Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Your two conditions have been met.

Woah, woah, where did you prove that these supposed changes in goaltending technique are necessarily pertinent within the context of relative rankings in these exercises? That was condition #2. The blueline affected breaking out of the zone, not horizontal attacking angles, or passing angles to the net, or the like. Every angle of attack originating in the neutral zone is an extension of an already existing vector originating in the defensive zone, and goalies are only ever concerned or tested with what happens from the blueline in, anyway (unless they're horrible... i.e. not NHLers). The most attack angles exist within a much tighter radius from the net, regardless (both in number/pi radians if you prefer, and priority/"danger").

 

[Canadiens1958]

Source

This is the original post on the subject:



http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-always-believe-your-lying-eyes.html

Al Rollins (who led the league in GAA) played only 40 of 70 games in 1951. I should have been more clear that 1st Team went to the goalie with the lowest GAA who played enough games. This was an age where starters played every game if healthy.

Not surprised by the source.

Is there an accompanying retro AST to support a claim that anyone else should have been the 1st AST goalie? Its one thing to spot a pattern but another to show that it represents bias or shoddy work as claimed in the article.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not surprised by the source.

Is there an accompanying retro AST to support a claim that anyone else should have been the 1st AST goalie? Its one thing to spot a pattern but another to show that it represents bias or shoddy work as claimed in the article.

As far as I'm concerned, it's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that just about everyone who mattered considered Brimsek the best goalie in the league in 1942-43. And 1939-40 and 1947-48 are also suspicious, given the fact that the 1st Team was so tied to GAA.

Edit: By all accounts, Terry Sawchuk was easily the best goalie in the league from 1950-51 to 1954-55. And yet Lumley won the 1st Team in 1953-54 and 1954-55, as he led the league in GAA playing for the defensive-minded Leafs.

It's just a lot of things that could be coincidences by themselves, but they all add up in my opinion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goalies and Defensemen

I'm not interested in playing games with semantics, I was talking about defensemen rushing with the puck. After the Red Line, it was very rare for defensemen to rush with the puck, which is one reason why defensemen point totals dropped like a rock after World War 2.

And yes, there were exceptions during the depleted War Years of 1943-44 and 1944-45. But after the NHL talent pool came back and guys like Babe Pratt couldn't just skate circles around the sub-AHL stiffs replacing the guys who went off to war, defensemen rarely skated with the puck... at least until Bobby Orr.



Assuming all this is true (and it would be nice if a link was provided), it might explain why Johnny Mowers failed to reclaim a starting position after the war. But the guys available now - Turk Broda and Frank Brimsek seem to have been just as good after the rule change as before it.



Your previous claim was that the Red Line forced goalies to leave their net to handle the puck. And nobody did so regularly until Plante. Terry Sawchuk, the best goalie of the early 50s certainly didn't. And as far as I can tell, neither did Bill Durnan.

And last I checked, pre-NHL was WAY before the Red Line - the forward pass wasn't allowed at all.

Has nothing to do with the subject at hand goalies and the advent of fast mobile defensemen. Once the forward pass, then the Red Line became part of the NHL, rushing defensemen or even rushing end to end forwards became less common since a passed puck is faster than the fastest skater. More efficient to pass the puck up ice.

Consider the 1947 - 1951 Leafs and their young defensemen. No offense required or produced just speed, mobility and efficiency in the defensive zone with goalies Broda/Rollins who were reliable with the puck.

Red Line saw goalies leave the crease to handle the puck, a small perimeter where the net was not abandoned. Plante would go to each corner to counter the dump and chase as often as possible and behind the net to play the puck, leaving the net wide open.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Red Line

Woah, woah, where did you prove that these supposed changes in goaltending technique are necessarily pertinent within the context of relative rankings in these exercises? That was condition #2. The blueline affected breaking out of the zone, not horizontal attacking angles, or passing angles to the net, or the like. Every angle of attack originating in the neutral zone is an extension of an already existing vector originating in the defensive zone, and goalies are only ever concerned or tested with what happens from the blueline in, anyway (unless they're horrible... i.e. not NHLers). The most attack angles exist within a much tighter radius from the net, regardless (both in number/pi radians if you prefer, and priority/"danger").

