Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[seventieslord]

If you remove all the "filler", Fuhr is 8th overall for a 4 year stretch, and only 0.010 behind the "best" in SV%, like I said. I don't see how that's even as low as "mediocre", and he seems to get even less credit for his performance during that time than that, which is more to my point.

What "filler"?

I'm still not seeing what's so great here. In fuhr's absolute best five-year stretch, he is closer to the league average (.876) than he is to the best. And I'm not talking about the average of these better goalies, which is .879, I'm talking about the actual league average.

Heck, in the entire decade of the 80s, only 5 goalies played more than 400 games, and Fuhr's SV% is #3 among them (Lemelin, Liut). he has to get credit on some level for being a workhorse (you just pumped Esposito's tires in this regard), and maintaining a high degree of consistency (0.884 SV% between '83/84 and '87/88, and still 0.881 for the decade on the whole).

When you do that, you're cutting off the starts and ends of a lot of good goalies' careers and not Fuhr's.

As another example, I could say "from 1973-1982, Esposito played 87 more games than any other goalie, and at least 200 more than all but three others". It's not really saying much. It's disingenuous, to be honest.

Fuhr was somewhat of a workhorse, as the above chart demonstrates, but not really special in that regard on an all-time level, when we look at all seasons for all goalies and not periods that are especially complementary to one goalie and not another.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

What "filler"?

The non-starters. Or, as you put it "the goalies under 150 starts".

I'm still not seeing what's so great here. In fuhr's absolute best five-year stretch, he is closer to the league average (.876) than he is to the best. And I'm not talking about the average of these better goalies, which is .879, I'm talking about the actual league average.

First of all, his "best" stretch has to be considered the Gretzky era, but since I only have SV% numbers for '83/84 onward, I can only comment on his "best" 4 year stretch. And Fuhr's 0.884 is much closer to 0.894 at the top than it is to #27 on the 150+ games list, Brodeur (Richard), at 0.864. But really, the point isn't to praise him for statistical "excellence" as much as top level consistency, which so many people seem to throw aside as trivial. I mean, not only is his SV% not as low relative to his peers as many might assume, he established it over a pretty much 50% larger sample size of shots faced than the vast majority of the "competition".

No need to make that any bigger than it is, but it would be nice to see it at least recognized for what it is.

When you do that, you're cutting off the starts and ends of a lot of good goalies' careers and not Fuhr's.

As another example, I could say "from 1973-1982, Esposito played 87 more games than any other goalie, and at least 200 more than all but three others". It's not really saying much. It's disingenuous, to be honest.

What's "disingenuous" about that? He did play that many more games than all but those 3. What are you trying to say from that, though? If I point to that, and say Esposito was a workhorse compared to most other goalies of the time, am I really using that stat disingenuously? I don't think so. If there's a goalie with a SV% only a point or two higher on that same list, am I wrong to give the "benefit of the doubt" to someone who established the almost negligibly higher SV% over a consecutive sample size that's 200 games larger? I don't think so there, either.

Fuhr was somewhat of a workhorse, as the above chart demonstrates, but not really special in that regard on an all-time level, when we look at all seasons for all goalies and not periods that are especially complementary to one goalie and not another.

That chart demonstrates that there are only 8 goalies since expansion to be leaned on as often as Fuhr, relative to his peers. I see him there ahead of other guys who wear the moniker "workhorse" like Hextall, Luongo, Roy, Hasek, etc.

And yet still, on a team that was supposedly so defensively suspect (the Gretzky Oilers), his individual performance in terms of SV% was right up there with the best from the period, suggesting that his GAA shouldn't necessarily be held against him (in raw form) as strongly as you often see.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tony Esposito

What’s your point? George Hainsworth wasn’t a ‘great’ player like the ones we’re talking about now.


Was Gardiner the only goalie in the league benefitting from playing against two weak teams?

