, the situation is that Brett Hull - as you noted, out of shape, questionable attitude, question dedication - who is coming off of a year where he quit hockey. You're wondering why he wasn't drafted higher? He must have jumped off the page in a big way for him to be drafted at all.

Adam Oates still made the NHL at 23.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is exactly, which I don't say dismissively. I legitimately am unsure what the takeaway is...that scouting is imperfect? Of course. If it was perfect, it'd be like two rounds haha

I guess I don't get what these 15 and 20 year impact NHLers who made it in the early 20's suggest in terms of relevance.

 

[JackSlater]

Just in case DB isn't willing to play ball after his comment, I'll try to answer for him with his own words...





Now...Orr's the best he ever saw. Frankly, 1970 Bobby Orr is the best player I ever saw. So, we look past - say - 18, 19, 20 years of Gretzky dominance, the same for Howe...to put Orr ahead.

It's absolutely defensible. It's absolutely logical.

You look at that goalie list. Dryden and Tretiak - back to back? That's pretty convenient. Vezina/Benedict/Gardiner in a tri-set. Tony O and Parent back to back. Smith and Fuhr a space a part as the only primary 80's guys basically. Luongo/Lundqvist a space a part with another "current" goalie (at the time) in there.

I mean, maybe...guys can be back to back that played in the same era. No problem. But there's a lot of really convenient things going there...did we really dive in and learn about the evolution of the position there?

We have Dryden - a one situation goalie of the 70's and Tretiak - a one-situation goalie of the 70's. How much work was put in to see if one or the other would potentially flounder or be even better in another situation? That potential answer is on tape. Did we do that? No...we threw them on the list together and moved on.

I don't need a panel people to tell me who has the most top 5 Vezina finishes. I'll read a book. I'm not saying discount accolades. But we know that goaltending is susceptible to team effects in a big way. If anyone wasn't sure in 2012, they better be sure now. It's plain as day.

I think we took some shortcuts in that project...I was part of that project, I took those shortcuts too. I don't want a Buzzfeed article here. I want something that can be the best of its kind or directionally towards "better".

That's what I'm after. And I'm going to challenge folks to be better too. And that doesn't mean sitting up all night watching Lemelin vs Moog...there isn't anything in that Thomas vs Cechmanek post about them as players. It's about accolades only. Cechmanek has a clear advantage. Cechmanek is a joke. Thomas is celebrated. Something has to give there or the accolade train is going right off the tracks too...

I'm still waiting on the answer to that question.

Look I think I know what you're going for but this poll doesn't really demonstrate much. The reality is that most people here are not even comparing players, just careers or more so achievements. Most won't admit that but it's how it is. There was less of it in the past but it's increasingly common that the argument boils down to scoring finishes / award voting as if that is all you need to do, even in cases where players are close. It's boring and generally far from convincing. People aren't interested in watching a player and seeing the player, mostly. Seeing how the team played, how the player was utilized, or just seeing if anything sticks out. There is also a strange certainty surrounding the whole thing.

People are increasingly unfamiliar with the players and just following the bullet points. Most discussion is players since the 1980s to very recent history, and often just guessing at how (current player) compares. As it pertains to Thomas, it was easier to make the argument against him when he was actually playing and you could watch him. I had friends who followed hockey who used to laugh about Thomas' play and how erratic it was, one called Boston games "swimming with Timmy". That's mostly forgotten now, but the trophies and save percentage numbers stay the same. Obviously I don't believe, and didn't at the time, that everyone or even most people thought that at the time. You see the same with Fleury, widely considered a liability in his prime, but for different reasons. Nice guy Fleury and the win total stay the same as memory fades and video is mostly unwatched.