See bolded. We are talking about the Red Line.

(MOD)

Regardless you have to consider the speed factor which you completely omitted for your points to have legs

 

[Canadiens1958]

Analogy

Assuming all this is true (and it would be nice if a link was provided), it might explain why Johnny Mowers failed to reclaim a starting position after the war. But the guys available now - Turk Broda and Frank Brimsek seem to have been just as good after the rule change as before it.

The discussion includes lateral mobility and north/south movement by a goalie in the crease area. I have made this analogy before.

2005-06 rule changes gave the NHL more offensive flow and movement. Changing the technique requirements for goalies from the dead puck era.

Result was Tim Thomas suddenly came from nowhere to be a star because he had the necessary technique and mobility.While Roberto Luongo who has problems with mobility especially east/west became somewhat suspect.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Fedorov is the only one I could think of (thanks to participation in another ongoing thread elsewhere), but I mean has one ever been left off all together? Certainly not that I can think of.

No, and there were only five cases in which they finished on the 2nd Team (1955, 1965, 1990, 1992, 1994).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dump and Chase Strategy

Goes back to the 1942 playoffs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Hockey_League_(1917–1942)

Scroll down the above link to the Six - Team League, first paragraph and Turk Broda's comments.Leafs made a few adjustments, youth and speed and came back to win the series. Previously the 5th place Red Wings beat Boston on their way to the finals.

Seems like the dump and chase became a factor at this time.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

See bolded. We are talking about the Red Line.

(MOD)

Regardless you have to consider the speed factor which you completely omitted for your points to have legs

As was already pointed out, the introduction of the red line changed how the blue line was treated. How are the speed and angles involved in the newly created other 3/4 of the rink going "meaningfully" to impact the goalies when what is happening in front of them within "scoring distance" in the closest 1/4 likely looked much the same - or at least required little adaptation in terms of angles as relates to the red line, or whatever this tangent is meant to explore. Pucks were likely still coming from the same angles at the same speeds, and the farther away from the goalie you get, the less any adjustment is going to be required on their part.

But more to the point, how is any of this (specifically adjustment to the introduction of the red line) supposed to factor into a goalie rankings exercise in a consistent matter?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Best and 1ST

As far as I'm concerned, it's been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that just about everyone who mattered considered Brimsek the best goalie in the league in 1942-43. And 1939-40 and 1947-48 are also suspicious, given the fact that the 1st Team was so tied to GAA.

Edit: By all accounts, Terry Sawchuk was easily the best goalie in the league from 1950-51 to 1954-55. And yet Lumley won the 1st Team in 1953-54 and 1954-55, as he led the league in GAA playing for the defensive-minded Leafs.

It's just a lot of things that could be coincidences by themselves, but they all add up in my opinion.

Why the assumption that the supposed best has to be the 1st , star of any game or the 1st AST at his position for any half season or season?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess I'm confused. So the effects of the red line must be strictly confined to goaltending technique...and there's no consideration for the elements around them? For a time in history where statistics are going to be a factor, wouldn't the "outside" influences on a goalie's performance be at all noteworthy. Like I proposed and - I thought - showed in my post a couple pages back?

Broda's defense was adapted to the era at or ahead of the curve. Therefore, Broda had an "easier" time, and more success. Look at the Cups that he plucks off soon after. Now look at my post about the mobility of the Leafs defense. I don't doubt there's other factors involved, but this one makes sense in terms of gameplay to me.

The Bruins capture two Cups just before the War (1939 and 1941), Brimsek is 24-19 in the playoffs before the red-line. 8-17 afterwards. And more to my point, an abysmal 3-10 on the road in the playoffs from 1946-1949. 2 of those against a pretty iffy Red Wings team in 1946 and 1 in overtime against the Maple Leafs where they surrendered 4 goals in the process anyhow...

