Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Canadiens1958]

Normie Smith

...ya, interesting player, and quite the sensation. Mightve wound up a Red Wing in 1934 as he'd been invited to attend their camp, however, he didnt like Jack Adams, felt he "played favourites" and took a hike. Replaced the extremely popular Tiny Thompson in Boston who just months earlier had won the Vezina, 1st Team All Star, but who had suffered an eye injury. In Brimseks first 8 games, had 6 shutouts (Art Ross trading Thompson to Detroit for $15,000 & another goalie, name escapes me, maybe Norris?; minor leaguer anyway) the rest history including the Calder. Early standup with a great glove hand, and apparently pretty aggressive in clearing his crease with his stick, which he ordered "extra heavy" for just such purposes.

The goalie going to Boston was Normie Smith:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/smithno01.html

 

[Killion]

The goalie going to Boston was Normie Smith:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/smithno01.html

...oh thats right to, wrong guy I had in mind. Boston acquired the rights to Smith however he never did play for them. The HHOF site shows he played a game for Pittsburgh Hornets of the IAHL 1939/40 season, announced his retirement in November, then Im assuming he enlisted, back for 6 games over 2 seasons with Detroit a few years later. Guy did some travelling earlier, playing for the Toronto Willys, Montreal AAA, the Quebec Castors & the Montreal Maroons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bernie Parent

Interesting article about Bernie Parent, recent Gazette, touching on his career, relationship with Jacques Plante, preparing for a game, etc:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/spor...nadiens/Parent+Stooge+goal/7479354/story.html

Gazette is a pay site. Hopefully the link works.

 

[Killion]

Interesting article about Bernie Parent...Gazette is a pay site. Hopefully the link works.

... yep. Linked up just fine. Interesting article, pictures & videos. Hadnt seen that one of Bernie in a Bruins uniform; unaware of his pre-game ritual of watching the 3 Stooges in order to "lighten up".

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I was looking for some more information on the 1940s goalies and I ran across a few spreadsheets that I forgot I had which show shots on goal and save numbers for 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1951-52. The numbers are not fully complete, but a significant majority of the season is covered. I forget how I got hold of the spreadsheets, but they were compiled by "S. Klages" from sourced newspaper summaries (Globe and Mail, NY Times, Windsor Star, Montreal Gazette, Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star, etc.).

Here are the numbers:

1948-49:
Lumley, DET: 2720 min, 1155 SA, 90 GA, .922, 25.5 SA/60
Rayner, NYR 3120 min, 1661 SA, 143 GA, .914, 31.9 SA/60
Durnan, MTL: 3540 min, 1300 SA, 122 GA, .906, 22.0 SA/60
Broda, TOR: 3120 min, 1426 SA, 134 GA, .906, 27.4 SA/60
Brimsek, BOS: 2640 min, 1255 SA, 121 GA, .904, 28.5 SA/60
Henry, CHI: 2740 min, 1393 SA, 164 GA, .882, 30.5 SA/60

1949-50:
Lumley, DET: 3220 min, 1398 SA, 118 GA, .916, 26.1 SA/60
Rayner, NYR: 3740 min, 1728 SA, 156 GA, .910, 27.7 SA/60
Durnan, MTL: 3600 min, 1400 SA, 132 GA, .906, 23.3 SA/60
Broda, TOR: 4040 min, 1632 SA, 167 GA, .898, 24.2 SA/60
Brimsek, CHI: 3600 min, 1802 SA, 201 GA, .888, 30.0 SA/60
Gelineau, BOS: 3360 min, 1485 SA, 182 GA, .877, 26.5 SA/60

1951-52:
Sawchuk, DET: 3720 min, 1860 SA, 116 GA, .938, 30.0 SA/60
Henry, BOS: 3820 min, 1797 SA, 151 GA, .916, 28.2 SA/60
McNeil, MTL: 4200 min, 1885 SA, 164 GA, .913, 26.9 SA/60
Rollins, TOR: 4150 min, 1616 SA, 154 GA, .905, 23.4 SA/60
Lumley, CHI: 3500 min, 1975 SA, 189 GA, .904, 33.9 SA/60
Rayner, NYR: 2800 min, 1244 SA, 130 GA, .895, 26.7 SA/60

The guy who comes off looking the worst is obviously Bill Durnan, who was the First Team All-Star in 1948-49 and 1949-50, yet pretty clearly only managed that because his team allowed the fewest shots against, giving him the GAA lead and the virtually automatic All-Star votes that came along with it. Both Lumley and Rayner look very good in those two years, and it would be very tough to argue that either was worse than Durnan, plus Turk Broda has equivalent stats in 1948-49, which accounting for team factors likely means he was also probably ahead of Durnan. Considering what the other goalies were doing in Boston and Chicago, the case could even be made for Frank Brimsek being as good as or better than Durnan as well in those seasons.

It is also interesting that by 1951-52 Montreal was allowing a lot more shots against, but Gerry McNeil was posting better save percentages than Durnan had previously. Montreal's GAA jumped from 2.14 to 2.63 in 1950-51, the year McNeil replaced Durnan as starter, but it's uncertain how much of that was because of the team and how much of that was because of the goaltending, given that the team did lose First Team All-Star Ken Reardon on defence after 1949-50.

