Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Dennis Bonvie]

in ATD, i calculated bower's SA on road and at home for a few seasons. i was planning to calculate all of them, but i did not want to take the time.

TML tended to have a much better record at home than on road, and allowed a lot more SA on road.

TML shots against per game
'59 at home: 28.97
'59 on road: 33.83

'60 at home: 29.48
'60 on road: 35.89

'61 at home: 29.22
'61 on road: 34.80

'62 at home: 29.06
'62 on road: 33.62

'63 at home: 27.51
'63 on road: 29.31

TML outshot opponents at home, but were outshot on road (sometimes by fairly large margins) in all of those seasons except '63. '63 was the only season TML had the best record, but their record was actually better in '61 and '62 than in '63.

Jeez, Maple Leaf Gardens must have been the Continental Airlines Arena/Prudential Center of the early 1960s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Johnny Bower and the Leafs Defensively

In the 2010-11 season Tim Thomas won the Vezina with the best GAA and SP on a team that was considered defensively oriented. Claude Julien is without question a defense first coach. Boston gave up 32.7 shots per game. Only Carolina gave up more.

From what I recall, Bower had a bad catching hand. He stopped pucks with it but rarely caught them. Perhaps rebound control ( much like Tim Thomas) played into the higher shot totals. Or perhaps the defensive systems of both teams allowed the shots from the perimiters and cleaned up the dangerous slot area.

The core Leaf defense during Johnny Bower's tenure featured two RHS - Horton and Baun and two LHS Stanley and Brewer. They had the size/toughness to play against the big forwards of the era - Howe and Beliveau and the quickness and savy to exploit the handedness advantage to reduce passing and shooting angles while clearing the zone quickly.

Johnny Bower's major strength was the use of his stick, best pokecheck I ever saw from a goalie. Excellent at directing shots to the corners, clearing rebounds, intercepting centering passes and getting the puck up ice.Lacked the mobility of Plante so he was not as aggressive countering the dump and chase.

Bower had excellent communications with his defensemen. He would quick catch/drop the puck so that his defensemen could clear it - avoiding unnecessary faceoffs in the defensive zone.

 

[reckoning]

Considering the high save percentages of Bower, Plante and Palmateer from the mid-60s to late-70s, I would've assumed that if there was a shot-counting bias at MLG, that it would be one that was more liberal in counting shots than other arenas. The home/road splits posted so far are the opposite of what I expected.

The idea that a team could be giving up high shot totals, but few quality chances, is valid. (The Islanders dynasty is another example of a renowned defensive team giving up more shots than you'd expect). I guess it's a good reason why save percentages alone don't tell the whole story.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Vezina and Benedict 2 - Legacies

I'm focusing on opinions of people through the early 1950s - what people who saw them play thought about them after their careers.

The belief that Vezina was the best of his era seems fairly widespread

When you talk about goaltenders, you have to start with Georges Vezina. By an almost unanimous vote of hockey people, he was the greatest the game has ever had. I remember him fairly well.

In 1918 when I broke into the National League with Toronto, Vezina was with Les Canadians. He was near the end of his career, but was still a marvel in the nets, as I found out the first time I skated in on him.

I thought I had him beat, I thought I had a cinch goal, but he had figured exactly what I was going to do, and brushed aside the shot, as easily as you'd strike a match.

Vezina was a big fellow... I'd say he was about five feet 11 inches tall, without his skates on and he looked even taller in uniform because he always wore a red and blue toque. He had big hands and he used an exceptionally long stick.
...
He played a stand-up game, sliding from post to post, making save that seemed impossible by outguessing the puck carriers.

That was his strong point. Like all great goalers, he studied the styles of every forward in the league. He could sense what one of them would do under a given set of circumstances and was usually prepared. He guess wrong sometimes, of course, but not often.
...
I played against Vezina for three or four years. Many times he broke my heart by turning back what looked like a certain score. He was a real master. He had perfect co-ordination and an uncanny instinct.