Somehow, I doubt it was jetlag.

We're constantly evaluating the teams in front of goaltenders along with the goaltenders themselves. Typically, it's adjusting for the fact that they had a defensive team in front of them, or strong defensive players or what have you. Here, we have a unique case, the team was not built to succeed (at least away from their small rink) and Brimsek was instrumental (so it would seem) it getting them as far as they got. When the game was racheted up in the playoffs, the Bruins defense couldn't take the heat in the kitchen and headed for the exits early and often.

Why is this not relevant?

 

[Canadiens1958]

All Inclusive

I guess I'm confused. So the effects of the red line must be strictly confined to goaltending technique...and there's no consideration for the elements around them? For a time in history where statistics are going to be a factor, wouldn't the "outside" influences on a goalie's performance be at all noteworthy. Like I proposed and - I thought - showed in my post a couple pages back?

Broda's defense was adapted to the era at or ahead of the curve. Therefore, Broda had an "easier" time, and more success. Look at the Cups that he plucks off soon after. Now look at my post about the mobility of the Leafs defense. I don't doubt there's other factors involved, but this one makes sense in terms of gameplay to me.

The Bruins capture two Cups just before the War (1939 and 1941), Brimsek is 24-19 in the playoffs before the red-line. 8-17 afterwards. And more to my point, an abysmal 3-10 on the road in the playoffs from 1946-1949. 2 of those against a pretty iffy Red Wings team in 1946 and 1 in overtime against the Maple Leafs where they surrendered 4 goals in the process anyhow...

Somehow, I doubt it was jetlag.

We're constantly evaluating the teams in front of goaltenders along with the goaltenders themselves. Typically, it's adjusting for the fact that they had a defensive team in front of them, or strong defensive players or what have you. Here, we have a unique case, the team was not built to succeed (at least away from their small rink) and Brimsek was instrumental (so it would seem) it getting them as far as they got. When the game was racheted up in the playoffs, the Bruins defense couldn't take the heat in the kitchen and headed for the exits early and often.

Why is this not relevant?

The effects of the Red Line is all inclusive, not only goaltenders were effected. All the skaters had to make changes offensively and defensively.

The dump and chase in the 1942 playoffs - Red Wings beat Boston, up 3-0 against Leafs but Leafs adjust and win 4-3. Next year in the 1943 Finals Red Wings sweep Bruins 4-0. So certain teams were having difficulties adjusting before the Red Line.

Post Red Line, Bruins picked-up three Toronto rejects for their defence - Jack Church, Murray Henderson, Babe Pratt. Slower defensemen did have success at the smaller Boston Garden but were a liability elsewhere.

Frank Brimsek's contribution is open to interpretation. Pre Red Line his GAA increased every regular season from 1938-39 to 1942-43, 1.56 --> 3.52.

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

Post Red Line, during Brimsek's remaining stay with the Bruins it decreased every regular season from 3.26 --> 2.72.

Rather unique. Factor in that 22 of his 40 career regular season shutouts were during his first three seasons.

Three best Bruin teams at the start of his career, then a second place team his first and last post Red Line seasons, corresponding to his worst and best GAA from the era.

Question remains whether Frank Brimsek may be viewed as a difference maker - regular season or playoffs?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess I'm confused. So the effects of the red line must be strictly confined to goaltending technique...and there's no consideration for the elements around them? For a time in history where statistics are going to be a factor, wouldn't the "outside" influences on a goalie's performance be at all noteworthy. Like I proposed and - I thought - showed in my post a couple pages back?

Broda's defense was adapted to the era at or ahead of the curve. Therefore, Broda had an "easier" time, and more success. Look at the Cups that he plucks off soon after. Now look at my post about the mobility of the Leafs defense. I don't doubt there's other factors involved, but this one makes sense in terms of gameplay to me.