If Durnan was more or less average for an O6 goalie in those two seasons but was still winning First Team All-Stars, that has significant implications for his career value. His 1947-48 season wasn't anything special (assuming that Montreal didn't have a sudden one-year breakdown in team defence or anything), which means he has only two strong seasons left against non-wartime competition, and that's assuming that 1945-46 and 1946-47 were actually great years, not just more years of average save percentages behind stingy defences.

I have Durnan ranked last in this round, and I think there will be a few goalies in the next round that should be put above him as well.

It's tough to know what to make of Turk Broda. He was getting near the end of his career here (he was 35 in '49-50, his last full season as a starter). To me, the biggest question mark with Broda is whether his playoff performances were more reflective of his talent than his regular season play. I consider that to be a distinct possibility, given that Broda was famous for being overweight, for smoking between periods, and for drinking and partying. If he applied himself during the postseason but not as much the rest of the time, that could very well mean he was a better goalie than his numbers suggest. How much that matters in his ranking depends on each voter's different evaluation criteria, but given that I'm more on the side of rating a guy's talent than merely rating what he did, I am inclined to cut at least some slack to guys who cruise through the regular season if it really wasn't that important and the incentives weren't really there for them to bring their A game every night.

Also, Sawchuk's numbers in 1951-52 have caused me to bump up my rating of his peak as well. Facing the second highest shots against rate and still having a greater difference between #1 and #2 as there was between #2 and last place is very impressive. It looks like I'm going with him ahead of Brodeur in this round, with Brimsek and one of Dryden/Parent/Tretiak (I'm still debating that one) also in the top four.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I’ve argued this many times as well.

However, I have a question. How would you answer the claim that Tony Esposito, from 1970 to 1980, was always better, except for 1974 and 1975, when parent was much better?

1970: Esposito .932, Parent .921
1971: Esposito .919, Parent .914
1972: Esposito .934, Parent .914
1973: Esposito .917, Parent WHA
1974: Esposito .928, Parent .933
1975: Esposito .905, Parent .918
1976: Esposito .904, Parent .907
1977: Esposito .900, Parent .899
1978: Esposito .914, Parent .912
1979: Esposito .901, Parent .893

I'm not sure how much there was between them really in many of those seasons, but I can see your point that Esposito may have been a bit ahead of Parent for the most part, particularly since it was probably easier to tend goal for Philly than Chicago in the late '70s. I don't see that as that much of a negative for Parent, though, because I also rate Esposito pretty highly. Could be an interesting comparison between the two of them next round, assuming Tony O gets added in.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Could be an interesting comparison between the two of them next round, assuming Tony O gets added in.

I think he deserves to be added very soon.

 

[BM67]

Home/Road splits for 1953-54 (ENG haven't been removed)

Player|Team|H GP|H GAA|H SV%|H SA/60|R GP|R GAA|R SV%|R SA/60
Bower|NYR|35|2.57|.918|31.20|35|2.63|.926|35.71
Henry|BOS|35|1.94|.930|27.94|35|3.23|.897|31.43
Lumley|TOR|35|1.43|.934|21.69|34|2.29|.914|26.71
McNeil|MTL|27|1.59|.934|23.96|26|2.73|.912|31.15
Plante|MTL|8|1.12|.952|23.50|9|2.00|.930|28.56
Rollins|CHI|32|2.44|.921|30.97|34|3.97|.892|36.76
Sawchuk|DET|33|1.55|.940|25.67|34|2.31|.928|32.02
Average|NHL|210|1.95|.928|26.95|210|2.85|.911|32.14

The value of home ice seems much larger than in the modern NHL. Home teams were 121-56-33 in 53-54. Shutouts were split 40/15 H/R.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Flawed

I was looking for some more information on the 1940s goalies and I ran across a few spreadsheets that I forgot I had which show shots on goal and save numbers for 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1951-52. The numbers are not fully complete, but a significant majority of the season is covered. I forget how I got hold of the spreadsheets, but they were compiled by "S. Klages" from sourced newspaper summaries (Globe and Mail, NY Times, Windsor Star, Montreal Gazette, Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star, etc.).

Here are the numbers:

1948-49:
Lumley, DET: 2720 min, 1155 SA, 90 GA, .922, 25.5 SA/60
Rayner, NYR 3120 min, 1661 SA, 143 GA, .914, 31.9 SA/60
Durnan, MTL: 3540 min, 1300 SA, 122 GA, .906, 22.0 SA/60
Broda, TOR: 3120 min, 1426 SA, 134 GA, .906, 27.4 SA/60
Brimsek, BOS: 2640 min, 1255 SA, 121 GA, .904, 28.5 SA/60
Henry, CHI: 2740 min, 1393 SA, 164 GA, .882, 30.5 SA/60

1949-50:
Lumley, DET: 3220 min, 1398 SA, 118 GA, .916, 26.1 SA/60
Rayner, NYR: 3740 min, 1728 SA, 156 GA, .910, 27.7 SA/60
Durnan, MTL: 3600 min, 1400 SA, 132 GA, .906, 23.3 SA/60
Broda, TOR: 4040 min, 1632 SA, 167 GA, .898, 24.2 SA/60
Brimsek, CHI: 3600 min, 1802 SA, 201 GA, .888, 30.0 SA/60
Gelineau, BOS: 3360 min, 1485 SA, 182 GA, .877, 26.5 SA/60