Jack Adams then went on to say that due to changes in the nature of the position, Vezina might not actually be any more effective than the best recent goalies (Charlie Gardiner, John Ross Roach, and Tiny Thompson were named). Marty Barry was present for the interview and this is his reaction:

Adams was now striking at one of the legends of hockey. Marty Barry, sitting on a rubber table next to the Honey Walker, was startled. Never before had he heard anyone question Vezina's superiority. He was too surprised to interrupt and Adams went on (about the changes in the game making a goalie's job harder since Vezina's time)
...
"I see what you mean," said Barry, only half convinced.

The Sunday Sun, Feb 1, 1936

I think it's clear that rightly or wrongly by 1936 - 10 years after Vezina's death - "conventional wisdom" considered him the best goalie of the era - better than Clint Benedict, Hugh Lehman, or Hap Holmes.

Later, in 1953:

Jack Adams said he thought that the only old-timer who might measure up to the to the modern goalers was the immortal Georges Vezina himself.
...
But Vezina played in the days of parallel passing and kitty-bar-the-door when a lot of shots were fired from far out. We doubt if he would be as successful today unless he changed his style. But we think that Vezina, Clint Benedict, George Haimsworth, Roy Worters, and other great goalers of the past would be about to adapt to the changing conditions. They were only as good as they had to be.

Montreal Gazette, Mar 9, 1953

There are some who would picked Benedict, however

The boys were talking about goaltending greats in the aftergame discussion at Cornell last night and Jim McCafffrey was firm in his stand that Benedict was tops.... JP is willing to settle for Frank Brimsek among the present-day puck stoppers and calls Jack Crawford the best defenseman of all...

Ottawa Cititzen, March 10, 1943

In 1948, Kenny McKenize, hockey journalist and co-founder of The Hockey News called Benedict the greatest goaltender of all-time. He recalled a save Benedict made on Duke Keats that made Keats "so mad that he couldn't speak for 2 hours after the game."

Vancouver Sun, Oct 13, 1948

Did Benedict's Innovative Style Cause him to be Underrated by many who watched him play?

Nobody was a more accomplished faker than Clint Benedict. When Benedict needed to drop to ice level to make a save, he simply improvised a fall and then would innocently tell the official, "Sorry, I slipped." Fans of opposing teams rightfully grew disgusted with the prostrate Benedict and his attempts to circumvent the rules. "Bring your bed, Benny." was commonly heard in arenas wherever he played.

The Record, Kitchener-Ont, Oct 12, 1995

Hard numbers tell only so much of his story, however. Where Vézina played a conventional stand-up style that left his pads dry at game's end, Benedict was the Dominik Hasek of his time, flopping in his crease like a fish out of water.
Every modern-day goaltender owes a little of their butterfly or pad-stacking technique to Benedict, whose dropping to the ice bullied the new-born NHL to introduce a rule in 1918 allowing a goaler to leave his skates.
Indeed, he had been nicknamed "Praying Benny" by sarcastic Toronto fans for his habit of falling to his knees, allegedly to thank the Lord during a scramble or after a save.
"If you did it a little bit sneaky and made it look accidental,you could fall on the puck without being penalized," Benedict said in 1964.

Montreal Gazette, June 2, 2008

It was only remembered by a few hard-case hockey fans that Benedict, who died in a hospital at the age of 82, helped to literally change the face of modern hockey.

Despite all the credit given to Jacques Plante of the Montreal Canadiens for bringing the face mask to hockey goaltending in the 1960s, it was in fact Benedict who wore the first mask seen in the National Hockey League - in 1922.

He was also among the goalies who eventually forced NHL governors to allow them to drop to the ice to stop a shot - then forbidden by the rules.

"You had to be sneaky," Benedict once recalled. "You'd make a move, fake losing your balance or footing and put the officials on the spot - did I fall or did I intentionally go down?"

"It was fun because you were playing games with the officials."

The mask was more shortlived... "I wore it the next game and we lost. I blamed the mask and threw it away."