To bring this ramble to an end, I'll say that I think that many people would rank Mathieu Chouinard above Roberto Luongo as a goaltender if they had followed the QMJHL in the late 90s. I followed the league at the time and if you ignored things external to the league (draft, international) then Chouinard, a year younger than Luongo, had the better on paper accomplishments in both of Luongo's final two years in the league. Better save percentage, better goals against average, more wins, better all star finishes (a first team for Chouinard, nothing for Luongo) and more trophies (league MVP for Chouinard, nothing for Luongo). No one would take Chouinard over Luongo now, and few would admit to preferring Chouinard given how things played out, but I'm sure than many would say he was better just based on the bullet points. That's just how it is, and that's especially true with goaltenders.

 

[Troubadour]

About 9 times out of 10, I more or less disagree with at least part of what Mike says/suggests. The rest of the instances, he's right about Cechmanek.

Having watched the guy at his peak, which unfortunately took place a couple of years before his NHL tenure, I can safely say his good NHL seasons now considered a fluke were a fluke -- in the sense he could have done more/better under slightly different circumstances.

My view/experience in the late 90s was less NHL-centric, so basically, at that time, if I could name any goalie to build my team around/get me over a better team in a series, there would have been 2--4 guys I would have taken over the peak Cechmanek. No Brodeur, no Joseph. Uh-uh. Hasek, Roy would have been a no-brainer. Belfour, maybe. The 98 playoff Kolzig, maybe. Then, the Fluke.

Still, during that same time, I loved Beezer. But Mike is right about Cechmanek

 

[Gorskyontario]

I didn't intentionally ignore it. My apologies.

So, the situation is that Brett Hull - as you noted, out of shape, questionable attitude, question dedication - who is coming off of a year where he quit hockey. You're wondering why he wasn't drafted higher? He must have jumped off the page in a big way for him to be drafted at all.

Adam Oates still made the NHL at 23.

I guess I'm not sure what your point is exactly, which I don't say dismissively. I legitimately am unsure what the takeaway is...that scouting is imperfect? Of course. If it was perfect, it'd be like two rounds haha

I guess I don't get what these 15 and 20 year impact NHLers who made it in the early 20's suggest in terms of relevance.

I think his point is, that Tim Thomas became a great NHL goaltender after years of practice in Europe, and the AHL.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Just in case DB isn't willing to play ball after his comment, I'll try to answer for him with his own words...

Now...Orr's the best he ever saw. Frankly, 1970 Bobby Orr is the best player I ever saw. So, we look past - say - 18, 19, 20 years of Gretzky dominance, the same for Howe...to put Orr ahead.

It's absolutely defensible. It's absolutely logical.

You look at that goalie list. Dryden and Tretiak - back to back? That's pretty convenient. Vezina/Benedict/Gardiner in a tri-set. Tony O and Parent back to back. Smith and Fuhr a space a part as the only primary 80's guys basically. Luongo/Lundqvist a space a part with another "current" goalie (at the time) in there.

I mean, maybe...guys can be back to back that played in the same era. No problem. But there's a lot of really convenient things going there...did we really dive in and learn about the evolution of the position there?

We have Dryden - a one situation goalie of the 70's and Tretiak - a one-situation goalie of the 70's. How much work was put in to see if one or the other would potentially flounder or be even better in another situation? That potential answer is on tape. Did we do that? No...we threw them on the list together and moved on.

I don't need a panel people to tell me who has the most top 5 Vezina finishes. I'll read a book. I'm not saying discount accolades. But we know that goaltending is susceptible to team effects in a big way. If anyone wasn't sure in 2012, they better be sure now. It's plain as day.

I think we took some shortcuts in that project...I was part of that project, I took those shortcuts too. I don't want a Buzzfeed article here. I want something that can be the best of its kind or directionally towards "better".

That's what I'm after. And I'm going to challenge folks to be better too. And that doesn't mean sitting up all night watching Lemelin vs Moog...there isn't anything in that Thomas vs Cechmanek post about them as players. It's about accolades only. Cechmanek has a clear advantage. Cechmanek is a joke. Thomas is celebrated. Something has to give there or the accolade train is going right off the tracks too...

I'm still waiting on the answer to that question.