The Bruins capture two Cups just before the War (1939 and 1941), Brimsek is 24-19 in the playoffs before the red-line. 8-17 afterwards. And more to my point, an abysmal 3-10 on the road in the playoffs from 1946-1949. 2 of those against a pretty iffy Red Wings team in 1946 and 1 in overtime against the Maple Leafs where they surrendered 4 goals in the process anyhow...

Somehow, I doubt it was jetlag.

We're constantly evaluating the teams in front of goaltenders along with the goaltenders themselves. Typically, it's adjusting for the fact that they had a defensive team in front of them, or strong defensive players or what have you. Here, we have a unique case, the team was not built to succeed (at least away from their small rink) and Brimsek was instrumental (so it would seem) it getting them as far as they got. When the game was racheted up in the playoffs, the Bruins defense couldn't take the heat in the kitchen and headed for the exits early and often.

Why is this not relevant?

If we're talking team success, then of course all the rule changes are important. Maybe I misunderstood you before. I still think the fact that the Bruins were gutted by World War 2 had more to do with their post-War failures, but the Leafs adapting better to the Red Line is a reasonable hypothesis as to part of their post-war success in the playoffs. I read before that their coach, Hap Day, coached them to play a very clutch and grab defensive style of play.

I don't know. There are definitely articles out there criticizing the poor defensive support the Bruins gave Brimsek after the war; maybe it is because of the rule changes.

I think still you guys are putting too much emphasis on the rule changes and not enough on World War 2 gutting some teams more than others, though.

What I'm not convinced about is that there were major changes in the ways goaltenders played and that those who had success before 1944 should be discounted for some reason, especially when the same guys who had success before the Rule Changes also had success afterwards (other than Durnan, obviously, as he didn't get started until the season after the rule changes).

 

[Sanf]

About Bill Durnan.

There is actually quite long and spesific interview of Bill Durnan about his technnique in 1967-1968 Finnish hockeybook. Interview is actually from 1950. It sound strange but the reason is most likely that Aarne Honkavaara (man behind the hockey books) who was training with Sarnia Sailors (IHL) in 1950 gathered educational material in same trip. I haven´t found mention about the original source and I understand that this may sound weird so everyone can take it or leave it.

(IMO) Interview paints a picture of very cautious goalie who is obsessed about his rebound control (of course we don´t always do as we teach ) . When he is asked about his ambidextrous play he says that most goalies sees stick as tool to shoot and he sees it firstly as tool to deflect the puck to corners and it was useful that he could do it from both sides. If he had to shoot with it he changed the stick to his better side if he had time (He was right handed). He actually mentions three times in the interview that its better to get the puck to corners than to make a (long or quick) pass.

He talks lot about rebounds. Wearing glove in both hand made lesser rebounds. Weared only very very light chest protector because it made his movement easier and always tried to catch the puck with his hands. Dropping the puck with chest caused rebounds. Using stick as a tool to stop puck was very questionable because of rebounds and so on.

If some other Finnish have time or skill (I don´t have neither) to translate the interview back to english the pdf is on Finnish hockey museum site.

edited. corrected wrong book year

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd just like to say about your post, C1958, that the goals per game averages of the league spiked upwards from 1939-1943. And started heading back down as all the talent began to return from the war and adjustments to the red-line were being made. So I don't personally read too much into Brimsek's raw numbers in that sense. I see that Bibeault had better numbers than him when he first got back from the War (which isn't terribly unexpected, Brimsek didn't play in the NHL for a few years)...but I don't know what type of caliber goaltender Bibeault was...was he the Martin Biron of the day? Solid 1B/very good backup that could play a good stretch of games and look fine but wasn't quite 1A starter material?

I'm thinking that Brimsek was an old school goalie, that adjusted quite well to the red-line era despite the team in front of him. However, he wasn't so unbelieveable that he could fully overcome his team's shortcomings and drag them along to Stanley Cups...

Meaning, I don't think the Bruins playoff shortcomings were necessarily a result of Brimsek's poor play. That's just my theory on it.