I’m surprised no one asked you this yet…[/B

Belfour has the better resume, yes, but Espo’s best playoff – 1971– is the second best playoff either of them posted statistically:

1995: 23.3 sv% points above league average
1999: 12.2 sv% points above
2000: 12.6 sv% points above

Espo, 1971: 21.9 sv% points above league average


Single plays don’t define a player. This goes back to what Nalyd said: “You are bringing up an outlier and acting like he provides definitionâ€. Esposito’s sv% indicates he was possibly the best player in the 1971 playoffs until one single play that has dogged and defined him forever.

I’m not saying that play should be meaningless but everyone – especially you – should be careful just how much weight it really carries in defining the career of a goalie who played almost 1000 combined games.

Point was that 1927-28 thru the 11930-31 contraction the NHL featured two teams that were for all intents and purposes minor league quality. Readers got this point.

Back to Esposito. The point was about the 1971 and 1973 Finals not one goal in game 7 which is your interpretation.

1971 Finals. Hawks go into Montreal leading 2-0 in games. Esposito goes into the tank. Stops 75 of 88 shots,.852 SV% in Montreal, 12 of 16 in game 6,blowing a 2 goal lead, forcing a game 7 where he blows another 2 goal lead. Reasonable goaltending and game 7 does not happen. Saying he was possibly the best player in the 1971 playoffs is inaccurate.

1973 Finals. Probably the worst goaltending performance in the SC Finals since 1967 amidst worst 3 all time. Esposito played 6 games giving up 33 goals = 5.6 GAA on just 190 shots = .826 SV%. Twice he blew 2-0 leads in games, once he allowed a 4-0 lead to reach 5-4 before the Hawks won 7-4.

Again, not just one goal but two very bad series.

As for outliers, the project is all about outliers. 40 goalies from 100+ years of hockey.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

How about this then. Consider him 3rd best of the 70s, since Parent was only better than him in Flashes - and put Brimsek (easily the best of the 40s) ahead of him, and consider that the 40s were horrible, and yes, it’s easy to put the 3rd goalie of the 70s in before the 2nd of the 40s.

Just to clarify...the poster I was responding to when I made the comment about Esposito being 4th best of the 70's had said that he highly valued peak. With that knowledge I made the assumption that he would rank Parent over Esposito. For me personally, Parent/Esposito is not as clear. There are arguments for both. I think it's definitely too early for both of them this round, so hopefully we will have time to discuss these two more.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Point was that 1927-28 thru the 11930-31 contraction the NHL featured two teams that were for all intents and purposes minor league quality. Readers got this point.

Back to Esposito. The point was about the 1971 and 1973 Finals not one goal in game 7 which is your interpretation.

1971 Finals. Hawks go into Montreal leading 2-0 in games. Esposito goes into the tank. Stops 75 of 88 shots,.852 SV% in Montreal, 12 of 16 in game 6,blowing a 2 goal lead, forcing a game 7 where he blows another 2 goal lead. Reasonable goaltending and game 7 does not happen. Saying he was possibly the best player in the 1971 playoffs is inaccurate.

I don't know if it's more inaccurate than you attributing "blowing" those leads primarily to Esposito. I mean, this is the 1971 Finals where Chicago's coach was heavily criticized for all kinds of head-scratchers, like not using Hull and Mikita for some key four-on-four situations, and relying too heavily on little-used and injured defensemen in game 7. And it's that injured defenseman (Magnuson) who was taken advantage of by the speed of the Pocket Rocket on that game/series/Cup winner.

But seriously though, how bad could Esposito have been, finishing the post season with a GAA almost an entire goal lower than the guy who carried the Cup home after their Final matchup?

1973 Finals. Probably the worst goaltending performance in the SC Finals since 1967 amidst worst 3 all time. Esposito played 6 games giving up 33 goals = 5.6 GAA on just 190 shots = .826 SV%. Twice he blew 2-0 leads in games, once he allowed a 4-0 lead to reach 5-4 before the Hawks won 7-4.