Did you not rank Orr ahead of Howe?

Did you not rank Vezina/Gardiner/Benedict virtually back-to-back? (11,13,14)

Smith/Fuhr 26 and 30

Luongo/Lundquist 33 and 36

Did you not rank Tim Thomas 57th best goaltender ever?

OK, aside from the hypocrisy, let me address the purpose of my involvement in these projects. I love hockey. I've watched an awful lot of it over a lot of years. The very idea of ranking all-time great players was fascinating to me. Just making the lists was a hockey education. The discussions even more so. Learned a lot from people who saw and knew a lot more than I did. It was all truly enjoyable. That's why I kept participating. For my own enjoyment. Apparently, that was a bit selfish.
I'm not a student of the game, don't study film, don't read enough. So I have decided to leave this to the experts. I guess I really don't know enough about goaltenders to participate in the rankings of the top 60 goalies. But I will follow it and continue to learn.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Did you not rank Orr ahead of Howe?

Did you not rank Vezina/Gardiner/Benedict virtually back-to-back? (11,13,14)

Smith/Fuhr 26 and 30

Luongo/Lundquist 33 and 36

Did you not rank Tim Thomas 57th best goaltender ever?

OK, aside from the hypocrisy, let me address the purpose of my involvement in these projects. I love hockey. I've watched an awful lot of it over a lot of years. The very idea of ranking all-time great players was fascinating to me. Just making the lists was a hockey education. The discussions even more so. Learned a lot from people who saw and knew a lot more than I did. It was all truly enjoyable. That's why I kept participating. For my own enjoyment. Apparently, that was a bit selfish.
I'm not a student of the game, don't study film, don't read enough. So I have decided to leave this to the experts. I guess I really don't know enough about goaltenders to participate in the rankings of the top 60 goalies. But I will follow it and continue to learn.

I did.

As I stated, I'm complicit in "falling in line" last time and I'm unwilling to make the same mistakes now that I've accumulated 12 more years of learning about the game and this position with real world experience.

Your paragraph is correct, it's my reasoning too. I'm not trying to box anyone out of it...at all. I'm not even against you personally on this...I enjoy interacting with you even when we disagree. We have a lot more common ground here than you think.

What I'm saying is...there's a few ways to cut this. So, speaking of "hypocrisy" - which is a strong word for what's going on, but fine...what I'm saying is...

When I say Tim Thomas was not good and therefore he would not have succeeded in the NHL under other circumstances...I get told, "this is what happened. He achieved things. Nuts to you."

Now, when I bring up Roman Cechmanek - who, as I demonstrated - has a clear career value advantage over Thomas and essentially the same basic peak. He's laughed out of the building. No one wants to say it, but Cechmanek was a goofy f'n goaltender who played a ridiculously ineffective style, at least for this level of play (the NHL).

Now, again, no one is saying the answer because then it justifies my Thomas position and no one wants that haha - so for three pages, people are rubbing the backs of their necks and staring at their shoes hoping that it goes away...

So, the "that's what actually happened" logic only selectively applies here.

Now, what happens when I get back to Dryden vs Tretiak - where maybe you'll have less of a dog in that fight - and I go, "Ya know, you watch Dryden, and actually he sort of crumbles after his first save...he actually has no blocker hand. It's no wonder he failed internationally because blah blah blah..."

Which won't mean throw Dryden off the list forever. It just means, "hey, he's clearly a step down from Tretiak and Plante and whoever...he was propped by the dynasty Canadiens a little more than meets the eye and his goalie competition was fairly weak, so his awards overstate him."

Are folks going to come back and say, "well, he remains 7th because that's where he was and he won 11 Cups in 4 years and..."

Or.......................

There can be a hybrid approach.

I don't participate in these things to make the list my way. I don't need anyone to make my own list...I'd just do that. But I probably can't and don't want to because it's not fun and it doesn't hold me accountable. In a million years, I would have never come across Seth Martin if I didn't post here (who I took 1st overall in an ATD minor league draft once upon a time).