The Leader Post, Nov 22, 1976

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

if anyone was unexpectedly busy this week because of hurricane-related fallout - and that includes being swamped at work because your other office was shut down - and if you would like to extend this round by a couple of days, send me a PM; otherwise we'll start collecting votes tonight as planned.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My current thinking this round

1. Georges Vezina. I already had him pretty high this round, but bumped him up higher because of a combination of finding out the gravitas behind the 1925 All-Time, All-Star, and being reminded of the fact that his generation probably was a little stronger than Brimsek's. He seems to have been the consensus best goalie in the east in the 1910s and was still very good into the 1920s, winning Cups in 1924 and 1925.

I realize that ranking Vezina this high is a departure from the top 100 lists on this site, but when those were put together, even the most knowledgable posters (and I definitely was not one of them at the time) admitted to knowing very little about pre-consolidation hockey. I know poster Dark Shadows (who I respect a lot) said he was biased against pre-1926 players because it was too hard to rank them when they played in more than one league. Since then, a lot of research has been done into the early years of hockey, largely as a result of the easy access google archives gives us into the reports of the times. Let's use what we've learned since then - Georges Vezina was considered the best goalie in the world for a long time during hockey's first great generation, a generation that largely made the sport what it is in Canada today. He has a very good case as a top 10 all-time goalie.

2. Frank Brimsek. I think he's been talked about to death - my opinion is that he was the standout goalie of his generation. I bumped him down a tiny bit because of questions about the strength of his generation.

3/4. Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner (not sure what order). Basically elite longevity (Benedict) and peak (Charlie Gardiner). Benedict was the other standout goalie in the NHA/NHL during hockey's first great generation. I think the argument that he was basically a slightly better version of Turk Broda is a good one. As for Gardiner, I think he's the only NHL-era goalie left who was the consensus best goalie in the world for a time. Sure, his career was short, but it wasn't short because he was no longer good enough, it was short because he died at the height of his peak.

My 5-10 is a mess right now and I'm open to moving another player into my top 4 based on strong arguments.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess my presumption that where ever Brimsek went (or Broda or Durnan) so went the other two in short order was incorrect at least the way TDMM sees it.

I thought round 1 was fairly straightforward and I felt quite comfortable with my voting. From then on, it's really lacked of a lot of definitive answers I feel...I wasn't a part of the defensemen project, but this is hard as hell...if I may be so coarse...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pre Forward Pass

My current thinking this round

1. Georges Vezina. I already had him pretty high this round, but bumped him up higher because of a combination of finding out the gravitas behind the 1925 All-Time, All-Star, and being reminded of the fact that his generation probably was a little stronger than Brimsek's. He seems to have been the consensus best goalie in the east in the 1910s and was still very good into the 1920s, winning Cups in 1924 and 1925.

I realize that ranking Vezina this high is a departure from the top 100 lists on this site, but when those were put together, even the most knowledgable posters (and I definitely was not one of them at the time) admitted to knowing very little about pre-consolidation hockey. I know poster Dark Shadows (who I respect a lot) said he was biased against pre-1926 players because it was too hard to rank them when they played in more than one league. Since then, a lot of research has been done into the early years of hockey, largely as a result of the easy access google archives gives us into the reports of the times. Let's use what we've learned since then - Georges Vezina was considered the best goalie in the world for a long time during hockey's first great generation, a generation that largely made the sport what it is in Canada today. He has a very good case as a top 10 all-time goalie.

2. Frank Brimsek. I think he's been talked about to death - my opinion is that he was the standout goalie of his generation. I bumped him down a tiny bit because of questions about the strength of his generation.

3/4. Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner (not sure what order). Basically elite longevity (Benedict) and peak (Charlie Gardiner). Benedict was the other standout goalie in the NHA/NHL during hockey's first great generation. I think the argument that he was basically a slightly better version of Turk Broda is a good one. As for Gardiner, I think he's the only NHL-era goalie left who was the consensus best goalie in the world for a time. Sure, his career was short, but it wasn't short because he was no longer good enough, it was short because he died at the height of his peak.

My 5-10 is a mess right now and I'm open to moving another player into my top 4 based on strong arguments.

