Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Morgoth Bauglir]

... 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.

The proper question might be "When did Gretz say that?" In the late 80s he MIGHT have at least an argument (though I wouldn't agree with it).

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

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.

OK, fine. Was a rehabbing Hall of Famer actually worse than Wally Stanowski or Bill Moe or Fred Shero or Frank Eddolls or whoever else the Rangers were trotting out on their blue line?

Ken Reardon played injured - back, throughout his career.

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

And yet he still had 2 1AST and 3 2AST in five straight seasons, including the two we're discussing now. So, do AST matter or don't they? Are you seriously going to try to completely discount the presence of the 51st best defenceman of all-time as voted by this forum because he could have been even better if he wasn't often injured?

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.

Actually, I think we're still left with Ken Reardon and Doug Harvey, and a somewhat less effective than usual Butch Bouchard. I don't think a 22 and 23 year old Allan Stanley playing 95 out of 130 games in his first two NHL seasons (any particularly reason why you felt it unnecessary to mention any injuries on the Rangers?), makes up the gap combined with the other defencemen I listed above, but I'll freely admit I'm not an expert on O6 players. If other knowledgeable posters support you on that opinion then I'll give it some weighting, but the fact you have to handwave away Hall of Famers to make it look close isn't exactly very convincing.

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.

Regular season rankings for each team from 1943-44 to 1949-50:

MTL: 1-1-1-1-5-3-2
DET: 2-2-4-4-2-1-1
TOR: 3-3-5-2-1-4-3
CHI: 4-5-3-6-6-5-6
BOS: 5-4-2-3-3-2-5
NYR: 6-6-6-5-4-6-4

If that era defined parity, then we have vastly different definitions of the word.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

... 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.

I wouldn't be surprised if he said it right after the '86/87 season, when Philly took an Edmonton team full of almost everyone in/near their prime to 7 games in the Cup Final. That year Hextall also led the league in games/minutes played, wins, shots faced, saves, and consequently SV% on the way to his Vezina. Playoffs was more of the same (hence the Conn Smythe despite a losing cause). That's possibly the "best"/"most dominating" goaltending (taken as complete season/playoff samples) that Gretzky had seen in the NHL to that point. Or thought he saw. I dunno.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

So can you apply that to Brodeur for much of his career? (except for the part about leading the league in goals against)

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I wouldn't be surprised if he said it right after the '86/87 season, when Philly took an Edmonton team full of almost everyone in/near their prime to 7 games in the Cup Final.

That's right - it was during the 1987 Finals:
http://articles.mcall.com/1987-05-31/sports/2574254_1_ron-hextall-puck-greatest-hockey-player

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So can you apply that to Brodeur for much of his career? (except for the part about leading the league in goals against)

Considering what voters thought was important then with what voters think is important now, why would you apply that to Brodeur?

 

[Killion]

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.

Im not so sure just how relevant any given Seniors players stats might actually be during that era Iain as the business of the game was quite a bit different. Salaries were such that playing in the NHL, salaries of like $3000 or $4500 easily matched and surpassed whereby you could find employment in industry with companies who iced Senior teams, get paid a decent wage equal to or better than the NHL was paying, picking up per diems including housing allowances etc.

Durnan is an example of this writ large. He was Leafs property, attended a camp, but walked & actually quit the dream of ever wanting to play pro, not enjoying the experience in anyway whatsoever. The money wasnt that great, the working conditions draconian, didnt like the culture, the demands. So he eff'd off to Northern Ontario, got a job in a Goldmine, played hockey for the company team for a lark. Wound up in Montreal, same dealeo. Really just a sailboat ride. Didnt take it all that seriously hence lesser goaltenders had better records, appeared superior.

He was working full-time for a Car&Brake firm (or something like that), making good money, again playing for the company team & doing so for fun, profit & perks. When your that good, have the innate talent, its all about attitude. He didnt have the attitude of a pro because he didnt wanna be one. It was only when his boss convinced him to sign with the Canadiens', give up the day job, give another serious shot that he then decided to pick himself up by the bootstraps, put on his gameface, get serious & got real.

The other goalies you feature above are all also pretty interesting characters. Roger Bessette, according to my sources, a long time Goalie Coach in the Montreal area; Connie Dion & "Sugar" Jim Henry had their moments; Baz Bastien a Pittsburgh favourite for years with the Hornets, GM of the Penguins, untimely death in a car accident in 83...