1951-52:
Sawchuk, DET: 3720 min, 1860 SA, 116 GA, .938, 30.0 SA/60
Henry, BOS: 3820 min, 1797 SA, 151 GA, .916, 28.2 SA/60
McNeil, MTL: 4200 min, 1885 SA, 164 GA, .913, 26.9 SA/60
Rollins, TOR: 4150 min, 1616 SA, 154 GA, .905, 23.4 SA/60
Lumley, CHI: 3500 min, 1975 SA, 189 GA, .904, 33.9 SA/60
Rayner, NYR: 2800 min, 1244 SA, 130 GA, .895, 26.7 SA/60

The guy who comes off looking the worst is obviously Bill Durnan, who was the First Team All-Star in 1948-49 and 1949-50, yet pretty clearly only managed that because his team allowed the fewest shots against, giving him the GAA lead and the virtually automatic All-Star votes that came along with it. Both Lumley and Rayner look very good in those two years, and it would be very tough to argue that either was worse than Durnan, plus Turk Broda has equivalent stats in 1948-49, which accounting for team factors likely means he was also probably ahead of Durnan. Considering what the other goalies were doing in Boston and Chicago, the case could even be made for Frank Brimsek being as good as or better than Durnan as well in those seasons.

It is also interesting that by 1951-52 Montreal was allowing a lot more shots against, but Gerry McNeil was posting better save percentages than Durnan had previously. Montreal's GAA jumped from 2.14 to 2.63 in 1950-51, the year McNeil replaced Durnan as starter, but it's uncertain how much of that was because of the team and how much of that was because of the goaltending, given that the team did lose First Team All-Star Ken Reardon on defence after 1949-50.

If Durnan was more or less average for an O6 goalie in those two seasons but was still winning First Team All-Stars, that has significant implications for his career value. His 1947-48 season wasn't anything special (assuming that Montreal didn't have a sudden one-year breakdown in team defence or anything), which means he has only two strong seasons left against non-wartime competition, and that's assuming that 1945-46 and 1946-47 were actually great years, not just more years of average save percentages behind stingy defences.

I have Durnan ranked last in this round, and I think there will be a few goalies in the next round that should be put above him as well.

It's tough to know what to make of Turk Broda. He was getting near the end of his career here (he was 35 in '49-50, his last full season as a starter). To me, the biggest question mark with Broda is whether his playoff performances were more reflective of his talent than his regular season play. I consider that to be a distinct possibility, given that Broda was famous for being overweight, for smoking between periods, and for drinking and partying. If he applied himself during the postseason but not as much the rest of the time, that could very well mean he was a better goalie than his numbers suggest. How much that matters in his ranking depends on each voter's different evaluation criteria, but given that I'm more on the side of rating a guy's talent than merely rating what he did, I am inclined to cut at least some slack to guys who cruise through the regular season if it really wasn't that important and the incentives weren't really there for them to bring their A game every night.

Also, Sawchuk's numbers in 1951-52 have caused me to bump up my rating of his peak as well. Facing the second highest shots against rate and still having a greater difference between #1 and #2 as there was between #2 and last place is very impressive. It looks like I'm going with him ahead of Brodeur in this round, with Brimsek and one of Dryden/Parent/Tretiak (I'm still debating that one) also in the top four.

Interesting but your numbers are horrifically flawed from the start to the point that I would doubt all of them.

Bolded 1948-49 Harry Lumley:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lumleha01.html

As evidenced by the link Harry Lumley played all 60 games , total of 3600 minutes, allowing 145 goals . Your numbers credit him with 2720 minutes = 45 1/3 games giving up 90 goals on 1155 SA or 1065/1155 = .922 SV% But what about the remaining 55 goals Harry Lumley allowed in 14 2/3 games? Do these just disappear? To maintain the same SV% Lumley would have had to face about 595 shots in the 14 2/3 games. Very doubtful. What is in and what is not in those 1948-49 numbers matters significantly before they can have any meaning. Likewise for the other years you posted.

Also the resulting alleged cause and effect conclusions are iffy but I will address these later

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I went and did a tiny of bit of research there on Lumley to see what C1958 was referring to...

Here's an article that might help just confirm what C1958 is talking about (if H-R came into question at all)...

Durnan's 10th shutout and the single goal he allowed Sunday virtually wrapped up the Vezina Trophy for the big Montreal netminder. He now leads Detroit's Harry Lumley, his nearest competitor in the the goals-against department, by 18 goals - 122 to 140.

According to HSP, Lumley would give up 2 (NYR), 2 (TOR), and 1 (MTL) in games dated March: 16, 19 and 20th of 1949. Giving him 140 + 5 for 145. Which is exactly what H-R has him as allowing.

Anecdotally, a similar article gives props to Durnan saying that, "Durnan practically single-handed has lifted Canadiens into the Stanley Cup playoffs" - referring to the constant changes and injuries in front of him. Also references a shutout streak of 309 minutes and 21 seconds during the season which is "recognized as the 'modern record'" ...a slight to the pre-liberalized passing days of Alec Connell I don't doubt.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I've also got Lumley at 145 for the season:
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/lumley.html

Good to see the temporal confirmation.