So, look, I'm not after you or your views or Boston or even Tim Thomas. I'm just saying if the group plays the whole "accomplishments rule!" card then you live by the sword and die by the sword. You're now evaluating another evaluator - who you don't know their qualifications - evaluation. It's evaluation by proxy and that has problems. Just like my way of watching how they play has problems.

 

[Crosby2010]

You have Bobby Orr as the best player of all time, right? Why?

He only played 600 some games. Sure, he won a bunch of Norrises, but against who? Bill White? He's only 3x time MVP and even one of those almost went to a teammate. Lidstrom won 7 Norrises against way tougher competition. A number of players - including contemporary Bobby Clarke - has 3 or more MVPs. I can't imagine he's even top 10 in points among d-men all time. Just two Cups, one against an expansion team.

By accolades alone, he has no case for #1. But I bet you could sum up your case for Bobby Orr being #1 in a single sentence, couldn't you?

It was Brad Park he was against, that would be his best competition. Park is comfortably in the HHOF and not far off the top 10 d-men ever. But it goes beyond that. Orr wasn't just a guy who was winning Norrises in weak competition, he wins those Norrises against ANY competition. 6-7 of those 8 Norrises I am thinking he wins in every single other season in NHL history. But that's another story.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It was Brad Park he was against, that would be his best competition. Park is comfortably in the HHOF and not far off the top 10 d-men ever. But it goes beyond that. Orr wasn't just a guy who was winning Norrises in weak competition, he wins those Norrises against ANY competition. 6-7 of those 8 Norrises I am thinking he wins in every single other season in NHL history. But that's another story.

I know. That's not exactly the point I'm making. I know that Orr dominates everyone at any time.

Not directed at anyone in particular and I know the internet is tough to read tone and/or maybe I'm not a good communicator...but man, there are some very literal people in this subforum, no? haha

A rabbit didn't actually race a turtle, boys...

 

[Crosby2010]

View attachment 903932

Never liked that situation. This is 2003, pre-social media not where people could air out their grievances and get people fired just from a comment on Twitter (Akim Aliu anyone?). Honestly, it should have been dealt with internally. Daley was a kid, he probably got more upset than he should have, you don't leave and desert your team over this, but whether it was Orr or whoever else was advising him it was over the top. Beezer was instantly apologetic about it, and in this world you don't always get someone apologizing to you over things, but he did. It should have been left at that, I think. That's my thought, I thought it was crazy forcing a decent guy out of ownership over a private comment made out of anger. In 2024 this happens all of the time, but in 2003 there wasn't that happening so much. That's my thought on it, go nuts!

Okay, to the topic at hand, come on, this is Beezer. The fact he doesn't have 100% of the vote against Cechmanek is what surprises me. Cechmanek couldn't even stay in the league. Beezer was in the NHL for two decades and most of it as at least an above average goalie, if not an elite one. Even prime vs. prime, sorry, Cechmanek never did what Beezer did in the 1996 playoffs, or in a year like 1994 with Florida.

I know. That's not exactly the point I'm making. I know that Orr dominates everyone at any time.

Not directed at anyone in particular and I know the internet is tough to read tone and/or maybe I'm not a good communicator...but man, there are some very literal people in this subforum, no? haha

A rabbit didn't actually race a turtle, boys...

I was assuming it was sarcasm. I get what you mean, there are eras with better competition than others, but when you are THAT much better than the rest it is easy to see him winning Norrises against Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, etc. Actually, in 1975 he won over Potvin. But Park is a pretty good guy to compete against. It could be worse.

 

[Gorskyontario]

When I say Tim Thomas was not good and therefore he would not have succeeded in the NHL under other circumstances...I get told, "this is what happened. He achieved things. Nuts to you."

Tim Thomas won a Conn Smythe and 2 vezina trophies. He was very good for a short period of time, even if it took him longer to develop.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Tim Thomas won a Conn Smythe and 2 vezina trophies. He was very good for a short period of time, even if it took him longer to develop.