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

So can you apply that to Brodeur for much of his career? (except for the part about leading the league in goals against)

Sort of, but not to the same extent. As has been posted several times already, from 1935 to 1956 the GAA leader was the First Team All-Star every single season (as long as they played in at least 75% of the games). Over time this bias has diminished. Since about 1990, Vezina winners have ranked highly in save percentage with the pretty much unique exceptions of Carey in 1996 and Brodeur in 2003 and 2004, and Brodeur at least has the mitigating factors of his high road save percentages and puckhandling. While I would agree with your implied point that Brodeur routinely got more Vezina support than he otherwise should have because of his consistently low GAAs, it's not exactly the equivalent of the GAA leader always finishing first in awards voting.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Sort of, but not to the same extent. As has been posted several times already, from 1935 to 1956 the GAA leader was the First Team All-Star every single season (as long as they played in at least 75% of the games). Over time this bias has diminished. Since about 1990, Vezina winners have ranked highly in save percentage with the pretty much unique exceptions of Carey in 1996 and Brodeur in 2003 and 2004, and Brodeur at least has the mitigating factors of his high road save percentages and puckhandling. While I would agree with your implied point that Brodeur routinely got more Vezina support than he otherwise should have because of his consistently low GAAs, it's not exactly the equivalent of the GAA leader always finishing first in awards voting.

Correct, that's why I said except for the GAA (which Brodeur won once). Just saying that Durnan drops in your estimation becasue he was facing less shots every year and that's why he had the best GAA (and thus the awards). For much of Brodeur's career he also faced the least shots, not to mention the least tough chances and didn't win GAA and had mediocre SP much of the time also. Yet that doesn't effect the way he is viewed?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Considering what voters thought was important then with what voters think is important now, why would you apply that to Brodeur?

That's a pretty fair question. Is there any reason to believe (if there is an observable/measurable change in priorities/standards) that there's an observable/measurable way of showing that at some points in time "they" "got their priorities wrong"? I think that's about the only avenue open there. Actually, I guess it also breaks down because Brodeur only actually led the league in GAA once, so obviously he got 75% of his 1st team all-star berths (and 86% of his all-star berths in total) by some other standard(s).

edit: wow, everyone was quick on that one, lol.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Agree. 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?

I think so, yes. I think Benedict still needs to wait a couple of rounds before getting on the list, and the debate of him vs. Vezina should be interesting.

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.

While you have some valid concerns, I'm not sure there is any real difference between the numbers somebody dug up from box scores in 1948 vs. the HSP numbers all the way through to 1983. You could even argue that nobody cared much about save percentage in the '80s, yet the NHL was still releasing official shot numbers from every rink.

I looked at the issue of scorer bias in the '50s and '60s a couple of years ago when the HSP was just getting up and running, and it was my conclusion then that there was no major scorer bias in any of the six rinks. I'd like to revisit that analysis, both to ensure it was complete and done correctly, and also because it could be pretty crucial when guys like Johnny Bower and Gump Worsley come up for voting.

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.

OK. I'm pretty confident Durnan will still be there next round, so if I get a chance I'll maybe try to break down those numbers in a bit more depth.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Im not so sure just how relevant any given Seniors players stats might actually be during that era Iain as the business of the game was quite a bit different.

That's not really relevant. We know who Durnan was playing with and who he was playing against. Who was getting paid what is a rather small consideration compared to the actual hockey that he played in those years.

Didnt take it all that seriously hence lesser goaltenders had better records, appeared superior.

Any evidence that this is anything other than an ex post facto justification? If Durnan wasn't taking it seriously, why would we believe any of his opponents were either?

I'd like to see some contemporaneous accounts of how Durnan was just playing for kicks, while others in the league were serious. Otherwise this all sounds like a rationalization of facts that conflict with your position. And we know that you didn't personally see Durnan play, so we really shouldn't be taking your word for it...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Considering what voters thought was important then with what voters think is important now, why would you apply that to Brodeur?

Durnan faced the least shots so that (seemingly) taints his GAA.

Shouldn't it also taint Brodeur's record, regardless of what voters feel is important?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Durnan faced the least shots so that (seemingly) taints his GAA.

Shouldn't it also taint Brodeur's record, regardless of what voters feel is important?