 

[seventieslord]

The guy who comes off looking the worst is obviously Bill Durnan, who was the First Team All-Star in 1948-49 and 1949-50, yet pretty clearly only managed that because his team allowed the fewest shots against, giving him the GAA lead and the virtually automatic All-Star votes that came along with it. Both Lumley and Rayner look very good in those two years, and it would be very tough to argue that either was worse than Durnan, plus Turk Broda has equivalent stats in 1948-49, which accounting for team factors likely means he was also probably ahead of Durnan. Considering what the other goalies were doing in Boston and Chicago, the case could even be made for Frank Brimsek being as good as or better than Durnan as well in those seasons.

It is also interesting that by 1951-52 Montreal was allowing a lot more shots against, but Gerry McNeil was posting better save percentages than Durnan had previously. Montreal's GAA jumped from 2.14 to 2.63 in 1950-51, the year McNeil replaced Durnan as starter, but it's uncertain how much of that was because of the team and how much of that was because of the goaltending, given that the team did lose First Team All-Star Ken Reardon on defence after 1949-50.

If Durnan was more or less average for an O6 goalie in those two seasons but was still winning First Team All-Stars, that has significant implications for his career value. His 1947-48 season wasn't anything special (assuming that Montreal didn't have a sudden one-year breakdown in team defence or anything), which means he has only two strong seasons left against non-wartime competition, and that's assuming that 1945-46 and 1946-47 were actually great years, not just more years of average save percentages behind stingy defences.

I have Durnan ranked last in this round, and I think there will be a few goalies in the next round that should be put above him as well.

Absolutely agree.

1970: Esposito .932, Parent .921
1971: Esposito .919, Parent .914
1972: Esposito .934, Parent .914
1973: Esposito .917, Parent WHA
1974: Esposito .928, Parent .933
1975: Esposito .905, Parent .918
1976: Esposito .904, Parent .907
1977: Esposito .900, Parent .899
1978: Esposito .914, Parent .912
1979: Esposito .901, Parent .893

I'm not sure how much there was between them really in many of those seasons, but I can see your point that Esposito may have been a bit ahead of Parent for the most part, particularly since it was probably easier to tend goal for Philly than Chicago in the late '70s. I don't see that as that much of a negative for Parent, though, because I also rate Esposito pretty highly. Could be an interesting comparison between the two of them next round, assuming Tony O gets added in.

Agree. But about the bolded, I just want to make sure this is not understated.

In the period above, not counting 74 and 75, Esposito led Parent, .9136 to .9073. A six point lead maintained over a sample of 7 seasons is pretty significant.

Also, excluding 1974 and 1975 from the 70s, Espo had the better playoff sv% too by the same margin, .9047 to .8986.

Interesting but your numbers are horrifically flawed from the start to the point that I would doubt all of them.

Bolded 1948-49 Harry Lumley:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lumleha01.html

As evidenced by the link Harry Lumley played all 60 games , total of 3600 minutes, allowing 145 goals . Your numbers credit him with 2720 minutes = 45 1/3 games giving up 90 goals on 1155 SA or 1065/1155 = .922 SV% But what about the remaining 55 goals Harry Lumley allowed in 14 2/3 games? Do these just disappear? To maintain the same SV% Lumley would have had to face about 595 shots in the 14 2/3 games. Very doubtful. What is in and what is not in those 1948-49 numbers matters significantly before they can have any meaning. Likewise for the other years you posted.

Also the resulting alleged cause and effect conclusions are iffy but I will address these later

As long as you read these numbers for what they are, without the expectation that they must be perfect to be useful, they are quite telling.

It looks like in the case of Lumley’s 1949, the compiler happened to catch more of his good games and less of his bad ones. Or, there’s something wrong with that goals against total; it is incredibly low compared to everyone else.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Incomplete Data and Stats

I was looking for some more information on the 1940s goalies and I ran across a few spreadsheets that I forgot I had which show shots on goal and save numbers for 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1951-52. The numbers are not fully complete, but a significant majority of the season is covered. I forget how I got hold of the spreadsheets, but they were compiled by "S. Klages" from sourced newspaper summaries (Globe and Mail, NY Times, Windsor Star, Montreal Gazette, Chicago Tribune, Toronto Star, etc.).

Here are the numbers:

1948-49:
Lumley, DET: 2720 min, 1155 SA, 90 GA, .922, 25.5 SA/60
Rayner, NYR 3120 min, 1661 SA, 143 GA, .914, 31.9 SA/60
Durnan, MTL: 3540 min, 1300 SA, 122 GA, .906, 22.0 SA/60
Broda, TOR: 3120 min, 1426 SA, 134 GA, .906, 27.4 SA/60
Brimsek, BOS: 2640 min, 1255 SA, 121 GA, .904, 28.5 SA/60
Henry, CHI: 2740 min, 1393 SA, 164 GA, .882, 30.5 SA/60