Vezina/Benedict or Benedict/Vezina, interesting debate but call it what it is pre FORWARD PASS era goaltenders. The game was very different, very defensive for the most part:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

Clint Benedict only played 14 games in the forward pass era. Look at the bump in his GAA compared to his pre forward pass era GAA. Flat Walsh, a 32 year old journeyman, outperformed Benedict:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/walshfl01.html

Also you can see how Charlie Gardiner transitioned between eras:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gardich01.html

Too early for either of the pre forward pass era goalies.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I guess my presumption that where ever Brimsek went (or Broda or Durnan) so went the other two in short order was incorrect at least the way TDMM sees it.

I thought round 1 was fairly straightforward and I felt quite comfortable with my voting. From then on, it's really lacked of a lot of definitive answers I feel...I wasn't a part of the defensemen project, but this is hard as hell...if I may be so coarse...

I wouldn't say your presumption was incorrect, I think you just may not realize how close 5 or 6 spots is when you're talking about an all-time list. I look at it this way...there are 3 generations left where we have guys who were the very best in the world, but there are also some guys who are right behind them. It's just a case of too many guys "deserve" to be close to too many other guys...the "bests" of their generation should be close to each other, but the runner-ups shouldn't be too far behind either.


I agree with the second part of your post. I was part of the defensemen project, and so far I am having a lot more difficulty with this one.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

My current thinking this round

1. Georges Vezina. I already had him pretty high this round, but bumped him up higher because of a combination of finding out the gravitas behind the 1925 All-Time, All-Star, and being reminded of the fact that his generation probably was a little stronger than Brimsek's. He seems to have been the consensus best goalie in the east in the 1910s and was still very good into the 1920s, winning Cups in 1924 and 1925.

I realize that ranking Vezina this high is a departure from the top 100 lists on this site, but when those were put together, even the most knowledgable posters (and I definitely was not one of them at the time) admitted to knowing very little about pre-consolidation hockey. I know poster Dark Shadows (who I respect a lot) said he was biased against pre-1926 players because it was too hard to rank them when they played in more than one league. Since then, a lot of research has been done into the early years of hockey, largely as a result of the easy access google archives gives us into the reports of the times. Let's use what we've learned since then - Georges Vezina was considered the best goalie in the world for a long time during hockey's first great generation, a generation that largely made the sport what it is in Canada today. He has a very good case as a top 10 all-time goalie.

2. Frank Brimsek. I think he's been talked about to death - my opinion is that he was the standout goalie of his generation. I bumped him down a tiny bit because of questions about the strength of his generation.

3/4. Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner (not sure what order). Basically elite longevity (Benedict) and peak (Charlie Gardiner). Benedict was the other standout goalie in the NHA/NHL during hockey's first great generation. I think the argument that he was basically a slightly better version of Turk Broda is a good one. As for Gardiner, I think he's the only NHL-era goalie left who was the consensus best goalie in the world for a time. Sure, his career was short, but it wasn't short because he was no longer good enough, it was short because he died at the height of his peak.

My 5-10 is a mess right now and I'm open to moving another player into my top 4 based on strong arguments.

Right now these are my top 4 also, but I have no idea what the order will be outside of Vezina will be above Benedict...I have a feeling if Charlie Gardiner wouldn't have been so stubborn about seeing a doctor one decision would be a lot easier.


EDIT: I'm also pretty certain that whoever I decide is the #2 of the 1940's generation will be ranked 5th for me

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

My current thinking this round

1. Georges Vezina. I already had him pretty high this round, but bumped him up higher because of a combination of finding out the gravitas behind the 1925 All-Time, All-Star, and being reminded of the fact that his generation probably was a little stronger than Brimsek's. He seems to have been the consensus best goalie in the east in the 1910s and was still very good into the 1920s, winning Cups in 1924 and 1925.

I realize that ranking Vezina this high is a departure from the top 100 lists on this site, but when those were put together, even the most knowledgable posters (and I definitely was not one of them at the time) admitted to knowing very little about pre-consolidation hockey. I know poster Dark Shadows (who I respect a lot) said he was biased against pre-1926 players because it was too hard to rank them when they played in more than one league. Since then, a lot of research has been done into the early years of hockey, largely as a result of the easy access google archives gives us into the reports of the times. Let's use what we've learned since then - Georges Vezina was considered the best goalie in the world for a long time during hockey's first great generation, a generation that largely made the sport what it is in Canada today. He has a very good case as a top 10 all-time goalie.