Again, not just one goal but two very bad series.

Again, more focus/blame on Esposito individually, and no comment on what the expectations of a Blackhawks team on the decline and without Bobby Hull was supposed to do against one of the best squads the Montreal franchise has ever put on the ice. But backing up, if your blame is squarely on Esposito for that series, where's the praise for what he did to seal the deal against the 102 point Rangers in the series before that? Maybe it was Esposito's worst post season series ever. When it's just one series against possibly the best squad in NHL history, though, how much are we supposed to read from it?

As for outliers, the project is all about outliers. 40 goalies from 100+ years of hockey.

That's a convenient way out, lol. The essence of the problem still comes from using exceptions as wider-spreading "truths" when you find them.

 

[seventieslord]

First of all, his "best" stretch has to be considered the Gretzky era, but since I only have SV% numbers for '83/84 onward, I can only comment on his "best" 4 year stretch. And Fuhr's 0.884 is much closer to 0.894 at the top than it is to #27 on the 150+ games list, Brodeur (Richard), at 0.864. But really, the point isn't to praise him for statistical "excellence" as much as top level consistency, which so many people seem to throw aside as trivial. I mean, not only is his SV% not as low relative to his peers as many might assume, he established it over a pretty much 50% larger sample size of shots faced than the vast majority of the "competition".

Closer to the top than the bottom, yes. That doesn’t make what I said untrue. He was closer to the average than the top.

What's "disingenuous" about that? He did play that many more games than all but those 3. What are you trying to say from that, though? If I point to that, and say Esposito was a workhorse compared to most other goalies of the time, am I really using that stat disingenuously? I don't think so. If there's a goalie with a SV% only a point or two higher on that same list, am I wrong to give the "benefit of the doubt" to someone who established the almost negligibly higher SV% over a consecutive sample size that's 200 games larger? I don't think so there, either.

I explained already why it was a poor argument.

And yet still, on a team that was supposedly so defensively suspect (the Gretzky Oilers), his individual performance in terms of SV% was right up there with the best from the period, suggesting that his GAA shouldn't necessarily be held against him (in raw form) as strongly as you often see.

Anyone who holds his GAA against him is looking at the wrong number.

Point was that 1927-28 thru the 11930-31 contraction the NHL featured two teams that were for all intents and purposes minor league quality. Readers got this point.

As opposed to 1944 and 1945, when four of six teams were minor league quality. That looks great for Durnan, hey?

Back to Esposito. The point was about the 1971 and 1973 Finals not one goal in game 7 which is your interpretation.

1971 Finals. Hawks go into Montreal leading 2-0 in games. Esposito goes into the tank. Stops 75 of 88 shots,.852 SV% in Montreal, 12 of 16 in game 6,blowing a 2 goal lead, forcing a game 7 where he blows another 2 goal lead. Reasonable goaltending and game 7 does not happen. Saying he was possibly the best player in the 1971 playoffs is inaccurate.

1973 Finals. Probably the worst goaltending performance in the SC Finals since 1967 amidst worst 3 all time. Esposito played 6 games giving up 33 goals = 5.6 GAA on just 190 shots = .826 SV%. Twice he blew 2-0 leads in games, once he allowed a 4-0 lead to reach 5-4 before the Hawks won 7-4.

Again, not just one goal but two very bad series.

The 1973 finals were bad. I never said they weren’t. But 6 consecutive games don’t prove anyone to be “inconsistent†for their career.

1971 does an even worse job of proving inconsistency. Granted it was his worst series but his aggregate numbers were outstanding. What you’re describing sounds a lot like 2012 Brodeur but with much better aggregate stats. If you think he was that bad in the last 5 games of the finals, then his seasonal numbers just demonstrate how much more instrumental he was through game 2 of the finals, than you even realize. In other words, they dragged him all the way down to .928, in a season where the league averaged .906. So how high was his sv% leading into game 3?

