Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[quoipourquoi]

Right now, I've got a cluster of Benedict/Brimsek/Broda/Durnan/Vezina (alphabetical order) at the top for this round. How much does the fact that McCool was able to win with the Toronto Maple Leafs impact the perception of Broda's playoff success? I know Ted Kennedy received more of the attention from the panel that decided the Retro Conn Smythe list (three times to Broda's one, Drillon's one, Apps' one), but was it a case where Broda was a reasonable choice as well, or should the accounts that he was behind Brimsek and Durnan hold more weigh in spite of the playoff results?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting

Right now, I've got a cluster of Benedict/Brimsek/Broda/Durnan/Vezina (alphabetical order) at the top for this round. How much does the fact that McCool was able to win with the Toronto Maple Leafs impact the perception of Broda's playoff success? I know Ted Kennedy received more of the attention from the panel that decided the Retro Conn Smythe list (three times to Broda's one, Drillon's one, Apps' one), but was it a case where Broda was a reasonable choice as well, or should the accounts that he was behind Brimsek and Durnan hold more weigh in spite of the playoff results?

Interesting questions and perspectives.

Frank McCool. Yet the following season the Leafs with Frank McCool as the lead goalie supported by Broda and the return of Syl Apps the Leafs failed to make the playoffs.

Next three seasons with Turk Broda back as the lead goalie and a young defence, the Leafs started a run of three consecutive SCs, 4 in 5 seasons. Broda did not win any retro Conn Smythes but he did neutralize Bill Durnan in 1947 when Durnan had an excellent playoff and then in 1949 helped the 4th place Leafs beat the 2nd place Bruins with Frank Brimsek.

Most impressive during Broda's 4 SCs in 5 seasons is the fact that Broda and the Leafs ONLY LOST a total of three games. 5 SC Canadiens from 1956-1960, lost 5 games in the SC Finals as a comparable.

Turk Broda's regular season performance during that period reflects that of the second or third place goalie of the era but his playoff performances made him a definite #1.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Turk Broda's regular season performance during that period reflects that of the second or third place goalie of the era but his playoff performances made him a definite #1.

So this means you rank Broda over Durnan? I ask because that comparison is one I've been flip flopping on recently and would like to hear more opinions on.

 

[Canadiens1958]

#1

So this means you rank Broda over Durnan? I ask because that comparison is one I've been flip flopping on recently and would like to hear more opinions on.

Would give the edge to Broda. Longevity over two eras with a solid early career plus a playoff edge over Durnan in the second era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Right now, I've got a cluster of Benedict/Brimsek/Broda/Durnan/Vezina (alphabetical order) at the top for this round.

That's about what I have too. Not sure how to fairly rank some of these guys.

I definitely have Belfour a notch below these guys. Parent and Esposito... I consider them 3/4 in the 1970s, and it's hard to rank that over the 1/2 of another era without a stronger case.

Gardiner is my biggest X-factor, having not yet gone over him with a fine-toothed comb. As usual, I'll be interested to see what the forum presents in his favor.

 

[MXD]

Awesome. Nobody sticks out like a sore thumb in the new group. I can think of one guy that could have been in (Holecek), but nobody screams "shouldn't have been here".

Starting thoughs :

- I ranked Brimsek above Durnan in the last round. I'm starting to regret it and might change the order in this one; while Brimsek had the longevity, and got is career "jobbed" by the WWII, all that can be said about Durnan's failures (and team support) also applies to Brimsek. But Durnan outperformed Brimsek in the 2nd half of the 40ies, no matter what "constructionnists" may say. Those guys are going first and second this round, regardless of the order, unless a perfect argument is made for another player. Broda was a great money goalie, but has arguably the worst regular season resume here, and might probably be the player with the worst regular season resume until... I don't know, really.

- Ed Belfour is probably last in the newest group, with possible "opposition" from Johnny Bower. Both appeared where they should have had (Holecek would have been a good possibility), but right now, I just can't see who could be below them.

- I expect to read a bit on Benedict and Vezina. Right now, I do have Benedict over Vezina, but the gap between both is pretty insignificant, and the mantra "Vezina better in the 10s, Benedict better in the 20s" seems to apply perfectly.

- Gardiner is probably the better Hawk here, but I'm just not sure for how many years he was the best goalie in the NHL. Oddly, his closer comparable here is probably Parent -- not Durnan.