I'm fairly certain that the voters' considerations of Durnan (given the relative paucity of other information to judge 1940s-era goaltenders) was the point of the post in the first place.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I was looking for information on Durnan and Brimsek and ended up mostly finding articles about Durnan. It seems a lot of people did regard him as the best of the 40s bunch, but he also had some critics.

Burnin' over Durnan

Two gents who managed to miss the peace-on-earth-goodwill-to-men feeling these last few days are Dick Irvin and Lester Patrick, who are still taking verbal belts at each other over Bill Durnan's ability to keep a tidy net. Dick, who likes his netminders big, has always been high on genial William, but Lester has openly questioned his capacity ever since he broke into the National Hockey League. Only recently Lester told a hockey writer, "I don't think Durnan is a big league goalie."

This riled the coach of the Canadiens and he sought out the writer and said, "Next time you see Patrick, tell him he doesn't know the rules have changed, Tell him Durnan is the best goalie the league has seen in the last 10 years."

..."He's got a lot of minor leaguers shooting at him," declared Lester, "and he's got a good defence in front of him. If he'd been in the league five years ago he'd have looked different.

The league is a lot better this year than it's been in quite some time-indeed, all hands agree it's almost back to where it was in pre-war days. Yet there hasn't been any noticeable falling off in Durnan's play; he still appears to be the best in the league in the position. You wonder what he has to do prove to Lester that he's of NHL calibre.

Incidentally, Lester and his right hand, Frankie Boucher, part company over the question of Durnan's ability. As far back as the 1943-44 seasons, Frankie went on record as saying that Bill was right up there with the best goalies of the past.

Irvin calls Durnan Best in 20 years of NHL

Durnan, says coach Dick Irvin- who should know or may be prejudiced, depending on which way you look at it- is "the best goaler in 20 years in the National Hockey League."

The coach of the Montreal Canadiens admits he's taking in a wide territory with that "20 years" business, but adds that he has formed his opinion while fully aware of the merits of such stars as Charlie Gardiner, Frankie Brimsek, Johnny Mowers, George Hainsworth, and Turk Broda.

"Durnan has it over all those because he has the most competitive spirit and is the least temperamental," says Irvin, who has always rated the big goalie pretty highly. He has a ready explanation for Durnan's lack of shutouts this season, despite the fact that Canadiens have had 32 less goals scored against them than any other team in the league. He says the big fellow is "the greatest of all goalers under fire" but he relaxes when his team is ahead.

Likes His Fun
"He likes to have a little fun but watch him when we're just even or leading by one goal then you see some great netminding. The night Durnan will get a shutout will be the night when we are leading by the only goal of the game." And as a final summing up, Irvin adds: "Durnan has been in the nets for us for 97 games, counting playoffs, in two seasons and we've lost only 11 of those games."

Obviously the date matters here, in five years Durnan calls it quits still in his prime and no one remembers him as "the least temperamental"


Durnan and Brimsek star in '46 Stanley Cup final

But it was first and last a goaltender's game. Both Bill Durnan and Frankie (Mr. Zero) Brimsek, the greatest pair of netminders in hockey today, met the championship test by playing the grandest hockey of their careers. They veritably "ate rubber" throughout the 69 minutes and eight seconds they were exposed to the rain of pucks. It was a great game to win and a tough one to lose.

If there has ever been any better goaltending exhibited in a Stanley Cup final than that offered by Bill Durnan and Frankie Brimsek, no one can recall it. These two are high on the list of all-time great netminders. They are largely responsible for the low scores and the tenseness of the games.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4S4rAAAAIBAJ&sjid=95gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6134,1409352&dq=en


Frank Boucher likes Durnan but prefers his own Chuck Rayner in '47

One of Frankie's visitors was Phil Watson, who played for Canadiens that season. Phil started it by saying he thought Durnan compared with Dave Kerr and Frank took it up from there. "He compares with any of the good goaltenders of the past," said Frank, and let it go at that.

So he thought it was a bit odd to be reading in a Montreal paper that he had a knock ready for Durnan. He still likes big Bill's work but doesn't rate him at the top of the heap any more. "The best goaltender in the league this seasons is Rayner," he says unhesitatingly. "He's the reason we have a chance to make a playoff spot-one of the big reasons anyway."

Toe Blake: Durnan was best, but passed by Plante

Some years ago, Toe Blake was talking about goaltenders. He had played for the Canadiens when Bill Durnan was tending goal and coached the team when Jacques Plante was in the nets.