2. Frank Brimsek. I think he's been talked about to death - my opinion is that he was the standout goalie of his generation. I bumped him down a tiny bit because of questions about the strength of his generation.

3/4. Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner (not sure what order). Basically elite longevity (Benedict) and peak (Charlie Gardiner). Benedict was the other standout goalie in the NHA/NHL during hockey's first great generation. I think the argument that he was basically a slightly better version of Turk Broda is a good one. As for Gardiner, I think he's the only NHL-era goalie left who was the consensus best goalie in the world for a time. Sure, his career was short, but it wasn't short because he was no longer good enough, it was short because he died at the height of his peak.

My 5-10 is a mess right now and I'm open to moving another player into my top 4 based on strong arguments.

FWIW, I like your candidate list, actually. I think you defend your ranking more than adequately, even if I'm not sure about the order.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

My current thinking this round

1. Georges Vezina. I already had him pretty high this round, but bumped him up higher because of a combination of finding out the gravitas behind the 1925 All-Time, All-Star, and being reminded of the fact that his generation probably was a little stronger than Brimsek's. He seems to have been the consensus best goalie in the east in the 1910s and was still very good into the 1920s, winning Cups in 1924 and 1925.

I realize that ranking Vezina this high is a departure from the top 100 lists on this site, but when those were put together, even the most knowledgable posters (and I definitely was not one of them at the time) admitted to knowing very little about pre-consolidation hockey. I know poster Dark Shadows (who I respect a lot) said he was biased against pre-1926 players because it was too hard to rank them when they played in more than one league. Since then, a lot of research has been done into the early years of hockey, largely as a result of the easy access google archives gives us into the reports of the times. Let's use what we've learned since then - Georges Vezina was considered the best goalie in the world for a long time during hockey's first great generation, a generation that largely made the sport what it is in Canada today. He has a very good case as a top 10 all-time goalie.

2. Frank Brimsek. I think he's been talked about to death - my opinion is that he was the standout goalie of his generation. I bumped him down a tiny bit because of questions about the strength of his generation.

3/4. Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner (not sure what order). Basically elite longevity (Benedict) and peak (Charlie Gardiner). Benedict was the other standout goalie in the NHA/NHL during hockey's first great generation. I think the argument that he was basically a slightly better version of Turk Broda is a good one. As for Gardiner, I think he's the only NHL-era goalie left who was the consensus best goalie in the world for a time. Sure, his career was short, but it wasn't short because he was no longer good enough, it was short because he died at the height of his peak.

My 5-10 is a mess right now and I'm open to moving another player into my top 4 based on strong arguments.

I more or less agree.

I originally had Gardiner lower. But information about how he was in the same boat as Worters in the late 20's (Great goalie, bad team.) So his peak was 5-7 years instead of 4 years. Which makes him essentially Durnan with a better playoff record.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I think there were some good arguments made for the 1920s goalies vs. the 1940s generation, which caused me to drop Broda a few spots and move Vezina and Benedict up some. At the moment I have Brimsek, Gardiner, Parent and Vezina (in some order) as my top four this round, with Benedict and Esposito narrowly behind them and still in contention.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I also value how much Esposito dominated his own backups statistically. Parent can't exactly say that (hell, Stephenson gets them to the Cup in '76 just the same). I'm just trying to gauge the feeling of the group and if I'm missing something important here. It seems Parent is above this obvious divide above Esposito...and granted Parent's two years were amazing and Tony O had his playoff struggles to whatever degree...but I keeping looking for "what else" with Parent and every time I check, I think I sour on him a little more.

I don't really think there necessarily should be a very obvious divide between Parent and Esposito, who also has a great regular season record. I think you are raising some legitimate points with comparison to backups, but it is important to point out that the talent level of backup goalies in the NHL during the WHA era was generally pretty low, and therefore quality of backup goalie needs to be taken into account in any performance vs. backup comparison.