- I still think Tony Esposito is the 2nd best goalie of the 70ies. He's just stuck against a guy with a monster peak and whose career ended prematurately, which might relegate him to 3rd best 70ies goalie. Yep, you read well : 3rd, not 4th.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Awesome. Nobody sticks out like a sore thumb in the new group. I can think of one guy that could have been in (Holecek), but nobody screams "shouldn't have been here".

Starting thoughs :

- I ranked Brimsek above Durnan in the last round. I'm starting to regret it and might change the order in this one; while Brimsek had the longevity, and got is career "jobbed" by the WWII, all that can be said about Durnan's failures (and team support) also applies to Brimsek. But Durnan outperformed Brimsek in the 2nd half of the 40ies, no matter what "constructionnists" may say. Those guys are going first and second this round, regardless of the order, unless a perfect argument is made for another player. Broda was a great money goalie, but has arguably the worst regular season resume here, and might probably be the player with the worst regular season resume until... I don't know, really.

- Ed Belfour is probably last in the newest group, with possible "opposition" from Johnny Bower. Both appeared where they should have had (Holecek would have been a good possibility), but right now, I just can't see who could be below them.

- I expect to read a bit on Benedict and Vezina. Right now, I do have Benedict over Vezina, but the gap between both is pretty insignificant, and the mantra "Vezina better in the 10s, Benedict better in the 20s" seems to apply perfectly.

- Gardiner is probably the better Hawk here, but I'm just not sure for how many years he was the best goalie in the NHL. Oddly, his closer comparable here is probably Parent -- not Durnan.

- I still think Tony Esposito is the 2nd best goalie of the 70ies. He's just stuck against a guy with a monster peak and whose career ended prematurately, which might relegate him to 3rd best 70ies goalie. Yep, you read well : 3rd, not 4th.

I think there's a definite case for Belfour over Esposito. Belfour had even tougher competition for awards, and was better in the playoffs, which seems to be a weak spot for Esposito.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Faster, more offensive game after the Red Line was introduced at the start of the 1943-44 season. Changed the way goalies played.

Context of the red line.

And C1958, you're more than qualified, it sounds, to add further commentary if necessary.

The addition of the center red-line, and thus the two-line offside pass rule, seems like a ploy to keep the game in check rather than to promote offense. However, that merely became a coaching adjustment to the new circumstances and not a necessarily intended consequence.

If I'm correct, forward passing was fully liberalized in 1929 (and quickly, league officials realized that an "offside" rule was needed as there was a Cooney looney amount of goal-scoring that took place shortly thereafter with players preceding the puck into the offensive zone - net-hangers included). However, forward passing was limited to the confines of the zone in which the puck originated. Meaning, that passes could not cross any blueline going forward.

The introduction of the red-line, in addition to making the recent rules governing icing probably easier to understand, allowed for forward passing to cross bluelines - but just not in excess of two-lines...a breakout pass from your own faceoff dot to the center dot was illegal in 1942...that pass was now legal in 1943. Quicker breakouts allowed for offenses to open up and the game to gain tempo. We all dismiss the scoring that occurs in 1944 and 1945 because of the talent that left for the War - and that's certainly valid - but a question that will always remain unanswered is not "would it have went up?" it is "how much would it have gone up instead?" while coaching and player adjustments were taking place soon after.

Stickhandling forwards and the rock'em-sock'em defensemen will come back into their own this winter - if there's hockey to be had. The National Hockey League and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association at their joint meeting in Toront over the weekend voted a rule change that will make streamlined, five-man-up hockey more risky than slipping a counterfeit bill to an FBI man. Though the simple expedient of drawing a two-inch red line across the center of center ice and permitting the defensive team to make forward passes behind it without penalty, the hockey fathers have made streamlined hockey so vulnerable to breakaways that it will be almost suicidal to play the defensemen over the new red line and thus virtually ending the five-man-up game.

The rule, adopted at Saturday's meeting, provides for a new red line two inches wide across the rink at center ice called the "center line" to distinguish the new zone. Officials hoped the rule would result in a faster game and check the trend toward power plays evidenced in recent years.