"I used to think that Durnan was the best I'd ever seen," Toe said. "But I thought Plante was because he was better in the playoffs."

Doug Harvey's Top 3

For many Jacques Plante was the greatest goaltender who ever lived...Doug Harvey lists him as "one of the three best" with Bill Durnan, who was the Canadiens goalie when Doug started, and Terry Sawchuk.

Phil Watson: Brimsek best ever, Durnan right behind

"Who were the best goalkeepers you ever played against?" he (Phil Watson) was asked.

"I think Frankie Brimsek was the best and Bill Durnan was right behind him," he said without hesitation. "I don't know why, but I never could beat Brimsek. He seemed to know every move I was going to make. I played one year with the Canadiens when Bill Durnan was goalkeeper and I know he was great, but after I returned to the Rangers I used to have a ball with Bill. I was never what you'd call a real good scorer, but I can remember scoring three goals on Bill one night and a couple of goals on other nights."

Hal Laycoe: Sawchuk and Durnan best he's seen, but Durnan did have some help

Comparing goalies of different eras is always a good point of argument but Harold Laycoe, veteran National Hockey League defenceman now visiting in Saskatoon, won't get involved too deeply although he is close to being an expert.

Laycoe played with Montreal Canadiens during 1948-49 and 1949-50 when Bill Durnan was closing off a great career which saw him win the Vezina trophy six times. Laycoe is now with Boston Bruins, who acquired the services of another netminding hero, Terry Sawchuk, in the fall of 1955.

"Durnan had great records and it must be admitted that he played with a club which was defensive-conscious. In 1948-49, we finished third and our highest scorer was Maurice Richard with 20 goals. That emphasizes the defensive stress that Dick Irvin placed on the club.

Sawchuk came to the Bruins after riding high with Detroit as a National Hockey League champion six years in a row. When we were in a mid-season rut, his play suffered and he had to readjust himself to a state of a non-championship role. But he played terrific goal for us when we needed him and he's the best up there today.

One thing they had in common was that Bill and Terry kept the neatest nets I've ever seen. There were no stray pucks floating around. That's about the only comparison I'd care to make."

Floyd Curry: Dryden resembles Durnan physically, but isn't a worrier like Bill

When I first saw him I thought he resembled Bill Durnan, but it was only a physical resemblance. Durnan was a worrier and Dryden isn't.

"People don't seem to realize that the shooting has improved and that makes it tougher on the goaltenders. The improvement in the shooting accounts for the increase in scoring. The big improvement is the slapshot. They used to be wild with it, but now they've got control of it.

It's tougher for a goalkeeper like Dryden because the guys have confidence in him and they leave him alone a lot. I saw the same thing first with Bill Durnan, and later with Jacques Plane. The guys just don't check the way they should. They think if their check gets away from them, the good goaltender will make the save. If they aren't sure of the fellow in nets, they give him better protection."

Reay: Durnan was good, but never hard to deal with improved shooting in 60s

In his comments on today's big shooting, Reay mentioned that several netminders had a higher degree of skill than their predecessors, probably because they had to adjust to better shooting.

"Bill Durnan was one of the all-time greats," he added, "and probably would have been today as well, but Bill never had to face the kind of shooting these guys see now."

Durnan on Jim Coleman's all-time team

If I was picking an all-star hockey team, over the past 20 years, I'd put Milt Schmidt at centre. For that matter, I'd put Bill Durnan in goal, with Babe Pratt and Doug Harvey on the defence. My forward line would be Schmidt, Gordie Howe, and Maurice Richard. (admittedly, I have two right-wingers in the line-up, but Richard, Howe, and Schmidt could play all three positions on the forward line and chase any other trio right out of the rink...)

Jack Stewart's team

On his own All-Star team he placed Bill Durnan in goal; Shore and Ebbie Goodfellow on defence; Syl Apps at centre with Richard and Ted Lindsay on the wings.

Sport Magazine's team

Sport Magazine's all-time all-star hockey team, with which I can find no fault: Wings-Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard; center-Howie Morenz; defense-Eddie Shore and Doug Harvey; goal-Bill Durnan...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm fairly certain that the voters' considerations of Durnan (given the relative paucity of other information to judge 1940s-era goaltenders) was the point of the post in the first place.

But the poster used the shots on goal (lack of) to downplay Durnan's accomplishment. He stated after realizing Durnan faced less shots placed him lower in ranking (yet also stated Broduer was still ranked high this round).