Wayne Stephenson was certainly not a career backup. He had three seasons as a starting goalie outside of Philadelphia, all of them with a save percentage right around league average. Stephenson took a while to get to the NHL, but that was mainly because he played for a long time on the Canadian national team. By his second pro season he was the starting goalie on a playoff team. He also played in the NHL until the age of 36, at a time when it was typical for most goalies to retire at a younger age.

In addition to Stephenson, Parent also played with Gerry Cheevers and Eddie Johnston in Boston, then Doug Favell in Philadelphia and Jacques Plante in Toronto. That's a much, much higher level of goalie teammate ability than his '70s rivals Esposito or Dryden, who both saw their most frequent backups pretty much crash and burn as soon as they moved on to play for weaker teams (Mike Veisor: .901 in Chicago, .862 in Hartford/Winnipeg, and Michel Larocque: .894 in Montreal, .855 with TOR/PHI/STL).

If Philadelphia never traded for Stephenson and went with weaker backup goalies, Parent would have dominated his backups by a lot more, as his numbers were much better than those of Bobby Taylor, Gary Inness, Rick St. Croix and the other truly backup-calibre Flyer goalies of the '70s:

Philadelphia Goaltending, 1973-74 to 1978-79:
Parent: 177-60-57, 2.25, .914
Stephenson: 93-35-22, 2.77, .897
All others: 15-13-6, 3.33, .882

I think once you properly account for quality of teammates, Esposito's dominance over his teammates is very good but does not stand out by as much as it seems to at first glance relative to Parent. Esposito did not have much of an edge over two pretty decent goalies in Gerry Desjardins and Denis DeJordy during his first two seasons as a starter (.926 vs. .921). Esposito also didn't have much of an advantage over Murray Bannerman in his late career, although those weren't exactly seasons that add much to his legacy anyway. The argument that Esposito owned his backups is entirely based on 1971-72 to 1977-78, when Tony O had a .913 save percentage while his backups combined for just .887.

Esposito's '71-72 and '72-73 seasons were in fact extremely impressive in this regard since his backup goalie was Gary Smith, a long-time NHLer who was a starter both before and after his stint in Chicago yet managed only .897 in 51 games in Chicago compared to Esposito's .924.

Over the next five seasons, however, Esposito's backups were the aforementioned Veisor, an over-the-hill Gilles Villemure (.854 in 22 GP), and career minor-leaguer Michel Dumas (8 GP). Veisor was so bad in 1974-75 that the team demoted him and replaced him with the 35 year old Villemure, but by the next season it was clear that Villemure was washed up and Chicago ended up having to turn back to Veisor again. Esposito had a .910 compared to his teammates' .879 from 1973-74 to 1977-78, which is a gap that is almost exactly equivalent to Parent's lead over non-Stephenson Flyer teammates up above.

One thing to note in Esposito's favour though is that since he played so many games per season it is very possible his backup goalies faced slightly weaker opposition on average, which may have slightly inflated their numbers relative to other backup goalies.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Vezina/Benedict or Benedict/Vezina, interesting debate but call it what it is pre FORWARD PASS era goaltenders. The game was very different, very defensive for the most part:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

Clint Benedict only played 14 games in the forward pass era. Look at the bump in his GAA compared to his pre forward pass era GAA. Flat Walsh, a 32 year old journeyman, outperformed Benedict:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/walshfl01.html

Also you can see how Charlie Gardiner transitioned between eras:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gardich01.html

Too early for either of the pre forward pass era goalies.

I tend to agree.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Vezina/Benedict or Benedict/Vezina, interesting debate but call it what it is pre FORWARD PASS era goaltenders. The game was very different, very defensive for the most part:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/benedcl01.html

Clint Benedict only played 14 games in the forward pass era. Look at the bump in his GAA compared to his pre forward pass era GAA. Flat Walsh, a 32 year old journeyman, outperformed Benedict:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/walshfl01.html

Also you can see how Charlie Gardiner transitioned between eras:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gardich01.html

Too early for either of the pre forward pass era goalies.