The change, advocated for some time, was designed to permit defending teams to break away from power plays more easily, thus cutting the use of the lunging attack by making it too hazardous for the offensive players. Use of the power play, which permits several of the attacking players to go down ice and accept a long pass from a teammate, has increased to such an extent in recent years that the rule makers believe it a serious threat to the life of Canada's national game. Under the revised ruling, attackers will fear to venture at great length down the ice because of the possibility of being trapped out of position in case the puck is stolen by an opposing player. Thus, the stick work and brilliant offensive play of the individual in getting the puck into the scoring zone will be brought forth.

Adjustments: as related to the project at hand

I won't delve deeply into the adjustments that forwards made in this time where they were now allowed to "cheat" out of the zone. I'll instead focus on the defensemen and their mobility.

First, identifying the parties involved:

In front of Brimsek from 1945-46 through 1949-50 on defense:

1945-46: Pat Egan, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson, Jack Church, Dit Clapper
1946-47: Pat Egan, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson, Babe Pratt, Fern Flaman
1947-48: Pat Egan, Clare Martin, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson(f), Fern Flaman
1948-49: Pat Egan, Fern Flaman, Jack Crawford, Murray Henderson, Ed Kryzanowski
1949-50: Last season, with Chicago: Bill Gadsby, Ralph Nattrass, Ernie Dickens, Bob Goldham, Doug McCaig

I'm gonna take some liberties here on interpretations because I don't have any video...please, feel free to make corrections if you feel something was incorrect or misleading.

Egan: regarded as good or fast and powerful.

Crawford: adjusted well, apparently, to the red-line as seen in his AS voting. Was probably at least an average skater.

Henderson: Poor skater that is said to do poorly away from Boston

Church: ? Highly touted prospect before the red-line, no mention for or against his skating that I could find.

Clapper: As far as I can tell, wasn't renowned for his skating and it would make sense that pre-1943 that a slower forward - if capable - would move back to defense, I think.

Pratt: Wasn't a great skater, kind of heavy fellow.

Flaman: Doesn't appear to be more than average and is regarded as a "classic defenseman" which wouldn't suggest a ton of mobility necessarily.

In front of Durnan from 1943-44 through 1949-50 on defense:

1943-44: Leo Lamoureux, Mike McMahon, Glen Harmon, Butch Bouchard
1944-45: Butch Bouchard, Leo Lamoureux, Frank Eddolls, Glen Harmon
1945-46: Butch Bouchard, Glen Harmon, Leo Lamoureux, Ken Reardon
1946-47: Ken Reardon, Roger Leger, Glen Harmon, Leo Lamoureux, Butch Bouchard
1947-48: Ken Reardon, Roger Leger, Glen Harmon, Butch Bouchard, Doug Harvey
1948-49: Glen Harmon, Doug Harvey, Ken Reardon, Roger Leger, Hal Laycoe, Butch Bouchard
1949-50: Ken Reardon, Doug Harvey, Glen Harmon, Roger Leger, Butch Bouchard, Hal Laycoe

Lamoureux: ? Though, as a defensive guy, he couldn't hang around after the War vets came home. Also played some forward.

Harmon: Known as speedy and shifty

Bouchard: Fine skater, better straight line skater than in transition or tight turns. Looked like he could rely on his size, strength and positioning to navigate tight spaces as opposed to agility.

Reardon: Not a very good skater

Leger: ?

Harvey: Excellent

Laycoe: ?

In front of Broda from 1946-47 through 1949-50 on defense:

1946-47: Vic Lynn, Wally Stanowski, Gus Mortson, Jimmy Thomson, Garth Boesch
1947-48: Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, Bill Barilko, Wally Stanowski, Garth Boesch
1948-49: Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, Garth Boesch, Bill Barilko, Bill Juzda
1949-50: Vic Lynn, Bill Barilko, Gus Mortson, Bill Juzda, Jimmy Thomson, Garth Boesch

Lynn: Excellent

Stanowski: Excellent, may have been the fastest d-man in the league at one time.

Mortson: Regarded as a very good skater

Thomson: Referred to as "fast skating", despite him being a "classic defensive defenseman"

Boesch/Barilko: Weren't these the guys that would leave their feet constantly to block shots? No real mention of skating ability that I could find.

Juzda: Below average skater it seems

---

Depending on coaching adjustments, the Boston Bruins d-men would struggle the most with this new, faster-paced game. Faster, more offensive forwards would become more valuable, so even if the Bruins sat back to get a "head start" on their opponents, they would be hemmed in their end due to their - my estimation - below average mobility. They played in a smaller rink, but that still means half of their games aren't in the friendly confines.