"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..."

"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."

 

[Canadiens1958]

Early O6 Details

OK, fine. Was a rehabbing Hall of Famer actually worse than Wally Stanowski or Bill Moe or Fred Shero or Frank Eddolls or whoever else the Rangers were trotting out on their blue line?



And yet he still had 2 1AST and 3 2AST in five straight seasons, including the two we're discussing now. So, do AST matter or don't they? Are you seriously going to try to completely discount the presence of the 51st best defenceman of all-time as voted by this forum because he could have been even better if he wasn't often injured?



Actually, I think we're still left with Ken Reardon and Doug Harvey, and a somewhat less effective than usual Butch Bouchard. I don't think a 22 and 23 year old Allan Stanley playing 95 out of 130 games in his first two NHL seasons (any particularly reason why you felt it unnecessary to mention any injuries on the Rangers?), makes up the gap combined with the other defencemen I listed above, but I'll freely admit I'm not an expert on O6 players. If other knowledgeable posters support you on that opinion then I'll give it some weighting, but the fact you have to handwave away Hall of Famers to make it look close isn't exactly very convincing.



Regular season rankings for each team from 1943-44 to 1949-50:

MTL: 1-1-1-1-5-3-2
DET: 2-2-4-4-2-1-1
TOR: 3-3-5-2-1-4-3
CHI: 4-5-3-6-6-5-6
BOS: 5-4-2-3-3-2-5
NYR: 6-6-6-5-4-6-4

If that era defined parity, then we have vastly different definitions of the word.

Bill Moe and Frank Eddolls were the post 1948 car accident group of Rangers. This is common knowledge. Did not feel it necessary to repeat.

ASTs are interesting since they saw a lot about the composition of the league. For the era in question the Canadiens led the NHL with 11 AST honours for their defencemen while the Red Wings had 10. A difference of 1, yet no one is claiming that Harry Lumley benefitted from a strong defence while Bill Durnan is penalized because of the AST defensemen in front of him. The numbers show Bill Durnan 383 Games / 901 GA, Harry Lumley with Detroit 324 Games / 890 GA. With a difference of 1 AST honour in front of him Bill Durnan played 59 Games more while allowing only 11 goals more. Effectively a 60 game season, the norm for the era. Yet the Leafs from the era won 4 Stanley Cups with only 3 of their defensemen earning AST honours. So the importance of AST defensemen is not as great as you seem to suggest.

I have illustrated the parity and your regular season breakdown supports it. The point of the NHL game then and know was to compete for and win the Stanley Cup. Only time that all 6 teams played the finals in a seven year stretch combined with the best concentration of goaltending - 5 HHOFers Playing in an almost continuous fashion. Step-up with your definition and example of parity.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Connie Dion

The other goalies you feature above are all also pretty interesting characters. Roger Bessette, according to my sources, a long time Goalie Coach in the Montreal area; Connie Dion & "Sugar" Jim Henry had their moments; Baz Bastien a Pittsburgh favourite for years with the Hornets, GM of the Penguins, untimely death in a car accident in 83...

Connie Dion was also very active in youth hockey in the Asbestos area, east of Sherbrooke. Asbestos arena is named after him

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have illustrated the parity and your regular season breakdown supports it. The point of the NHL game then and know was to compete for and win the Stanley Cup. Only time that all 6 teams played the finals in a seven year stretch combined with the best concentration of goaltending - 5 HHOFers Playing in an almost continuous fashion. Step-up with your definition and example of parity.

In the regular season, there wasn't parity - Montreal dominated from 1943-44 to 1946-1947. It looks like there is parity in the playoffs because Montreal underperformed in the playoffs. Montreal lost to Toronto in the finals in 1947, which isn't that bad as Toronto was almost as good as them in the regular season: 1946-47 is the first season that wasn't badly affected by World War 2 (a lot of players missed half of 1945-46 and some like the Kraut Line were famously out of game shape). But Montreal losing in 1945 has to be one of the biggest choke jobs of all time - they dominated a regular season that was heavily depleted by the war. And it wasn't Maurice Richard's fault - he scored a goal per game in the first round loss.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Correct, that's why I said except for the GAA (which Brodeur won once). Just saying that Durnan drops in your estimation becasue he was facing less shots every year and that's why he had the best GAA (and thus the awards). For much of Brodeur's career he also faced the least shots, not to mention the least tough chances and didn't win GAA and had mediocre SP much of the time also. Yet that doesn't effect the way he is viewed?