 

[seventieslord]

That's a convenient way out, lol. The essence of the problem still comes from using exceptions as wider-spreading "truths" when you find them.

well said.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Consistency

As opposed to 1944 and 1945, when four of six teams were minor league quality. That looks great for Durnan, hey?

The 1973 finals were bad. I never said they weren’t. But 6 consecutive games don’t prove anyone to be “inconsistent†for their career.

1971 does an even worse job of proving inconsistency. Granted it was his worst series but his aggregate numbers were outstanding. What you’re describing sounds a lot like 2012 Brodeur but with much better aggregate stats. If you think he was that bad in the last 5 games of the finals, then his seasonal numbers just demonstrate how much more instrumental he was through game 2 of the finals, than you even realize. In other words, they dragged him all the way down to .928, in a season where the league averaged .906. So how high was his sv% leading into game 3?

The point about the 1943-44 and 1944-45 NHL teams is that except for the 1943-44 Rangers they were better than the minor league quality teams that were part of the 1927-28 to 1930-31 NHL.

But Brodeur had a much better aggregate career. After 1973 Esposito never got his team to the finals.

Point is that 1971 the Hawks became part of the weaker western division - easier to qualify for the playoffs only two teams Chicago and St.Louis had winning records. So if competition is a factor in the 1940s then it is a factor in the 1970s or in the 1920s and 1930s.

Esposito's regular season or early playoff performance does not impress if he does not sustain a reasonable facsimile in the finals. His History is that he never did.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The point about the 1943-44 and 1944-45 NHL teams is that except for the 1943-44 Rangers they were better than the minor league quality teams that were part of the 1927-28 to 1930-31 NHL.

This can't be farther from the truth. Not only was the NHL gutted during World War 2, but so was the AHL and every minor league that replacements were drawn from. In 1943-44 and 1944-45, you had an NHL composed entirely of men who were able to get out of the draft in one way or another

I see Durnan's first two all star teams as essentially worthless - all they show is that he was the only NHL-calibre goalie in a league full of replacements.

From 1927-1931, there were multiple Hall of Famers in their primes in the NHl

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Closer to the top than the bottom, yes. That doesn’t make what I said untrue. He was closer to the average than the top.

Oh, totally. You're not wrong. But what are we trying to say from all of that? I still contend that there may be only a handful of other goalies that one might have "preferred" to have had between the pipes (especially given the numbers, more so than the reputations), whether it's that 4 year window, or the decade as a whole. That suggests the upper limit of "mediocre", at worst, imo.

I explained already why it was a poor argument.

Understood as to how or why it can be a poor argument, but considering the guys in question, and their relative workloads, is it necessarily that poor in their cases? I don't necessarily think so.

Anyone who holds his GAA against him is looking at the wrong number.

Agreed, and yet we see it all the time.

 

[seventieslord]

But Brodeur had a much better aggregate career. After 1973 Esposito never got his team to the finals.

Should he have?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tony Esposito

Should he have?

Had a good chance in 1982 but lost to the Canucks in the Semi Finals.

BTW - see your point about Tony Esposito being consistent. Late 1970s he lost at least 14 consecutive playoff games. Can't be more consistent than that. Must be a playoff record. Sure no other goalie under consideration in this project can match this streak.

 

[BM67]

Had a good chance in 1982 but lost to the Canucks in the Semi Finals.

BTW - see your point about Tony Esposito being consistent. Late 1970s he lost at least 14 consecutive playoff games. Can't be more consistent than that. Must be a playoff record. Sure no other goalie under consideration in this project can match this streak.

Losing doesn't mean poor goaltending, it can just as easily mean poor offense. Of course sometimes it's both.