Now, I don't believe we have shot counts from the years in question. I would hypothesize that the Bruins are more susceptible than another team to giving up high quality scoring chances on the road due to the limited nature of their defensemen. Thus, if the goaltending talent is equal (and based on where we're at in the discussion, they have to be pretty close), I would suggest that the Bruins - more than their peers - are more susceptible to giving up goals on the road as opposed to at home.

Brimsek:
1945-46: Unfortunately for me, I thought Brimsek played the last 34 games consecutively, and when trying to made the original home/road splits work I drove myself nuts thinking I was miscounting. Further research indicates that Brimsek and Bibeault alternated in net when Brimsek first returned and Brimsek only took over full-time when Bibeault was returned to Montreal when Durnan broke his hand. As a result, I'll do a Bruins split, not just a Brimsek split.

Bruins total: 24-18-8 - 156 GA (3.12 GAA)
---
Away: 8-13-4 - 88 GA (3.52 GAA)
Home: 16-5-4 - 68 GA (2.72 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 5 times
- Gave up 4+ away: 10 times
- Gave up 4+ @home: 6 times

1946-47:
Total: 26-23-11 - 175 GA (2.92 GAA)
---
Away: 8-16-6 - 101 GA (3.37 GAA)
Home: 18-7-5 - 74 GA (2.47 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 10 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

1947-48:
Total: 23-24-13 - 168 GA (2.80 GAA)
---
Away: 11-16-3 - 89 GA (2.97 GAA)
Home: 12-8-10 - 79 GA (2.63 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 7 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 4 times

Amended: Fooled myself into thinking it was a 70-game schedule in 1949...it was 60. So I've narrowed down the games that Brimsek has played and have adjusted the numbers only and to only affect Brimsek

1948-49: (a little tricky because Brimsek only plays 54 games - I believe he misses six of them from January 22 - February 5 (Bruins went 3-3 in the stretch), not sure about the other ten. Surely, someone will suggest a better way to do this but given that he played in the playoffs and returned on February 6 vs. Toronto (his child was severely ill and he had to go home), I'm gonna take the games from Feb. 6 - season end for my numbers because, given that he played in the playoffs, he almost assuredly played these games as well. But I am assuming.

Total: 26-20-8 - 147 GA (2.72 GAA)
---
Away: 11-12-6 - 88 GA (3.04 GAA)
Home: 15-8-2 - 59 GA (2.36 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 1 time

I'm not sure I see the Chicago season as particularly important for what I'm looking into. If someone disagrees, I'll run the numbers. But my commentary is on the transition post-red line and the Bruins sluggish defensemen.

In thinking about it, I guess it would make sense to include 1944 and 1945, though Brimsek didn't play to see how the Bruins faired without him home/road.

1943-44:
Total: 19-26-5 - 268 GA (5.36 GAA)
---
Away: 4-18-3 - 156 GA (6.24 GAA)
Home: 15-8-2 - 112 GA (4.48 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 15 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 7 times
- Gave up 10+ away: 6 times
- Gave up 10+ @home: 0 times

1944-45:
Total: 16-30-4 - 219 GA (4.38 GAA)
---
Away: 5-18-2 - 126 GA (5.04 GAA)
Home: 11-12-2 -93 GA (3.72 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 9 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 3 times
- Gave up 7+ away: 8 times
- Gave up 7+ @home: 0 times
---

News flash: teams lose more on the road than at home. Got it.
Let's see how the other two noteworthy teams do with home/road splits in that era...

Montreal Canadiens:

1943-44:
Total: 38-5-7 - 109 GA (2.18 GAA)
---
Away: 16-5-4 - 59 GA (2.36 GAA)
Home: 22-0-3 - 50 GA (2.00 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 1 time
- Gave up 6+ @home: 0 times
- Gave up 5+ away: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 0 times

1944-45:
Total: 38-8-4 - 121 GA (2.42 GAA)
---
Away: 16-6-2 - 58 GA (2.32 GAA)
Home: 22-2-2 - 63 GA (2.52 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 1 time
- Gave up 6+ @home: 1 time
- Gave up 5+ away: 2 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

1945-46:
Total: 28-17-5 - 134 GA (2.68 GAA)
---
Away: 12-11-2 - 69 GA (2.76 GAA)
Home: 16-6-3 - 65 GA (2.60 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 3 times