I have read the newspaper too. We're way, way past this.

What areas of his game developed specifically? Taking 15 years to "develop" after your draft year would be the most unprecedented thing in history...in fact, it's physiologically dishonest to even make a conclusion like that. But what about his game came about so wildly - and I mean, wildly - differently that took him from a not-NHL-caliber goalie into his 30's and then suddenly was the absolute best in two non-consecutive seasons in his mid-30's and then not again...? You're calling this a development revelation, I'm going to ask for specifics on what that is so that I can go back and check the video to see if I'm missing something.

 

[MadLuke]

What if it is a position where mental place matter just so much then almost anything else in sport ?

Goaltender can gain it and loose it more, a la Theodore.
A much lesser technical goaltender that cannot distinguish himself much in low pressure league, can do much better than better goaltender in the nhl during actual games ?

Thomas prime was 5 years, where him and Rask where number 1 in the nhl in save percentage in the regular season

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

and Thomas in the playoff:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

And considering he took a whole year break and turned 39 years old when he returned to play, I am not sure if we need explanation for the after Bruins career part, just for the before part (and he still had a 18.8 gsaa in only 38 games the first chance he had to play in the nhl).

 

[Michael Farkas]

What if it is a position where mental place matter just so much then almost anything else in sport ?

Goaltender can gain it and loose it more, a la Theodore.

Great point and a very good example. And I find that this, again, manifests itself physically and technically.

Sergei Bobrovsky is probably the most mentally weak goaltender going. His playoff form is renowned statistically for its historic poorness (which may have been washed away with recency bias for some...?). You can see physically what happens to him and his game when he's feeling too much pressure or he's lacking confidence/is down on himself.

He goes recedes into how he played as a young Flyer (until a new goalie coach coached him up). His stance gets very compact, his shoulders are slouched, low, and very forward and there's a lot of overlap with his blocker and glove. He treats many saves like he's a coiled spring to the point that sometimes he takes himself off his skates...up off his edges as part of his save process...which is really unique for this time and place in goaltending. When Bill Ranford did it - who cares? It was 1990. But now...

I've not noticed much variance like that in Thomas' game personally. I find him to be sort of kamikaze in his style - he has one setting. Also, he has pretty poor hockey sense as far as goalies go, so his shooter tracking stays pretty low no matter what. Meaning, his eyes don't change very much. The only real variance I've ever kind of detected in Thomas' game is how he handles shots to his chest. When he's really feeling it and is on time, he can actually keep some more of those pucks with some upper body softness. When he's just sort of winging it uncomfortably, legitimately almost every shot is an uncontrolled rebound.

 

[Gorskyontario]

I have read the newspaper too. We're way, way past this.

What areas of his game developed specifically? Taking 15 years to "develop" after your draft year would be the most unprecedented thing in history...in fact, it's physiologically dishonest to even make a conclusion like that. But what about his game came about so wildly - and I mean, wildly - differently that took him from a not-NHL-caliber goalie into his 30's and then suddenly was the absolute best in two non-consecutive seasons in his mid-30's and then not again...? You're calling this a development revelation, I'm going to ask for specifics on what that is so that I can go back and check the video to see if I'm missing something.

Have you seen any footage of his game in Europe, or in the AHL in the 90s? I have not, I would assume he would have improved drastically or he would never have made the NHL.

 

[Crosby2010]

I have read the newspaper too. We're way, way past this.

What areas of his game developed specifically? Taking 15 years to "develop" after your draft year would be the most unprecedented thing in history...in fact, it's physiologically dishonest to even make a conclusion like that. But what about his game came about so wildly - and I mean, wildly - differently that took him from a not-NHL-caliber goalie into his 30's and then suddenly was the absolute best in two non-consecutive seasons in his mid-30's and then not again...? You're calling this a development revelation, I'm going to ask for specifics on what that is so that I can go back and check the video to see if I'm missing something.