1949-50:
Lumley, DET: 3220 min, 1398 SA, 118 GA, .916, 26.1 SA/60
Rayner, NYR: 3740 min, 1728 SA, 156 GA, .910, 27.7 SA/60
Durnan, MTL: 3600 min, 1400 SA, 132 GA, .906, 23.3 SA/60
Broda, TOR: 4040 min, 1632 SA, 167 GA, .898, 24.2 SA/60
Brimsek, CHI: 3600 min, 1802 SA, 201 GA, .888, 30.0 SA/60
Gelineau, BOS: 3360 min, 1485 SA, 182 GA, .877, 26.5 SA/60

1951-52:
Sawchuk, DET: 3720 min, 1860 SA, 116 GA, .938, 30.0 SA/60
Henry, BOS: 3820 min, 1797 SA, 151 GA, .916, 28.2 SA/60
McNeil, MTL: 4200 min, 1885 SA, 164 GA, .913, 26.9 SA/60
Rollins, TOR: 4150 min, 1616 SA, 154 GA, .905, 23.4 SA/60
Lumley, CHI: 3500 min, 1975 SA, 189 GA, .904, 33.9 SA/60
Rayner, NYR: 2800 min, 1244 SA, 130 GA, .895, 26.7 SA/60

The guy who comes off looking the worst is obviously Bill Durnan, who was the First Team All-Star in 1948-49 and 1949-50, yet pretty clearly only managed that because his team allowed the fewest shots against, giving him the GAA lead and the virtually automatic All-Star votes that came along with it. Both Lumley and Rayner look very good in those two years, and it would be very tough to argue that either was worse than Durnan, plus Turk Broda has equivalent stats in 1948-49, which accounting for team factors likely means he was also probably ahead of Durnan. Considering what the other goalies were doing in Boston and Chicago, the case could even be made for Frank Brimsek being as good as or better than Durnan as well in those seasons.

It is also interesting that by 1951-52 Montreal was allowing a lot more shots against, but Gerry McNeil was posting better save percentages than Durnan had previously. Montreal's GAA jumped from 2.14 to 2.63 in 1950-51, the year McNeil replaced Durnan as starter, but it's uncertain how much of that was because of the team and how much of that was because of the goaltending, given that the team did lose First Team All-Star Ken Reardon on defence after 1949-50.

If Durnan was more or less average for an O6 goalie in those two seasons but was still winning First Team All-Stars, that has significant implications for his career value. His 1947-48 season wasn't anything special (assuming that Montreal didn't have a sudden one-year breakdown in team defence or anything), which means he has only two strong seasons left against non-wartime competition, and that's assuming that 1945-46 and 1946-47 were actually great years, not just more years of average save percentages behind stingy defences.

I have Durnan ranked last in this round, and I think there will be a few goalies in the next round that should be put above him as well.

It's tough to know what to make of Turk Broda. He was getting near the end of his career here (he was 35 in '49-50, his last full season as a starter). To me, the biggest question mark with Broda is whether his playoff performances were more reflective of his talent than his regular season play. I consider that to be a distinct possibility, given that Broda was famous for being overweight, for smoking between periods, and for drinking and partying. If he applied himself during the postseason but not as much the rest of the time, that could very well mean he was a better goalie than his numbers suggest. How much that matters in his ranking depends on each voter's different evaluation criteria, but given that I'm more on the side of rating a guy's talent than merely rating what he did, I am inclined to cut at least some slack to guys who cruise through the regular season if it really wasn't that important and the incentives weren't really there for them to bring their A game every night.

Also, Sawchuk's numbers in 1951-52 have caused me to bump up my rating of his peak as well. Facing the second highest shots against rate and still having a greater difference between #1 and #2 as there was between #2 and last place is very impressive. It looks like I'm going with him ahead of Brodeur in this round, with Brimsek and one of Dryden/Parent/Tretiak (I'm still debating that one) also in the top four.

Now we will look at the second 1948-49 entry - Chuck Rayner:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/raynech01.html

Rayner is credited with 3120 minutes played or 52 games, 143 goals against. However as the link shows, Chuck Rayner played 58 games, allowing 168 goals. So 25 goals against in 6 games have to be accounted for.

Now that we have complete Data for Rayner and Lumley, lets adjust to their average shots faced per 60 minutes. When this is done,Rayner comes in at a .908 SV% while Lumley drops toa .906 SV% from .922.

Durnan and Broda. Durnan is short one game, 4 goals, Broda is short 8 games and 27 goals allowed. Chances are that adjusted Durnan stays at .906 SV% while Broda may drop to .905 SV%

That leaves Frank Brimsek of the five HHOF goalies to be adjusted:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/brimsfr01.html

Brimsek is short 10 games and 26 goals allowed. Adjusted chances are he is in the .904 -.905 SV% range.

So once the presented 1948-49 numbers are analyzed and adjusted we see that the 5 HHOF goalies probably ranged between a .904 and .908 SV % Rayner, Lumley or Durnan, Durnan or Lumley, Broda, Brimsek. Given the actual differences in GAA or fewest Goals Allowed, the ASTs from 1949 are easily justified. If anything the point may be made that Chuck Rayner got the short end of the stick while Frank Brimsek received the greatest benefit.

Durnan simply did what he had to do, allowed the fewest goals against. Factor in that Durnan was the best puckhandler of the group, led the league in shutouts, backstopping the team to a 14 point improvement / 2 place improvement from the previous year.BTW the 1948 Canadiens saw the following players miss games - Elmer Lach -24, Butch Bouchard - 33, Ken Reardon - 14, plus Toe Blake retired. So Bill Durnan was very deserving of all the accolades he earned during the 1948-49 season.