1946-47:
Total: 34-16-10 - 138 GA (2.30 GAA)
---
Away: 15-10-5 -81 GA (2.70 GAA)
Home: 19-6-5 - 57 GA (1.90 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

1947-48:
Total: 20-29-11 - 169 GA (2.82 GAA)
---
Away: 7-16-7 - 87 GA (2.90 GAA)
Home: 13-13-4 - 82 GA (2.73 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 3 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 6 times

1948-49:
Total: 28-23-9 - 126 GA (2.10 GAA)
---
Away: 9-15-6 -75 GA (2.50 GAA) [far outlier 9-0 loss to Rangers really hurts this]
Home: 19-8-3 - 51 GA (1.70 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 2 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 2 times

Toronto Maple Leafs:

1943-44:
Total: 23-23-4 - 174 GA (3.48 GAA)
---
Away: 10-12-3 - 89 GA (3.56 GAA)
Home: 13-9-1 - 85 GAA (3.40 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 2 times
- Gave up 5+ away: 8 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 7 times

1944-45:
Total: 24-22-4 - 161 GA (3.22 GAA)
---
Away: 11-13-1 - 89 GA (3.56 GAA)
Home: 13-9-3 - 72 GA (2.88 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 5 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 1 time
- Gave up 5+ away: 9 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 5 times

1945-46:
Total: 19-24-7 - 185 GA (3.70 GAA)
---
Away: 9-11-5 - 97 GA (3.88 GAA)
Home: 10-13-2 - 88 GA (3.52 GAA)
- Gave up 6+ away: 7 times
- Gave up 6+ @home: 4 times
- Gave up 5+ away: 9 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 7 times

1946-47:
Total: 31-19-10 - 172 GA (2.87 GAA)
---
Away: 11-11-8 - 97 GA (3.23 GAA)
Home: 20-8-2 - 75 GA (2.50 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 7 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 4 times

1947-48:
Total: 32-15-13 - 143 GA (2.38 GAA)
---
Away: 10-12-8 - 74 GA (2.47 GAA)
Home: 22-3-5 - 69 GA (2.30 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 3 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 3 times

1948-49:
Total: 22-25-13 - 161 GA (2.68 GAA)
---
Away: 10-17-3 - 88 GA (2.93 GAA)
Home: 12-8-10 - 73 GA (2.43 GAA)
- Gave up 5+ away: 6 times
- Gave up 5+ @home: 3 times

1949-50 (all teams, quick look):
Bruins - Home GA: 98 (2.80 GAA) /// Road GA: 130 (3.71 GAA)
Leafs - Home GA: 77 (2.20 GAA) /// Road GA: 96 (2.74 GAA)
Habs - Home GA: 66 (1.89 GAA) /// Road GA: 84 (2.40 GAA)

It seems to me, and maybe you'll make a different conclusion, but it seems to me that the Bruins struggled more on the road defensively over the era in question because of management's and/or coaching's failures to make proper adjustments to the new era and rules. As a result, one might suggest that Brimsek was under undue distress in this time, facing higher quality opportunities and thus, eventually yielding to these pressures. At a glance, it appears the Bruins were embarrassed more on the road than many other teams which I think is noteworthy as it likely meant the opposition was adjusting to Boston's limitations as a team and taking great advantage of it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Red Line

Mike, an excellent summation.

A few points. The Red Line clearly defined the icing rule, introduced in 1939. It also introduced the modern version of the dump and chase. Also this put a new emphasis on the ability of the goalie to handle the puck and work in unison with the defensemen to move the puck and transition the game out of the defensive zone.

This produced some interesting goalie situations. Chuck Rayner was known to rush with the puck at times but more of a novelty than an offensive tactic.

The Maple Leafs focused on the handedness of the team. RHS dmen and forwards on the right side, LHS on the left side, mix of LHS and RHS centers lead by the RHS Teeder Kennedy. This complimented Broda's rebound control and ability to clear and direct pucks to the corners. The handedness gave the Leafs a distinct advantage, producing an advantage by generating more favourable horizontal angles - think about how stick positioning impacts angles and the resulting passing and shooting lanes. Finally the handedness factor made the movement of the puck out of the defensive zone more efficient.