C1958, near impossible question, but I'll serve it up anyhow. Given the Maple Leafs successful adjustment after the red line, is it fair to say that Brimsek (who you might hold in lower regard than most of us, at least that's what I've interpreted) would have had similar success in Toronto in the late 1940's? A positional goalie (Brimsek) that has the defense capable enough to skate really well for the era and get to rebounds and effectively clear the zone?

It's basically a loaded question, that helps to confirm or deny my theory that Brimsek happened to be on a team that failed...as opposed to being a failure to his team.

Now whether that pushes Brimsek up over Broda and Durnan or down below them or in between them, I do not know.

 

[Michael Farkas]

About Bill Durnan.

There is actually quite long and spesific interview of Bill Durnan about his technnique in 1966-1967 Finnish hockeybook. Interview is actually from 1950. It sound strange but the reason is most likely that Aarne Honkavaara (man behind the hockey books) who was training with Sarnia Sailors (IHL) in 1950 gathered educational material in same trip. I haven´t found mention about the original source and I understand that this may sound weird so everyone can take it or leave it.

(IMO) Interview paints a picture of very cautious goalie who is obsessed about his rebound control (of course we don´t always do as we teach ) . When he is asked about his ambidextrous play he says that most goalies sees stick as tool to shoot and he sees it firstly as tool to deflect the puck to corners and it was useful that he could do it from both sides. If he had to shoot with it he changed the stick to his better side if he had time (He was right handed). He actually mentions three times in the interview that its better to get the puck to corners than to make a (long or quick) pass.

He talks lot about rebounds. Wearing glove in both hand made lesser rebounds. Weared only very very light chest protector because it made his movement easier and always tried to catch the puck with his hands. Dropping the puck with chest caused rebounds. Using stick as a tool to stop puck was very questionable because of rebounds and so on.

If some other Finnish have time or skill (I don´t have neither) to translate the interview back to english the pdf is on Finnish hockey museum site.

Very interesting, thank you Sanf!

This sounds a touch Brodeur-ian to me, but maybe it's more apt to call it Plante-esque. Light equipment for better movement. Careful rebound control. Innovation with careful thought to game play beyond the crease. The directing of the puck into the corners tells me that he probably had a pretty mobile defense, with good retrieval skills and an ability to make good outlet passes and decisions. Slower defensemen would get to the corner and get pinned there, creating 50/50 pucks (which are not odds that you like in your own defensive zone), needless board battles, and probably coax the forwards to have to come deeper into the defensive zone to help...

Very interesting that Durnan would think the game like that, but yet not be so passionate or driven about it to stay with it for longer...right? It was Durnan who was like Dryden in a way, was good at it but ultimately, it wasn't right for him (simplifying)? Or am I confusing him with another?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

This may not be very different from the numbers that go into TCG's expected series/cups but it provides some context for the playoff performances of the WW2 era goalies (or maybe just their team's performance in the playoffs). I've broken each series down based on who was the higher seed and see how each goalie performed when favored or not.

I also noted the H/R splits and included two extra categories. Higher** refers to when the goalie's team was the higher seed, but his team lost the regular season series against the lower seed they were facing. Lower** refers to when a goalie was on a lower seed that won the regular season series against the higher seed they're facing. (These series do appear in the normal higher and lower seed rows too so don't double count them adding up all 3-4 rows)

The final column just notes which teams these two extra categories applied to. It seems notable that the Habs actually dropped the regular season series in '45 against TOR. Durnan seems to have played very well in the finals and it wasn't as lopsided an opponent as the War Years would have you think.

A final note, this doesn't account for Broda's final two playoff series. In the '51 Finals, Al Rollins played 3 of the 5 games and recorded three wins. '52 Broda and Rollins each played two of the four games they were swept in. As I couldn't figure out exactly what games in the '51 finals or '52 semis I was forced to leave them off the table. Rollins actually started the first game of the '51 semis before getting hurt so it seems interesting they'd go back to him after Broda took them to the finals.