The unfounded and speculative denegration of a great goalie based
on incomplete data is a shame.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

As evidenced by the link Harry Lumley played all 60 games , total of 3600 minutes, allowing 145 goals . Your numbers credit him with 2720 minutes = 45 1/3 games giving up 90 goals on 1155 SA or 1065/1155 = .922 SV% But what about the remaining 55 goals Harry Lumley allowed in 14 2/3 games? Do these just disappear? To maintain the same SV% Lumley would have had to face about 595 shots in the 14 2/3 games. Very doubtful. What is in and what is not in those 1948-49 numbers matters significantly before they can have any meaning. Likewise for the other years you posted.

Here are the games that were not included in Lumley's shot stats for 1948-49:

Nov 17, 1948: NYR 4, DET 4
Nov 24, 1948: BOS 5, DET 3
Nov 27, 1948: CHI 5, DET 3
Dec 4, 1948: DET 3, BOS 2
Dec 11, 1948: NYR 3, DET 5
Dec 15, 1948: DET 1, CHI 5 (40 min and 3 GA missing)
Dec 29, 1948: BOS 2, DET 10
Jan 1, 1949: DET 3, CHI 5
Jan 2, 1949: CHI 3, DET 5 (40 min and 3 GA missing)
Jan 16, 1949: MTL 2, DET 3
Jan 19, 1949: CHI 1, DET 2 (40 min and 1 GA missing)
Jan 22, 1949: DET 2, TOR 2
Feb 2, 1949: CHI 4, DET 6 (40 min and 4 GA missing)
Feb 21, 1949: BOS 2, DET 2
Mar 5, 1949: CHI 5, DET 6
Mar 13, 1949: BOS 6, DET 2

Add all that up, and you get 55 GA in 880 minutes played, which matches the difference between Lumley's official stats and his save stats. And yes, I agree with you that in that season it is very likely that Lumley's actual save percentage was lower than what was suggested. If he faced shots at the same rate over the missing sample, then his overall save percentage would have been .905, which would rank him .001 behind Durnan.

Incomplete data is pretty much all we have for the years prior to 1952-53, unfortunately. And I did not compile this data myself, so I can't necessarily vouch for it, except to say that it is clearly sourced and that the game-by-game minutes played and goals against numbers match up with official totals. What it looks like here is that meetings between American teams were less likely to get covered than those involving Canadian teams, since DET's opponents in the missing games were 7xCHI, 5xBOS, 2xNYR, 1xMTL, 1xTOR. Boston and Chicago happened to be the #2 and #3 offences in the league that year, which explains why Lumley's numbers would have been better with those games excluded. That's just how it worked for that season, if a similar sampling bias was in place for the '51-52 numbers then it would work to the goalie's advantage since by then Boston and Chicago were at the bottom in team offence.

I'll admit that my claims about Lumley in 1948-49 may have been too hasty, it is very possible he did not clearly outplay Durnan that season. However, it should be noted that Bill Durnan's stats are almost fully complete, with 96% of his minutes played accounted for in those two seasons, yet his numbers are not outstanding relative to the rest of the league even taking into account any missing minutes played. His GAA was actually slightly higher in the missing 320 minutes (2.44) than in his official totals for those two seasons (2.15), which means if anything his save percentages may be slightly overstated.

If anybody wants a copy of the spreadsheets, or any other stats that I post, just email or PM me.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perfect and Useful

As long as you read these numbers for what they are, without the expectation that they must be perfect to be useful, they are quite telling.

It looks like in the case of Lumley’s 1949, the compiler happened to catch more of his good games and less of his bad ones. Or, there’s something wrong with that goals against total; it is incredibly low compared to everyone else.

While still not perfect, app 5 minutes of research made the 1948-49 numbers more useful and even more telling.

Net effect, an interpretation that properly positions Bill Durnan as the top goalie of his era.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

While still not perfect, app 5 minutes of research made the 1948-49 numbers more useful and even more telling.

Net effect, an interpretation that properly positions Bill Durnan as the top goalie of his era.

I'll agree with your first paragraph, although I'm still not yet sold on the second. Thanks for pointing out the potential data quality issues. Here are the full adjusted numbers for Durnan's two seasons, taking into account missing games and assuming that goalies faced shots against at the same rate as they did in the games that were counted:

1948-49:
Chuck Rayner: .909
Harry Lumley: .905
Bill Durnan: .905
Frank Brimsek: .905
Turk Broda: .902
Jim Henry: .885

1949-50:
Harry Lumley: .910
Bill Durnan: .906
Chuck Rayner: .905
Turk Broda: .898
Frank Brimsek: .884
Jack Gelineau: .876

Durnan simply did what he had to do, allowed the fewest goals against. Factor in that Durnan was the best puckhandler of the group, led the league in shutouts, backstopping the team to a 14 point improvement / 2 place improvement from the previous year.BTW the 1948 Canadiens saw the following players miss games - Elmer Lach -24, Butch Bouchard - 33, Ken Reardon - 14, plus Toe Blake retired. So Bill Durnan was very deserving of all the accolades he earned during the 1948-49 season.