Bill Durnan was ambidextrous. Could handle the stick on either side and catch with either hand. A bit of a novelty factor but an advantage handling the puck, moving it to defensemen,clearing, etc. Also it would give attacking teams and players different looks from time to time. A break from each wing could get the tougher shooting look.

The Bruins with Frank Brimsek were part of the old guard, hampered by the smaller home rink since they would have to adjust for the away games.Puckhandling in the defensive zone was a bit of a factor. The defensemen were not mobile to start - Leafs had dumped a few of their slugs on the Bruins for a brief period. Also they were not balanced in terms of handedness. Finally Brimsek was not as mobile or agile like Rayner and Durnan or as adept at getting the puck to his defensemen. Recall the stories of Brimsek favouring a heavier stick to chop forwards - would make handling the puck a bit tougher.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think there's a definite case for Belfour over Esposito. Belfour had even tougher competition for awards, and was better in the playoffs, which seems to be a weak spot for Esposito.

I lean that way too, but if I were to cast my vote today, they're the two that I would leave off my list of eight.

 

[vecens24]

I had Brimsek-Durnan last round at 5-6. Then Parent-Benedict a step behind them.

In my original list, I had Gardiner ahead of Benedict/Vezina (and Broda/Belfour for that matter too) because I remember TDMM finding a lot of stuff two ATDs ago about Gardiner being the best goalie ever to that time (therefore being better than Vezina/Benedict, who one would assume a lot of writers had also seen). That made up for the the longevity edge that the other two have in my opinion. Whether or not that holds, we'll see but that definitely stuck out in my mind.

Still not sure I'll have Broda ahead of any of those five this round. I'm throughly unimpressed with his regular season resume and contemporary articles don't seem to portray him much better. Plus, while his playoff resume is CLEARLY strong, only have one retro-Smythe seems odd to me and that's something else that I think needs discussed a little more. Just how big of a part of these teams was Broda?

 

[seventieslord]

I had Brimsek-Durnan last round at 5-6. Then Parent-Benedict a step behind them.

In my original list, I had Gardiner ahead of Benedict/Vezina (and Broda/Belfour for that matter too) because I remember TDMM finding a lot of stuff two ATDs ago about Gardiner being the best goalie ever to that time (therefore being better than Vezina/Benedict, who one would assume a lot of writers had also seen). That made up for the the longevity edge that the other two have in my opinion. Whether or not that holds, we'll see but that definitely stuck out in my mind.

Still not sure I'll have Broda ahead of any of those five this round. I'm throughly unimpressed with his regular season resume and contemporary articles don't seem to portray him much better. Plus, while his playoff resume is CLEARLY strong, only have one retro-Smythe seems odd to me and that's something else that I think needs discussed a little more. Just how big of a part of these teams was Broda?

If you value regular seasons that highly, then Esposito is arguably the best this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Consider

I had Brimsek-Durnan last round at 5-6. Then Parent-Benedict a step behind them.

In my original list, I had Gardiner ahead of Benedict/Vezina (and Broda/Belfour for that matter too) because I remember TDMM finding a lot of stuff two ATDs ago about Gardiner being the best goalie ever to that time (therefore being better than Vezina/Benedict, who one would assume a lot of writers had also seen). That made up for the the longevity edge that the other two have in my opinion. Whether or not that holds, we'll see but that definitely stuck out in my mind.

Still not sure I'll have Broda ahead of any of those five this round. I'm throughly unimpressed with his regular season resume and contemporary articles don't seem to portray him much better. Plus, while his playoff resume is CLEARLY strong, only have one retro-Smythe seems odd to me and that's something else that I think needs discussed a little more. Just how big of a part of these teams was Broda?

Benedict/Vezina vs Gardiner, consider the two distinct eras. Benedict played 15-20 games in the post forward pass era. Vezina never did. Gardiner straddled the eras. Gardiner's pre forward pass era stats are not that impressive, nor are his regular season numbers. Not sure that writers of the era were making the pre forward pass distinction. Mike Farkas in post #33 upthread touches on some of the nuances between the eras.

Broda and retro Conn Smythes. Retro awards try but never capture the moment of the SCF. Compromise between the accumulated data to the point of the project, the trends of the time and trying to be faithful to the season.

Comparison would be the Top 100 projects where Durnan and Broda rank well ahead of Brimsek. Suddenly that consensus is flipped even though their records have not changed.