Brimsek

|Series|Record|Home|Away|
Higher|7-3|29-20|18-9|11-11
Lower|0-4|3-16|3-5|0-11
Higher**|0-2|3-8|3-2|0-6|'40 NYR, '49 TOR

Broda

|Series|Record|Home|Away|
Higher|9-2|29-12-1|16-6-1|13-6
Lower|5-5|30-25|16-11|14-14
Higher**|2-1|4-2|2-1|2-1|'37 NYR, '39 NYA, '40 CHI
Lower**|1-0|4-2|3-0|1-2|'42 NYR

Durnan

|Series|Record|Home|Away|
Higher| 5-3|24-14|15-5|9-9
Lower|0-1|3-4|2-1|1-3
Higher**|0-1|2-4|1-2|1-2|'45 TOR

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

About Bill Durnan.

There is actually quite long and spesific interview of Bill Durnan about his technnique in 1967-1968 Finnish hockeybook. Interview is actually from 1950. It sound strange but the reason is most likely that Aarne Honkavaara (man behind the hockey books) who was training with Sarnia Sailors (IHL) in 1950 gathered educational material in same trip. I haven´t found mention about the original source and I understand that this may sound weird so everyone can take it or leave it.

(IMO) Interview paints a picture of very cautious goalie who is obsessed about his rebound control (of course we don´t always do as we teach ) . When he is asked about his ambidextrous play he says that most goalies sees stick as tool to shoot and he sees it firstly as tool to deflect the puck to corners and it was useful that he could do it from both sides. If he had to shoot with it he changed the stick to his better side if he had time (He was right handed). He actually mentions three times in the interview that its better to get the puck to corners than to make a (long or quick) pass.

He talks lot about rebounds. Wearing glove in both hand made lesser rebounds. Weared only very very light chest protector because it made his movement easier and always tried to catch the puck with his hands. Dropping the puck with chest caused rebounds. Using stick as a tool to stop puck was very questionable because of rebounds and so on.

If some other Finnish have time or skill (I don´t have neither) to translate the interview back to english the pdf is on Finnish hockey museum site.

edited. corrected wrong book year

Thanks for providing this! Durnan had something of a reputation of a worrywart and his early retirement seems to be because of anxiety, so this doesn't surprise me.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Trends

I'd just like to say about your post, C1958, that the goals per game averages of the league spiked upwards from 1939-1943. And started heading back down as all the talent began to return from the war and adjustments to the red-line were being made. So I don't personally read too much into Brimsek's raw numbers in that sense. I see that Bibeault had better numbers than him when he first got back from the War (which isn't terribly unexpected, Brimsek didn't play in the NHL for a few years)...but I don't know what type of caliber goaltender Bibeault was...was he the Martin Biron of the day? Solid 1B/very good backup that could play a good stretch of games and look fine but wasn't quite 1A starter material?

I'm thinking that Brimsek was an old school goalie, that adjusted quite well to the red-line era despite the team in front of him. However, he wasn't so unbelieveable that he could fully overcome his team's shortcomings and drag them along to Stanley Cups...

Meaning, I don't think the Bruins playoff shortcomings were necessarily a result of Brimsek's poor play. That's just my theory on it.

C1958, near impossible question, but I'll serve it up anyhow. Given the Maple Leafs successful adjustment after the red line, is it fair to say that Brimsek (who you might hold in lower regard than most of us, at least that's what I've interpreted) would have had similar success in Toronto in the late 1940's? A positional goalie (Brimsek) that has the defense capable enough to skate really well for the era and get to rebounds and effectively clear the zone?

It's basically a loaded question, that helps to confirm or deny my theory that Brimsek happened to be on a team that failed...as opposed to being a failure to his team.

Now whether that pushes Brimsek up over Broda and Durnan or down below them or in between them, I do not know.

Point is that Broda's and Durnan's GAA did not simply follow the league trend, they went down indicating a difference maker capacity. Brimsek's GAA followed the league trends.