I am not fan of Cechmanek but Johnny Bower and Tim Thomas are too good examples of being classic late bloomers for goalies. One is an undisputed HHOFer and the other one isn't in but peaked very high. Sometimes it is the coach, the system, the style of the team, etc. that gives a goalie a chance. Johnny Bower is a rare ex-Leafs player that always spoke highly of Punch Imlach because he gave him a chance. Johnny was around 34 when he got a chance as a full-time NHLer.

Now, he hung around and helped build a dynasty and didn't just become a flash in the pan like Cechmanek, but it is possible to be a late bloomer as a goalie.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Have you seen any footage of his game in Europe, or in the AHL in the 90s? I have not, I would assume he would have improved drastically or he would never have made the NHL.

Yes, of course I have. I do my homework haha - when I'm theorizing or assuming, I'm usually quite clear about it.

It's not so much that he improved to such an unrealistic degree, so much as rule changes and its effects on current goalies and the developmental channels had an unforeseen impact on the goalie talent pool that it allowed some unsustainable acts into the league. I did a fairly long YouTube video (with hundreds of clips) helping to explain this a bit not long ago.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The key difference is Bower lit up the AHL. He was a 3-time AHL MVP (not just goalies but all players). Contemporary praise is very high. He might have been 3rd best goalie in the world in 1957 and 1958, despite not being in the NHL. He just had the unfortune of being stuck being Gump Worsley on a poorly managed team. Maybe you can still argue he's a late bloomer as he's 27 before he becomes truly elite in the AHL. I'm more willing to excuse it though with losing all those years in army service. And there's glimpses of greatness in the late 40s.

Thomas is very different. He's not a top 50 goaltender in his 20s. He doesn't light up the Swedish league until he's 29 (at that time, maybe 4th best league in the world?). It's not a case where a clear A level talent is held back by league structure.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I am not fan of Cechmanek but Johnny Bower and Tim Thomas are too good examples of being classic late bloomers for goalies.

Is Bower a "late bloomer"? It seems fairly clear that he was a top 10 (6th? 7th? whatever) goalie in the world from his mid-20s on.

And again, how can one "late bloom" at 34? Does that sound reasonable? Well outside of your athletic prime to the point that it's actually a common retirement age. He suddenly got really, really good at 34, but wasn't good enough for the NHL at 31? How is that possible? Are we sure there isn't some sort of outside influence here? It's definite that a career minor leaguer (well, not even, for most of his 20's) just practiced really hard in his mid 30s and became the best goalie...at the same time a rookie who can't skate also became the best goalie? Are we sure? Couldn't it be possible that something else is a driving force here?

 

[Crosby2010]

Is Bower a "late bloomer"? It seems fairly clear that he was a top 10 (6th? 7th? whatever) goalie in the world from his mid-20s on.

And again, how can one "late bloom" at 34? Does that sound reasonable? Well outside of your athletic prime to the point that it's actually a common retirement age. He suddenly got really, really good at 34, but wasn't good enough for the NHL at 31? How is that possible? Are we sure there isn't some sort of outside influence here? It's definite that a career minor leaguer (well, not even, for most of his 20's) just practiced really hard in his mid 30s and became the best goalie...at the same time a rookie who can't skate also became the best goalie? Are we sure? Couldn't it be possible that something else is a driving force here?

There is always politics at play with things, including in the Original 6. I mean, why did Hasek take until his late 20s to finally get established in the NHL? Sometimes it is just opportunities. A team giving you a chance. The O6 is a bit different because like you said Bower was still considered a good minor leaguer. It isn't quite the same but Belfour was 25 before he made the NHL. He was a minor leaguer before that, then all of the sudden he is a Vezina and Calder winner and then finished 3rd in Hart voting? Hey, the right situation, the so-called "Perfect storm" can happen. Usually there are goalies good enough to maintain that though. Cechmanek was NOT that goalie that could maintain it. Bower was. What we saw wasn't an accident though.