 

[Sanf]

I don´t know if this is worth anything but atleast it conserns Gardiners early career.

I once did a non-goalie releated research from USAHA/CHL/AHA. Gardiner and Tiny Thompson played at the same time in there from 1925-1927 and that point Thompson was considered the best goalie of the league. Thompson had actually great reputation in there. Gardiner had one of the worst gaa numbers in league but I guess he played better than the numbers show (at least Blackhawks clearly thought so).

edit. together changed to same time.

 

[unknown33]

Comparison would be the Top 100 projects where Durnan and Broda rank well ahead of Brimsek. Suddenly that consensus is flipped even though their records have not changed.

I'm not participating in either, but my guess it that there's new information available that wasn't known to the voters when the Top 100 project was made?
Isn't this the point? Else you could just use the ranking made back in 2009 and just reasses the goalies that still played post-2009.

 

[BM67]

I've been poking around looking at Brimsek's pre-war career, and recalled C58 asking a couple of times about the playoff loss to the Rangers in 1940.

The Bruins scored 1 goal in their 4 losses, being shutout 3 times. Brimsek was 2-1 in the 3 games the Bruins scored a goal.

If goaltending cost the Bruins the series, it was that of Dave Kerr, and not that of Brimsek.

Also of note, the Bruins were 2-4-2 18-22 vs the Rangers during the season.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Gardiner continued...

Gardiner played 7 seasons in the NHL. Post-season all star teams were around for the last four, in which Gardiner earned 3 1st Team's and 1 2nd Team, despite leading the league in GAA only once. Next step is compiling information from his first 3 seasons in the league.

An article from the Ottawa citizen which gives the results of the 10 NHL club managers picking 1st and 2nd AS teams shows that Gardiner was not among the top 2 goalies in his rookie season of 1927-28. Worters and Hainsworth were awarded the 1st and 2nd Team spots respectively.

Link: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=4383,1118873&dq=worters+george+hay&hl=en


In 1928-29, one writer picks his own AS teams for the first half of the season, and he gives Worters the first spot, backed up by Gardiner. Chicago's record at the time of the article was 4-17-4, and they finished the season 3-12-4, which is about the same pts per game wise.

Link: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&pg=1583,2668747&dq=worters+gardiner&hl=en


The next season the Blackhawks have a big improvement jumping from last in the league to 5th (2nd in their division). At this time I do not have any articles describing Gardiner's play that season, but I also haven't looked yet. If anyone has anything please post it, if not I will do some research later.

Building on the above...it's been tough to find good information on the early part of Charlie Gardiner's NHL career. There was a book written on Gardiner back in 2005 by Antonia Chambers called Before the Echoes Fade: The Story of Charlie Gardiner. This book does not appear to be in the public library system here in Chicago, so if any of you are headed to your local library soon take a look for it as it likely will have some valuable information. I was able to find a couple good pieces of info through some excerpts/reviews of the book online...

Late in December 1930 the New York Americans offered $10,000 to the Hawks in exchange for Gardiner, double his salary; McLaughlin refused the offer

This occurred in the first half of the 1930-31 season, which was the first season AS teams were awarded. One could deduct that Gardiner must have been recognized as one of the league's top goalies before this season for the Americans to make such a large offer as early as December (and for that offer to be turned down).

Particularly fascinating is the fact that in 1931, the Blackhawks were beaten by the Canadiens in the final, and Gardiner had been so stellar in goal, that immediately upon completion of the final game, the whole Montreal team carried Gardiner on their shoulders around the Forum ice, and then down the tunnel and into their dressing room, where they fed him champagne.

This seems to be evidence of a Conn Smythe level performance by Gardiner in a losing effort for the Hawks.


Communication has been something that has been talked about a lot in these threads, particularly by C1958. Here's what Legends of Hockey has to say about Gardiner in that area...

Gardiner's exceptional play was augmented by his ability to direct his teammates on the ice, a factor that led to his being chosen to serve as team captain in 1933-34.

EDIT: Here is a link to an article confirming what happened during the 1931 Cup Finals http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...2166911&dq=gardiner+carried+stanley+cup&hl=en

 

[Bear of Bad News]

This occurred in the first half of the 1930-31 season, which was the first season AS teams were awarded. One could deduct that Gardiner must have been recognized as one of the league's top goalies before this season for the Rangers to make such a large offer as early as December (and for that offer to be turned down).