Paul Bibeault was one of the NHL/high minor league straddlers.With Toronto in 1943-44 was a 2nd team AST behind Durnan. Replaced Durnan - injured, for 10 games with the Canadiens:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bibeapa01.html

Your Broda replaced by Brimsek question is interesting. Let's extend it all around. Pre Red Line, switch Brimsek for Broda, Leafs/Boston trade and I see a wash in the final results - regular season and playoffs. Post Red Line. Broda / Durnan would be a wash. Brimsek / Durnan, Canadiens would not do as well. Bruins would do better. Durnan / Broda, would be a wash though the Leafs would have better regular season results. Brimsek / Broda, Leafs would likely win 3 straight SCs but would have more losses in the finals, upwards of 6 as opposed to 2. Bruins would be about the same during the regular season, maybe extending a series a game or two.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Point is that Broda's and Durnan's GAA did not simply follow the league trend, they went down indicating a difference maker capacity. Brimsek's GAA followed the league trends.

Perhaps because the Bruins were gutted the most of all of all the NHL teams by World War 2, while Montreal was the least affected and Toronto the second least affected.

Montreal/Toronto split the two Cups that occured when most of the best players were in the military.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

If someone highly values peak, then there is an argument that Charlie Gardiner is the best goalie this round. For 4 seasons, he was basically the undisputed best goalie in the world, something nobody left can really say. And he did it against fairly strong competition (Roy Worters, George Hainsworth, Alec Connell, John Ross Roach, Lorne Chabot). Gardiner also had 3 more seasons before the official All Star teams and it seems he was among the best in the league (though definitely not #1 - that was Worters or Hainsworth) for 2 of them.

On my original list, I ranked Brimsek over Gardiner, because he had better longevity as an elite player and because I really do think there is something to the idea that goaltending slowly improves over time.

I had Vezina over Gardiner because of a massive advantage of longevity of an elite player. Throughout the 30s, there also seems to be a fairly widespread opinion that Vezina has been the best of all time, and I'm not sure how much of that was because his name was on an award, as a lot of the people praising Vezina had competed against him as players. Of course, Gardiner also had his supporters for best ever, but his longevity as an elite player is just so much lower than Vezina's.

I did have Gardiner over Benedict, because apparently I'm one of the few ones here who thinks that Clint Benedict's personal greatness has not been as well established as a lot of the other candidates. What makes Benedict better than Turk Broda, for example?

Gardiner vs Durnan is an interesting comparison - both played for exactly 7 years and both had very high peaks. But I prefer Gardiner - even putting aside the connection between 1st Team and GAA, 3 of Durnan's 6 1st Teams were basically by default. Most importantly, the circumstances for why they only played 7 years was vastly different - Gardiner was getting increasingly sick as the playoffs went on, forced himself to keep playing due to his obsession with the Stanley Cup, was arguably the biggest factor in winning the Stanley Cup, then died shortly after winning. Durnan pulled himself and retired in the middle of the playoffs because he didn't think he had it in him anymore.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Perhaps because the Bruins were gutted the most of all of all the NHL teams by World War 2, while Montreal was the least affected and Toronto the second least affected.

Montreal/Toronto split the two Cups that occured when most of the best players were in the military.

Has anyone done a study yet of the effect of players leaving for WWII had on the O6 teams?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goalie Technique

About Bill Durnan.

There is actually quite long and spesific interview of Bill Durnan about his technnique in 1967-1968 Finnish hockeybook. Interview is actually from 1950. It sound strange but the reason is most likely that Aarne Honkavaara (man behind the hockey books) who was training with Sarnia Sailors (IHL) in 1950 gathered educational material in same trip. I haven´t found mention about the original source and I understand that this may sound weird so everyone can take it or leave it.

(IMO) Interview paints a picture of very cautious goalie who is obsessed about his rebound control (of course we don´t always do as we teach ) . When he is asked about his ambidextrous play he says that most goalies sees stick as tool to shoot and he sees it firstly as tool to deflect the puck to corners and it was useful that he could do it from both sides. If he had to shoot with it he changed the stick to his better side if he had time (He was right handed). He actually mentions three times in the interview that its better to get the puck to corners than to make a (long or quick) pass.