To quote myself from another thread:

"In the playoffs from '75 to '79, [Tony Esposito] had at one point a 16 game losing streak... he had basically no support from his offense. In the losses his team scored:

0 goals - 3
1 goal - 7
2 goals - 4
3 goals - 2
4+ goals - 0

Esposito had no chance of winning unless he posted shutouts in 10 of 16 games. So, looking at the numbers, it looks like Esposito was doomed for four years, regardless of how well or poorly he played."

I'm certainly not saying that Esposito was as good a playoff performer as Fuhr or Smith. But I wonder how Espo would have done had his teammates scored 4-5 goals in each playoff game he started.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Had a good chance in 1982 but lost to the Canucks in the Semi Finals.

When he was the oldest player in the league at the time, and according to his bio on legendsofhockey, "started to play like he was a decade younger"? Is this another outlier/exception that's supposed to prove a rule?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Though I'm pro-Espo, it was 16. He lost the last two in '75, but won the first one in '80. That's pretty unfortunate. It does leave a bad taste, but for me, compared to the competition that's out there now, there aren't a lot of complete packages. So we have to weigh it out appropiately...

Brimsek is the closest thing we have to a complete package probably and he didn't exactly kill it in the playoffs after the War either...neither did Durnan and he only played 3 really meaningful seasons and quit before the last one was over...Broda let the regular season go a bit more (but maybe his performance suffered from the high amount of games he endured) and even when he turned the ship around in the playoffs and led the way, he didn't seem to get a ton of praise for it contemproarily. You said yourself, C1958, and I don't believe I'm misquoting you, that Brimsek also probably wins Cups to some degree (whether it's 2 or 3 or 5 is a matter of fantasy) on those Leafs teams as well. I bring you up specifically because you seem very pro-Durnan. And I bet if I saw Durnan play, I would have liked him too (as I like Brodeur) but we have to be real about the level of competition he accomplished his feats against.

But, I mean, what can we do? I started this round out as being too picky...but really, we're already at a point where these goalies have flaws.

You also seem picky about this round too in terms of who you like here...what do you like here? Obviously, your vote is yours and private if you so choose, but what does your blueprint look like roughly?

It seems you like Durnan and Broda...you don't care for Tony O, you don't care for the pre-forward pass guys, so where are you at roughly? I don't mean to put you on the spot either, I ask because I really respect your opinion and see the game similarly to you (vs. most of the board, I think - for better or for worse)...but I won't be offended if you disregard the request as it is divulging personal voting information/blueprints that you might not otherwise divulged...

EDIT: Answered.

 

[vecens24]

This was the most difficult vote yet, and I feel pretty confident that my vote would have been different had I casted it tomorrow.

My toughest spot was definitely where to put Belfour/Esposito. I feel they should probably be right next to each other, with Belfour slightly ahead for being more successful in the playoffs. But this was very difficult.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Losing doesn't mean poor goaltending, it can just as easily mean poor offense. Of course sometimes it's both.

I'd be interested in hearing if anybody has any comments about how Esposito performed during the sixteen game playoff losing streak - what did the newspapers say at the time?

A quick glance at the numbers shows the following:

Offense: Chicago's offense was horrific. The team scored 21 goals in 16 games (1.31 goals per game in any era when the average was roughly 3.40 goals per game). When a team scores around 62% less than the league average, I'd say the offense deserve a significant amount of the blame (even if only the goalie will personally get "credited" with a loss).

Defense: Esposito was hammered with 519 shots in 965 minutes (32.3 shots per minute). Only once did he face less than 24 shots; half the time he faced 35 or more.

Goaltending: Esposito stopped 88.1% of the shots he faced (457 saves on 519 shots). Does anyone have the playoff average save percentage for this era? That's a brutal number by today's standards but it might have been fairly respectable by the standards of the late seventies.

====

Despite losing 16 consecutive games, Esposito played brilliantly at times.

- April 15, 1976 - the Canadiens (#4 offense in the regular season) outshoot Chicago 39-31. Esposito allows two goals, but Chicago only scores once.