Was it really the Americans (not the Rangers) as it says in the excerpt? This seems odd, since Roy Worters was in the midst of a Vezina campaign for the Americans that year.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

That's some pretty good firepower for Gardiner, I must say. While awesome, I don't see what Montreal doing after the playoffs as much more than Gretzky referring to Hextall as the best goalie he has seen after the '87 playoffs, but the double salary offer and the being named team captain anecdotes certainly provide good "overall"/"calibre" context, imo.

Was it really the Americans (not the Rangers) as it says in the excerpt? This seems odd, since Roy Worters was in the midst of a Vezina campaign for the Americans that year.

Well, of all the supposition we've all partaken in while discussing whether the GAA leader in any season of a past era deserved recognition as the "top goalie" within the context of having ultimately been awarded the Vezina, I think this is one where we can almost certainly conclude that the Vezina went to the "wrong" guy (by our "standards") that year... if true. Team worked out well enough in front of him to result in the league's top GAA, but the team obviously thought that Gardiner represented a possible upgrade in net. Well, given the offer, perhaps possible can be equated to "likely".

 

[Canadiens1958]

Different Group

I'm not participating in either, but my guess it that there's new information available that wasn't known to the voters when the Top 100 project was made?
Isn't this the point? Else you could just use the ranking made back in 2009 and just reasses the goalies that still played post-2009.

No new information is available. It was all out there since the time the players or goalies were active NHLers.

A different group of voters submitting different data, view data differently, producing different results is to be expected. Point was about retro Conn Smythe and should they be given the same consideration as Conn Smythes voted at the time of the playoffs.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Was it really the Americans (not the Rangers) as it says in the excerpt? This seems odd, since Roy Worters was in the midst of a Vezina campaign for the Americans that year.

The source said Americans, but it was not a direct quote. It was taken from Gardiner's wikipedia page that credited the book with a reference directly after that sentence.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gardiner_(ice_hockey)#cite_note-33

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

That's some pretty good firepower for Gardiner, I must say. While awesome, I don't see what Montreal doing after the playoffs as much more than Gretzky referring to Hextall as the best goalie he has seen after the '87 playoffs, but the double salary offer and the being named team captain anecdotes certainly provide good "overall"/"calibre" context, imo.

Hextall did win the Conn Smythe when Gretzky said that, which was basically what I was taking from that...Gardiner gave a Conn Smythe caliber performance that particular year

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Hextall did win the Conn Smythe when Gretzky said that, which was basically what I was taking from that...Gardiner gave a Conn Smythe caliber performance that particular year

Oh, yeah, well in that context (retro Conn Smythes or whatever) I obviously agree.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1939 Playoffs vs 1940 Playoffs

I've been poking around looking at Brimsek's pre-war career, and recalled C58 asking a couple of times about the playoff loss to the Rangers in 1940.

The Bruins scored 1 goal in their 4 losses, being shutout 3 times. Brimsek was 2-1 in the 3 games the Bruins scored a goal.

If goaltending cost the Bruins the series, it was that of Dave Kerr, and not that of Brimsek.

Also of note, the Bruins were 2-4-2 18-22 vs the Rangers during the season.

1939 Bruins were 5-3-0, 23-15 against the Rangers, so over two seasons it is a wash in terms of regular season play, .25 GF advantage to the Bruins over 16 games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1939_games.html

1939 playoff series between the two teams was slightly higher scoring. In 6 of the 7 games the losing team scored 1 goal.

Interesting point is that in a more offensive series 1939, the Bruins did better than in a defensive series 1940, the opposite of expectations given that the Bruins had the best defensive forward line of the era in the Kraut Line, an elite defenseman in Dit Clapper, and a HHOF goalie in Frank Brimsek

 

[vecens24]

No new information is available. It was all out there since the time the players or goalies were active NHLers.

A different group of voters submitting different data, view data differently, producing different results is to be expected. Point was about retro Conn Smythe and should they be given the same consideration as Conn Smythes voted at the time of the playoffs.

The same data may be out there, but from my understanding the same data certainly wasn't presented last time.

For instance, we ABSOLUTELY did not have the information we now have on Vezina last time around. It may have been out there somewhere (obviously it was. There hasn't been a rash of new publications since then saying different things about Vezina) but it wasn't presented or known to people. I don't know why that's a difficult concept.