Leading the league in shutouts and GAA on the team that allowed by far the fewest shots against is not a significant achievement. Nor is leading a team to a large improvement in the standings when you were the goalie the previous year as well. Despite any injuries or loss of personnel, the Canadiens still apparently allowed three fewer shots against per 60 minutes than any other team in the league in both 1948-49 and 1949-50.

If you want to make some kind of "save percentage tie goes to Bill Durnan because of GAA and team success" argument, you can go ahead and do that, but that's a very different argument than the one that is usually relied on by Durnan defenders, who generally claim he was clearly the best goalie in the league from 1944 to 1950. My contention is that in periods of less parity, the benefit of the doubt should generally go to the goalie on the weaker defensive team that allows more shots against, i.e. not Bill Durnan.

Being as charitable as possible to Durnan for those two seasons, I think he's at best #2 in each of them. I could see an argument that the Red Wings and Leafs also had very strong defences, and therefore we can't necessarily assume that Lumley or Broda were as good. I think there's a good case for Brimsek ahead of Durnan for 1948-49, but maybe not. However, looking at those numbers and comparing the Montreal defence (Harvey, Reardon, Bouchard et al) to the New York Rangers defence, I would at the very least take Chuck Rayner fairly easily over Bill Durnan in both 1948-49 and 1949-50.

 

[Killion]

Net effect, an interpretation that properly positions Bill Durnan as the top goalie of his era.

... Dr. StrangeGlove was the best goaltender of his era and Ive heard some argue the best ever in the history of the game. Why is this even being debated? All I can say about Durnan is its too damn bad the Leafs, who once owned his rights treated him so shabbily back in the 30's, turning him off of pursuing a pro career altogether, heading up north to work in a mine, playing Senior for the company team. A couple of years later he lands a job in Montreal, playing amateur, his boss who was connected to the Habs' pressing him to sign, which he finally did at 28yrs of age. The 7 seasons that followed amongst the greatest displays of goaltending ever witnessed in Montreal & league wide, before or since, including Plantes, Dryden's & Roy's performances in the decades that followed.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

... Dr. StrangeGlove was the best goaltender of his era and Ive heard some argue the best ever in the history of the game.

I've heard Wayne Gretzky call Ron Hextall the best goaltender in the game.

If Durnan's really the best goaltender of the era, then there should be enough evidence out there to support that claim adequately.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

... Dr. StrangeGlove was the best goaltender of his era and Ive heard some argue the best ever in the history of the game. Why is this even being debated?

His three seasons in the QSHL, aged 25 to 27, show his mortality. He led the league in GAA in 1940/41, then was dead last in the six-team league in both 1941/42 and 1942/43, behind goalies such as Bill Fraser, Lionel Bouvrette, Connie Dion, Bill Dickie, Baz Bastien, Jim Henry, Claude Bourque and Roger Bessette. Surely someone who was clearly the best netminder of his time would have dominated lower-level competition?

Senior numbers are relevant to players of that era, since the senior leagues were still a direct source of talent to the NHL. They're especially important to a player like Durnan who had a fairly short NHL career, mostly for a dominant team.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Achievements and Excuses

I'll agree with your first paragraph, although I'm still not yet sold on the second. Thanks for pointing out the potential data quality issues. Here are the full adjusted numbers for Durnan's two seasons, taking into account missing games and assuming that goalies faced shots against at the same rate as they did in the games that were counted:

1948-49:
Chuck Rayner: .909
Harry Lumley: .905
Bill Durnan: .905
Frank Brimsek: .905
Turk Broda: .902
Jim Henry: .885

1949-50:
Harry Lumley: .910
Bill Durnan: .906
Chuck Rayner: .905
Turk Broda: .898
Frank Brimsek: .884
Jack Gelineau: .876



Leading the league in shutouts and GAA on the team that allowed by far the fewest shots against is not a significant achievement. Nor is leading a team to a large improvement in the standings when you were the goalie the previous year as well. Despite any injuries or loss of personnel, the Canadiens still apparently allowed three fewer shots against per 60 minutes than any other team in the league in both 1948-49 and 1949-50.

If you want to make some kind of "save percentage tie goes to Bill Durnan because of GAA and team success" argument, you can go ahead and do that, but that's a very different argument than the one that is usually relied on by Durnan defenders, who generally claim he was clearly the best goalie in the league from 1944 to 1950. My contention is that in periods of less parity, the benefit of the doubt should generally go to the goalie on the weaker defensive team that allows more shots against, i.e. not Bill Durnan.

Being as charitable as possible to Durnan for those two seasons, I think he's at best #2 in each of them. I could see an argument that the Red Wings and Leafs also had very strong defences, and therefore we can't necessarily assume that Lumley or Broda were as good. I think there's a good case for Brimsek ahead of Durnan for 1948-49, but maybe not. However, looking at those numbers and comparing the Montreal defence (Harvey, Reardon, Bouchard et al) to the New York Rangers defence, I would at the very least take Chuck Rayner fairly easily over Bill Durnan in both 1948-49 and 1949-50.

Achievements and excuses.