- April 7, 1977 - the Islanders (#6 offense in the regular season) outshoot Chicago 35-19. Esposito allows two goals, but Chicago only scores once.

- April 18, 1979 - the Islanders (#1 offense in the regular season) outshoot Chicago 40-22. Esposito stops all but one shot, but Chicago gets shut out.

In all three of those games, the Blackhawks appear to have been outplayed, but Esposito appears to have played extremely well by the standards of his era. These games don't prove that Espo was a great playoff goalie of course; but it does show that his 16 game losing streak was, at times, clearly the fault of his teammates rather than his own play.

If we assume Espo wins those three games where he clearly played well, his 16 game losing streak is cut to no more than a five game losing streak, which we've seen before for goalies of this calibre:

- Belfour - ten game losing streak comprising last four games in 1992, all four games in 1993, first two games in 1994. Even if use the same standard I used for Esposito and give Belfour credit for winning the games where he played brilliantly (specifically, May 30th 1992 and April 20th 1994) he still has a nasty six game losing streak, longer than Esposito's.

- Hall - seven game losing streak comprising last two games in 1959, all four games in 1960, first game of 1961.

- Plante - five game losing streak from 1971 to 1973, though that's admittedly at the end of his career).

 

[seventieslord]

This was the most difficult vote yet, and I feel pretty confident that my vote would have been different had I casted it tomorrow.

My toughest spot was definitely where to put Belfour/Esposito. I feel they should probably be right next to each other, with Belfour slightly ahead for being more successful in the playoffs. But this was very difficult.

I'd be interested to know if you still put Durnan ahead of Esposito, and if so, why.

 

[MXD]

I think we shouldn't blame Durnan for being the best goalie in the league since WWII. Actually, Durnan's AST/overall play during WWII seems to have been used to his disadvantage (like, half of his AST berths came in during WWII)... and the definition of recovery is definitely extremely loose around here.

Put Brimsek in the nets between WWII, and he too ends up with half his AST's berths happening during WWII. Would that be used against him?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Esposito's Losing streak

I'd be interested in hearing if anybody has any comments about how Esposito performed during the sixteen game playoff losing streak - what did the newspapers say at the time?

A quick glance at the numbers shows the following:

Offense: Chicago's offense was horrific. The team scored 21 goals in 16 games (1.31 goals per game in any era when the average was roughly 3.40 goals per game). When a team scores around 62% less than the league average, I'd say the offense deserve a significant amount of the blame (even if only the goalie will personally get "credited" with a loss).

Defense: Esposito was hammered with 519 shots in 965 minutes (32.3 shots per minute). Only once did he face less than 24 shots; half the time he faced 35 or more.

Goaltending: Esposito stopped 88.1% of the shots he faced (457 saves on 519 shots). Does anyone have the playoff average save percentage for this era? That's a brutal number by today's standards but it might have been fairly respectable by the standards of the late seventies.

====

Despite losing 16 consecutive games, Esposito played brilliantly at times.

- April 15, 1976 - the Canadiens (#4 offense in the regular season) outshoot Chicago 39-31. Esposito allows two goals, but Chicago only scores once.

- April 7, 1977 - the Islanders (#6 offense in the regular season) outshoot Chicago 35-19. Esposito allows two goals, but Chicago only scores once.

- April 18, 1979 - the Islanders (#1 offense in the regular season) outshoot Chicago 40-22. Esposito stops all but one shot, but Chicago gets shut out.

In all three of those games, the Blackhawks appear to have been outplayed, but Esposito appears to have played extremely well by the standards of his era. These games don't prove that Espo was a great playoff goalie of course; but it does show that his 16 game losing streak was, at times, clearly the fault of his teammates rather than his own play.