He talks lot about rebounds. Wearing glove in both hand made lesser rebounds. Weared only very very light chest protector because it made his movement easier and always tried to catch the puck with his hands. Dropping the puck with chest caused rebounds. Using stick as a tool to stop puck was very questionable because of rebounds and so on.

If some other Finnish have time or skill (I don´t have neither) to translate the interview back to english the pdf is on Finnish hockey museum site.

edited. corrected wrong book year

Excellent contribution. Describes the some of the basic techniques very well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1946-49

Perhaps because the Bruins were gutted the most of all of all the NHL teams by World War 2, while Montreal was the least affected and Toronto the second least affected.

Montreal/Toronto split the two Cups that occured when most of the best players were in the military.[/QUOTE]

Yet they also won the SC the four season after WWII - Montreal in 1946, Toronto in 1947 to 1949. Plus Toronto won in 1942 and 1951 while Detroit won in 1943 and 1950. Rather clear indication that with or without WWII the Bruins with Brimsek were not going to make it happen between 1942 and 1951.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Point is that Broda's and Durnan's GAA did not simply follow the league trend, they went down indicating a difference maker capacity. Brimsek's GAA followed the league trends.

Paul Bibeault was one of the NHL/high minor league straddlers.With Toronto in 1943-44 was a 2nd team AST behind Durnan. Replaced Durnan - injured, for 10 games with the Canadiens:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bibeapa01.html

Your Broda replaced by Brimsek question is interesting. Let's extend it all around. Pre Red Line, switch Brimsek for Broda, Leafs/Boston trade and I see a wash in the final results - regular season and playoffs. Post Red Line. Broda / Durnan would be a wash. Brimsek / Durnan, Canadiens would not do as well. Bruins would do better. Durnan / Broda, would be a wash though the Leafs would have better regular season results. Brimsek / Broda, Leafs would likely win 3 straight SCs but would have more losses in the finals, upwards of 6 as opposed to 2. Bruins would be about the same during the regular season, maybe extending a series a game or two.

Based on your last paragraph, it sounds like...and this is my big conclusion: they were all pretty close...we're really making a ton of progress here

Well, like any constipated mathematician, I'll try to work it out with a pencil...

I think we'll find (well, maybe just you C1958, not everyone is especially entertained by our pre/post red-line banter) that Brimsek is more in line with his peers at home (where his sluggish defense could better protect him) as opposed to on the road, in sum. For gander taking: (sorry, I just don't know how to make pretty tables)

1946-47 through 1948-49 regular season

Brimsek:
Home: 45-23-17 - 2.49 GAA

Broda:
Home: 54-19-17 - 2.41 GAA

Durnan:
Home: 51-27-12 - 2.11 GAA

Then the friendly confines are vacated...

Brimsek:
Road: 30-44-15 - 3.12 GAA

Broda:
Road: 31-40-19 - 2.88 GAA

Durnan:
Road: 31-41-17 - 2.71 GAA

Durnan and the Habs were freakishly good at home, so that skews it a tiny bit. Given the information that we have though, I don't think that Brimsek just plumb forgot how to play on the road...there are other factors involved. To what degree they matter is a matter for the courts.

EDIT:

Of note, of varying significance.

1947 Broda @ Boston: 0-4-2
1948 Broda @ Boston: 1-3-2
1949 Broda @ Boston: 3-3-0
---
1947-49 Broda @ Boston: 4-10-4

1947 Durnan @ Boston: 5-0-1
1948 Durnan @ Boston: 1-3-2*
1949 Durnan @ Boston: 3-3-0
---
1947-49 Durnan @ Boston: 9-6-3

* - McNeil actually played Boston to a 2-2 tie in his only start of the season in Beantown (included as Durnan for illustration)

I'm not sure exactly what that means, if anything, but I was curious to see what it looked like anyhow...