Of course it should. It certainly affects the way I view Brodeur. I know I was presenting some data on scorer bias and shot prevention in the other thread, but I'm really not a huge advocate for Martin Brodeur. If you are not aware, I have a blog that is kind of famously hard on the guy.

If Brodeur didn't have some of the post-lockout seasons that he did, I think there would be a good argument to rank him outside of the top 10 because his 1994-2002 seasons aren't really that great in an all-time context. His numbers were almost certainly team-inflated under Lemaire and were pretty average in a more open style of play in the early '00s.

But Brodeur did have some great post-lockout seasons, he deserved the 2008 Vezina and had a great year in 2007 as well and he has great career longevity and represented Canada well internationally, and that's why he's deservedly in the mix here because really everyone has at least some question marks once you get beyond the top 4. I'm not 100% sure I'll have Brodeur second here, but he'll very likely be in my top four.

Where do you have Brodeur in this round? I'd certainly listen to arguments for Brimsek ahead of Brodeur, and I think a peak case can be made for Dryden or Parent, and Tretiak is a bit of a wild card, but I don't really see how Brodeur can really go any lower than 5th or 6th at the worst.

 

[Killion]

The proper question might be "When did Gretz say that?" In the late 80s he MIGHT have at least an argument (though I wouldn't agree with it).

That's right - it was during the 1987 Finals:
http://articles.mcall.com/1987-05-31/sports/2574254_1_ron-hextall-puck-greatest-hockey-player

... I guess right above as Taco's linked & Ohashi extrapolated about earlier SaintPats. Taken in the context of that specific series its simply a compliment, contemporaneous to his very recent experiences & frustrations in coming up against a guy who was at the peak of his game.

Any evidence that this is anything other than an ex post facto justification? If Durnan wasn't taking it seriously, why would we believe any of his opponents were either?... so we really shouldn't be taking your word for it...

... none whatsoever. Its a simple matter of applying common sense, putting 2+2 together based on many years experience in my case having played the game, gotten to know a lot of the older guys who did play Senior, Minor Pro & Pro, making assumptions, forming an opinion & then posting it. Thats what we do around here Iain. Post opinions. Im not trying to "sell" you anything. Take it or leave it, your choice. Really doesnt faze me one way or the other... I mean honestly Maing, whatre' you thinkin, Ive got some kinda "I know everything" complex, this is the way it was period end of story no debate Im God?.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Durnan definitely benefited from his defense, but his offense wasn't that impressive. They finished 1st in GF both war years then finished 3, 5, 6, 4, 5 in '46-'50. Lach even won the Art Ross in '48 when they finished last.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I was looking for information on Durnan and Brimsek and ended up mostly finding articles about Durnan. It seems a lot of people did regard him as the best of the 40s bunch, but he also had some critics.

Among contemporaries, I see Jack Stewart, Durnan's coach (Dick Irvin), and two of Durnan's teammates (Doug Harvey, Toe Blake) picking Durnan. I don't think it's any surprise that a guy's teammates would be pumping his tires when comparing him to other players - especially in an age where players rarely changed teams and didn't really have TV access to watch games that involved other teams. I'm sure Art Ross would tell you Frank Brimsek and Hap Day would probably prefer Turk Broda.

The Jack Stewart quote (picking Durnan) and Phil Watson (picking Brimsek) are meaningful, as they were not teammates with the goalie they picked.

Edit: As are the quotes from historians obviously.

 

[BM67]

Bill Moe and Frank Eddolls were the post 1948 car accident group of Rangers. This is common knowledge. Did not feel it necessary to repeat.

ASTs are interesting since they saw a lot about the composition of the league. For the era in question the Canadiens led the NHL with 11 AST honours for their defencemen while the Red Wings had 10. A difference of 1, yet no one is claiming that Harry Lumley benefitted from a strong defence while Bill Durnan is penalized because of the AST defensemen in front of him. The numbers show Bill Durnan 383 Games / 901 GA, Harry Lumley with Detroit 324 Games / 890 GA. With a difference of 1 AST honour in front of him Bill Durnan played 59 Games more while allowing only 11 goals more. Effectively a 60 game season, the norm for the era. Yet the Leafs from the era won 4 Stanley Cups with only 3 of their defensemen earning AST honours. So the importance of AST defensemen is not as great as you seem to suggest.