If we assume Espo wins those three games where he clearly played well, his 16 game losing streak is cut to no more than a five game losing streak, which we've seen before for goalies of this calibre:

- Belfour - ten game losing streak comprising last four games in 1992, all four games in 1993, first two games in 1994. Even if use the same standard I used for Esposito and give Belfour credit for winning the games where he played brilliantly (specifically, May 30th 1992 and April 20th 1994) he still has a nasty six game losing streak, longer than Esposito's.

- Hall - seven game losing streak comprising last two games in 1959, all four games in 1960, first game of 1961.

- Plante - five game losing streak from 1971 to 1973, though that's admittedly at the end of his career).

Offense. Offense was sufficient for the team to finish three of the regular seasons in question. If the Hawks are allowed 25 SOG per game for the 16 games that means they scored 21 on 379 shots or the opposition goalies combined for a .948 SV% better if the shots were higher.

Defense. Same defense as the regular season producing reasonable results.

Goaltending. Over 16 games why is it only the opposition goalies that step-up? Over the course of his career such a string should have balanced somewhere.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Offense. Offense was sufficient for the team to finish three of the regular seasons in question. If the Hawks are allowed 25 SOG per game for the 16 games that means they scored 21 on 379 shots or the opposition goalies combined for a .948 SV% better if the shots were higher.

Defense. Same defense as the regular season producing reasonable results.

Goaltending. Over 16 games why is it only the opposition goalies that step-up? Over the course of his career such a string should have balanced somewhere.

Why is only the goalie expected to step up? Why is only the goalie punished for stepping down?

Did Tony Esposito have some poor playoff performances? Absolutely. But he does not deserve all the blame for the streak. He deserves less blame than the skaters, particularly those expected to produce offensively. Because they clearly did not perform at the same level as they did in the regular season, they very clearly stepped down.

 

[BM67]

Offense. Offense was sufficient for the team to finish three of the regular seasons in question. If the Hawks are allowed 25 SOG per game for the 16 games that means they scored 21 on 379 shots or the opposition goalies combined for a .948 SV% better if the shots were higher.

Defense. Same defense as the regular season producing reasonable results.

Goaltending. Over 16 games why is it only the opposition goalies that step-up? Over the course of his career such a string should have balanced somewhere.

During the 16 game losing streak they played Buffalo, Montreal, Islanders (twice) and Boston. All 5 opponents had 106+ points, and were 6th or better in GA. Not exactly average opponents.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Good

Why is only the goalie expected to step up? Why is only the goalie punished for stepping down?

Did Tony Esposito have some poor playoff performances? Absolutely. But he does not deserve all the blame for the streak. He deserves less blame than the skaters, particularly those expected to produce offensively. Because they clearly did not perform at the same level as they did in the regular season, they very clearly stepped down.

Apply the same reasoning to Bill Durnan and we are getting somewhere.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Apply the same reasoning to Bill Durnan and we are getting somewhere.

I do. My personal feeling on those teams is that Irvin's strategies pushed his teams to the limit from game one, which made them super effective when everyone was healthy. But over the season and through the playoffs, they wore out. While Day would conserve energy, forgo regular season success (Once too much.) and have a much fresher team at the end of the day.

I may be wrong. But I would rank in order from most responsible to least responsible for some great Habs teams not having more success:
1. Irvin
2. Depth forwards
3. Durnan
4. Defence
5. First line forwards

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dick Irvin Sr.

I do. My personal feeling on those teams is that Irvin's strategies pushed his teams to the limit from game one, which made them super effective when everyone was healthy. But over the season and through the playoffs, they wore out. While Day would conserve energy, forgo regular season success (Once too much.) and have a much fresher team at the end of the day.

I may be wrong. But I would rank in order from most responsible to least responsible for some great Habs teams not having more success:
1. Irvin
2. Depth forwards
3. Durnan
4. Defence
5. First line forwards

Same could be said for some of the Toronto teams Irvin coached before coming to Montreal.

Also Hap Day's approach, explains the importance that playoffs held during the era in question.