1942 the Kraut line goes to WWII and Clapper is hurt and Brimsek is forgiven his weak playoff. Meanwhile 1947-48 Canadiens lose Toe Blake to a career ending injury - 28 games and Murph Chamberlain - 30 games to injury plus Maurice Richard for 7 games. 1948-49, the Canadiens injuries have been chronicled yet today they are ignored and Durnan's efforts are denigrated yet they were far superior to Brimsek in 1942, holding together a team that was a shadow of itself.

Your 1948-49 and 1949-50 claim of Rayner over Durnan is interesting Butch Bouchard blew out a knee during the 1948-49 season, missing 33 games. 1949-50 was a rehab year.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bouchbu01.html

Never an AST member afterwards.

Ken Reardon played injured - back, throughout his career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Reardon

So you are left with a young Doug Harvey vs a young Allan Stanley - the most underated defenseman of the O6 era supported by one of the best defensive trio of centers Laprade, Raleigh, O'Connor.

Your claims rest on an unsupported claim of less parity.O6 era if you are looking at the 1943-44 thru 1949-50 season when all six teams made the SC Final at least one and featured 5 HHOF caliber goaltenders had the greatest level pf parity. No other O6 period, starting in 1950, had all six teams make the SC Finals. 1951-1967, the Rangers never made the SC Finals plus you had stretches with 4 HHOF goaltenders during various stretches.

The era in question was very vulnerable to little tweaks. Liquidate an old slow defence and replace it with youth and a team went from 5th to an SC championship. Captain retires and an SC team drops to 4th, car accidents or injuries impacted teams regularly. The era defined parity.

 

[MXD]

Actually, CG's number should be taken for what they are : Evidence that Bill Durnan wasn't exactly Ken Dryden (30 years earlier).

I had Durnan 4th at the beginning of the round (and in contention for what I considered Sawchuck's logical spot). He will go down -- not all the way down, but at least down a bit.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Leading the league in shutouts and GAA on the team that allowed by far the fewest shots against is not a significant achievement.

Agree for the most part. And while we don't have shot totals, knowing what we know about the players who played in front of him (Frank Nighbor plus Sprague Cleghorn/Eddie Gerard who were replaced by King Clancy/Georges Boucher), as well as team style (an early trap/counterattack system), does this not likely apply to Clint Benedict?

Benedict does have excellent longevity as a star player to his credit, however.

Despite any injuries or loss of personnel, the Canadiens still apparently allowed three fewer shots against per 60 minutes than any other team in the league in both 1948-49 and 1949-50.

I think you're putting too much faith into these save percentage numbers that someone dug up. They are based on box scores that were provided by newspapers for informational purposes. Nobody at the time judged goalies by save percentages, so there was no incentive to accurately record shot totals. Given the differences in shot recording today, when there is every reason to record shots accurately, I'm highly skeptical as to the value of the save percentages that are reconstructed from newspaper reports.

On the other hand, there is a limit to the amount of error that can be present and if the reports show one team allowing far fewer shots than other teams, it probably is meaningful. I'd still want to factcheck the Montreal reports to see if they had an unusual home/road split.

I've heard Wayne Gretzky call Ron Hextall the best goaltender in the game.

If Durnan's really the best goaltender of the era, then there should be enough evidence out there to support that claim adequately.

The contemporary evidence (mostly contemporary newspaper articles from people who were watching them play during their careers) seems to indicate that Brimsek and Durnan were considered equals while their careers overlapped, but Brimsek was at that level for quite a bit longer. I also think Brimsek has a stronger playoff record than Durnan, though Broda's is stronger than both.

I'm pretty certain Brimsek was the best of the three. I'm undecided between Broda and Durnan - hopefully both fall to next round so we can compare them further. Durnan seems to have the advantage in regular season prime; Broda has advantages in terms of longevity and playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually, CG's number should be taken for what they are : Evidence that Bill Durnan wasn't exactly Ken Dryden (30 years earlier).

I had Durnan 4th at the beginning of the round (and in contention for what I considered Sawchuck's logical spot). He will go down -- not all the way down, but at least down a bit.

I think Durnan's playoff record (which is quite poor relative to expectations) is enough to have him well below Dryden. And that's before you start deconstructing his regular season record.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I'm pretty certain Brimsek was the best of the three. I'm undecided between Broda and Durnan - hopefully both fall to next round so we can compare them further. Durnan seems to have the advantage in regular season prime; Broda has advantages in terms of longevity and playoffs.

I'm on the same page as you for the 40's trio. We have another trio of goalies from the 70's up for voting in this round (Dryden, Tretiak, and Parent). How do they rank compared to one another? Right now for me, I have them as Dryden - Tretiak - Parent. Do others agree with this? If so, what are the gaps between each? IMO this one is much more difficult to rank because of Tretiak not playing in the NHL. After that we can move on to the cross-era comparisons.

 

[Killion]

I've heard Wayne Gretzky call Ron Hextall the best goaltender in the game....If Durnan's really the best goaltender of the era, then there should be enough evidence out there to support that claim adequately.

... Ive never heard that one before. What would motivate #99 to make such a claim?... as for the latter, I'm convinced by the empirical evidence combined with contemporaneous reports of the time, eyewitness accounts and the opinions of people who spent their professional lives in the game that for his 7 years in the league, Durnan was the best of his era.