I have illustrated the parity and your regular season breakdown supports it. The point of the NHL game then and know was to compete for and win the Stanley Cup. Only time that all 6 teams played the finals in a seven year stretch combined with the best concentration of goaltending - 5 HHOFers Playing in an almost continuous fashion. Step-up with your definition and example of parity.

There certainly weren't 5 HHOFers tending net in 43-44 or 44-45. I doubt 5 of the goalies playing then would have had an NHL job if Brimsek, Broda, Henry, Mowers and Rayner weren't in the military at the time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There certainly weren't 5 HHOFers tending net in 43-44 or 44-45. I doubt 5 of the goalies playing then would have had an NHL job if Brimsek, Broda, Henry, Mowers and Rayner weren't in the military at the time.

Top Goalies by GP

1941-42 (basically normal)

1. Jim Henry-NYR 48
Turk Broda*-TOR 48
3. Johnny Mowers-DET 47
Frank Brimsek*-BOS 47
Sam LoPresti-CBH 47
6. Paul Bibeault-MTL 38
7. Chuck Rayner*-BRO 36
8. Earl Robertson-BRO 12
9. Bert Gardiner-MTL 10
10. Bill Dickie-CBH 1
Nick Damore-BOS 1
Joe Turner-DET 1

1942-43 (Jim Henry and Chuck Rayner leave for the war. But 5/6 teams still have regular starters).

1. Paul Bibeault-MTL 50
Frank Brimsek*-BOS 50
Turk Broda*-TOR 50
Johnny Mowers-DET 50
Bert Gardiner-CBH 50
6. Jimmy Franks-NYR 23
7. Bill Beveridge-NYR 17
8. Steve Buzinski-NYR 9
9. Lionel Bouvrette-NYR 1

1943-44 (Brimsek, Broda, Mowers go off to war. Most teams struggle to find full-time starters. Zero HHOFs except Durnan)

1. Bill Durnan*-MTL 50
Ken McAuley-NYR 50
3. Bert Gardiner-BOS 41
4. Paul Bibeault-TOR 29
5. Mike Karakas-CBH 26
Connie Dion-DET 26
7. Hec Highton-CBH 24
8. Benny Grant-TOT 21
9. Jimmy Franks-TOT 18
10. Maurice Courteau-BOS 6
11. Normie Smith-DET 5
12. Harry Lumley*-TOT 3
13. Jean Marois-TOR 1
George Abbott-BOS

1944-45 (rookie Lumley is the only future HHOFer other than Durnan)

1. Bill Durnan*-MTL 50
Frank McCool-TOR 50
3. Mike Karakas-CBH 48
4. Ken McAuley-NYR 46
5. Harry Lumley*-DET 37
6. Paul Bibeault-BOS 26
7. Harvey Bennett-BOS 25
8. Connie Dion-DET 12
9. Doug Stevenson-TOT 6
10. Normie Smith-DET 1

1945-46 (things start to return to normal. Brimsek only plays 2/3 of the season but is awarded the 2nd Team AS. Broda returns and wrestles his job back from Frank McCool - who had just won the 1945 Cup. Rayner and Henry also return at different points.

1. Harry Lumley*-DET 50
2. Mike Karakas-CBH 48
3. Chuck Rayner*-NYR 40
Bill Durnan*-MTL 40
5. Frank Brimsek*-BOS 34
6. Paul Bibeault-TOT 26
7. Frank McCool-TOR 22
8. Turk Broda*-TOR 15
9. Jim Henry-NYR 11
10. Gordie Bell-TOR 8
11. Baz Bastien-TOR 5
12. Doug Stevenson-CBH 2

1946-47 (things finally back to normal with 5 future HHOFs in goal)

1. Bill Durnan*-MTL 60
Turk Broda*-TOR 60
Frank Brimsek*-BOS 60
4. Chuck Rayner*-NYR 58
5. Harry Lumley*-DET 52
6. Paul Bibeault-CBH 41
7. Emile Francis*-CBH 19
8. Johnny Mowers-DET 7
9. Jim Henry-NYR 2
10. Red Almas-DET 1

Summary: The competition for goal in 1944 and 1945 was terrible - the worst of all time since the NHL was formed. These were Durnan's first two seasons in the league, so it's hard to say how good he was when he faced such awful competition. 1946 is tainted too, as the competition trickled in from the military. 1947 is the first year that the league was mostly back up to speed.