Aren't you punishing them for something that is 100% out of their control?

Isn't that the same as saying Loungo is better than Plante because he has access to new training and equipment?

 

[Killion]

Bower had excellent communications with his defensemen. He would quick catch/drop the puck so that his defensemen could clear it - avoiding unnecessary faceoffs in the defensive zone.

... sure thing C58. He was "vivacious" and "outgoing". Pilsbury Dough Boy, and guess what?. I didnt like him as a Goalie. Poke check?... over-rated. Chadwick and innumerable others superior. He was a mediocre goalie on a defensively strong Leafs team. I "got" Johnnys "poke check" and guess what? Looked a Hell of a lot like Glenn Halls' in practice, execution, and I preferred the Chicago style. More slide than slam.,,, still dont understand how you K-Beckers could figure y'all had the inside track on Goaltending but hey ho.... no doubt youll be around to edify.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not so sure about Vezina and Benedict getting up so high already. I have reservations about their respective dominance. Vezina seems like he was probably the best goalie in the NHA, but to what degree? Also, we're talking about a split league situation there. When he got to the NHL, there seems to be a Bendict/Vezina split in terms of dominance. Then Benedict, the guy who split praise with Vezina in the late teens and early 20's was regarded as lower than Percy Lesueur and on par with Hugh Lehman (another split-league goalie). I'm not sure how comfortable I am with all that to be honest.

I mean, we're talking about top-10 goalies of all-time still...we're comfortable pre-NHL, pre-forward pass era goalies here? I gotta say I'm a little uneasy about that...

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

Aren't you punishing them for something that is 100% out of their control?

Isn't that the same as saying Loungo is better than Plante because he has access to new training and equipment?

No, defining their era. Pre forward pass made their job that much easier. Evidenced by the 1928-29 vs 1929-30 stats of goalies that straddled the two eras. Pre forward pass goalies did not have to face a lot of the strategies that later goalies did. Screens and offensive deflections, defending against lead forwards without the puck, etc.

Rules influence the demands on goalies. Using the Luongo/Plante analogy, Plante is vastly superior because the 2005-06 rule changes showed that Luongo has problems with lateral mobility and east/west movement, something that Plante was excellent at.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Johnny Bower

... sure thing C58. He was "vivacious" and "outgoing". Pilsbury Dough Boy, and guess what?. I didnt like him as a Goalie. Poke check?... over-rated. Chadwick and innumerable others superior. He was a mediocre goalie on a defensively strong Leafs team. I "got" Johnnys "poke check" and guess what? Looked a Hell of a lot like Glenn Halls' in practice, execution, and I preferred the Chicago style. More slide than slam.,,, still dont understand how you K-Beckers could figure y'all had the inside track on Goaltending but hey ho.... no doubt youll be around to edify.

There are reasons why Johnny Bower was an AHL goalie until the age of 34 with the exception of one season. He did not move as well as most of the O6 goalies, bottom third.

Until the Leafs miracle playoff run late in the 1958-59 season the point could be made that Ed Chadwick and Bower were on a par, maybe a slight edge to Chadwick.

Once Stanley and Brewer were added at the start of the 1958-59 season, the Leaf defence was stabilized thru 1964-65 when Brewer left the team, a benefit to any goalie.Bower got hot at the right time and ran with the job.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, defining their era. Pre forward pass made their job that much easier. Evidenced by the 1928-29 vs 1929-30 stats of goalies that straddled the two eras. Pre forward pass goalies did not have to face a lot of the strategies that later goalies did. Screens and offensive deflections, defending against lead forwards without the puck, etc.

Rules influence the demands on goalies. Using the Luongo/Plante analogy, Plante is vastly superior because the 2005-06 rule changes showed that Luongo has problems with lateral mobility and east/west movement, something that Plante was excellent at.

I really don't see the forward pass as much of an issue because basically, the same goalies were dominant both before and after the forward pass was allowed.

Late 1920s (before the forward pass): Worters was the best, followed by Hainsworth, Connell, Benedict, and Thompson in some order. Gardiner was starting to really get noticed.

Early 1930s (after the forward pass): Gardiner was the best, followed by Hainsworth, Worters, Thompson, and Connell in some order.

John Ross Roach had great years both before and after the forward pass.

 

[Killion]

John Ross Roach had great years both before and after the forward pass.

From what I was told whilst being coached as a kid, JRR a fore-runner to Plante, better with his stick than most forwards. A "real" player with vision. Those who told me well worth believing. Yep. John Ross Roach.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Charlie Gardiner

I really don't see the forward pass as much of an issue because basically, the same goalies were dominant both before and after the forward pass was allowed.

Late 1920s (before the forward pass): Worters was the best, followed by Hainsworth, Connell, Benedict, and Thompson in some order. Gardiner was starting to really get noticed.

Early 1930s (after the forward pass): Gardiner was the best, followed by Hainsworth, Worters, Thompson, and Connell in some order.

John Ross Roach had great years both before and after the forward pass.

Why was Charlie Gardiner suddenly the best? Mobility, which is why he was compared to the likes of Bill Durnan and later goalies.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

No, defining their era. Pre forward pass made their job that much easier. Evidenced by the 1928-29 vs 1929-30 stats of goalies that straddled the two eras. Pre forward pass goalies did not have to face a lot of the strategies that later goalies did. Screens and offensive deflections, defending against lead forwards without the puck, etc.

That's a false comparison. Defensive tactics in the 1910's were very different than the late 20's. It was a lot harder for goaltenders in that era. In Vezina's case, he never really played in the dead puck era. No matter how you slice it, you are punishing them for things that were completely out of their control and have nothing to do with their performance.

Why was Charlie Gardiner suddenly the best? Mobility, which is why he was compared to the likes of Bill Durnan and later goalies.

Because he turned 25 that season. He was a rising start who ascended to the top of the pile the year after the rule change. That's why he is viewed as better than Worters and Hainsworth. Gardiner didn't become better because of rule changes, he became better because he was a superior player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why?

That's a false comparison. Defensive tactics in the 1910's were very different than the late 20's. It was a lot harder for goaltenders in that era. In Vezina's case, he never really played in the dead puck era. No matter how you slice it, you are punishing them for things that were completely out of their control and have nothing to do with their performance.



Because he turned 25 that season. He was a rising start who ascended to the top of the pile the year after the rule change. That's why he is viewed as better than Worters and Hainsworth. Gardiner didn't become better because of rule changes, he became better because he was a superior player.

Defensive tactics are a function of the rules. Vezina adapted fairly well to the flopping that Benedict initiated so they may be viewed as a wash thru their era in this regard.

Why was he superior? What allowed Gardiner to adapt better - mobility, which led Dick Irvin Sr to compare him to post Red Line Goalies.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Defensive tactics are a function of the rules. Vezina adapted fairly well to the flopping that Benedict initiated so they may be viewed as a wash thru their era in this regard.

Defensive tactics are also a function of evolution over time. It is clear that starting around 1924, goals started rapidly declining. Defensive tactics adapted, largely because of Pete Green's systems being adopted by opposing teams. And as we see in the modern era, as defense outweighs offense, it begins to outweigh it intensely because teams become afraid to make mistakes. So by 1929, when the lowest GAA dipped below 1.0, it became clear that changes needed to be made to break down defenses.

But the rule changes had no bearing on which players were the best. Even playmakers were uneffected. (Frank Boucher was the best playmaker in the NHL in the late 20's and early 30's.)

Rule changes change how the game is played, but they have very little effect on who is the best.

Would Vezina and Benedict have had to change how they played to play today? Of course. Same as Sawchuk or Durnan. But arbitrarily picking rule changes to punish players for the happenstance of being born before them is just as absurd as saying that Turk Broda would not be able to play well with larger and lighter pads.

Why was he superior? What allowed Gardiner to adapt better - mobility, which led Dick Irvin Sr to compare him to post Red Line Goalies.

He didn't adapt better. He was better. He would have been better without the rule changes too. It's simply a case of a young goalie achieving his potential. Rule changes have no bearing.