Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Canadiens1958]

Tim Thomas

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.



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.

I see.

Then explain why 2005-06 Tim Thomas is suddenly an NHL quality goalie after years of failure. Rule changes that put a premium on lateral movement of goaltenders had nothing to do with it?

So rule changes had no bearing on Cooney Weiland leading the NHL in goals and scoring during the 1929-30 season? Weiland never matched this performance before or after.

None of the claims you are alleging have been made. Point is that you are using a sweeping generalty "better" to ignore rule changes. Answer why certain skaters or goalies were better especially after a major rule change. Why did this "better" arbitrarily choose Charlie Gardiner and not Tiny Thompson who was less than two years older?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just checked the Hart voting and in 1929-30 (the final season before the official All Star Teams), Charlie Gardiner led all goalies in Hart voting. Seems like there is good chance that he would have been a 1st Team All Star that season, which would give him 4 1st Teams, and 1 2nd Team.

1929-30
HART: (616)
1. Nels Stewart, Mtl M C 101
2. Lionel Hitchman, Bos D 94
3. Cooney Weiland, Bos C 79
4. King Clancy, Tor D 77
5. Frank Boucher, NYR C 75
6. Normie Himes, NYA C 70
T7. Howie Morenz, Mtl C 60
T7. Charlie Gardiner, Chi G 60

In 1928-29, we know Roy Worters won the Hart and was voted an unofficial 1st Teamer by the GMs. No idea where Gardiner ranked in the scheme of things.

in 1927-28, Gardiner's rookie season, GMs voted for unofficial All-Star teams and we have the full records. Gardiner did not place:

Goal: Roy Worters, Pit (7-1), George Hainsworth, Mon (1-4), Alec Connell, Ott (1-3), John Ross Roach, Tor (1-1)

 

[Michael Farkas]

I doubt Gardiner would have featured too prominently, right? He finished with the most losses, most goals against, highest goals against average, least shutouts* and least wins.

*- Flat Walsh had 4 shutouts in 11 games played on two teams as a replacement; Gardiner had 5 in 44 games. Imagine that, a 1.85 GAA to finish dead last in the league...

I'm still a little uneasy about some of these names yet...gotta spend these last 24 hours here to do some more poking and/or prodding...I also feel like Tony Esposito and Ed Belfour are being unsold...but I could be out to lunch...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I see.

Then explain why 2005-06 Tim Thomas is suddenly an NHL quality goalie after years of failure. Rule changes that put a premium on lateral movement of goaltenders had nothing to do with it?

So rule changes had no bearing on Cooney Weiland leading the NHL in goals and scoring during the 1929-30 season? Weiland never matched this performance before or after.

None of the claims you are alleging have been made. Point is that you are using a sweeping generalty "better" to ignore rule changes. Answer why certain skaters or goalies were better especially after a major rule change. Why did this "better" arbitrarily choose Charlie Gardiner and not Tiny Thompson who was less than two years older?

1. Why was Tim Thomas' lateral mobility not an asset before? Why did Johnny Bower finally crack an NHL roster at 34 and not earlier?
Why was there essentially no change in every other elite goalie between 2003/04 and 2005/06? Because sometimes player development cycles don't follow a linear path.

You are bringing up an outlier and acting like he provides definition. If the rule changes in 2005 made a significant difference, why was there not a significant change in every goalies performance? Why didn't Brodeur, Kiprusoff and Luongo struggle?

2. If the rule changes benefited Weiland, why didn't it benefit him after? Weiland's season has a lot more in common with Dennis Maruk's 1981-82 season than anything else. Again, you bring up a random outlier like it proves some kind of point. It doesn't. All it does is demonstrate that you have absolutely no argument.

3. Because Charlie Gardiner is better than Tiny Thompson. There is no arbitrary involved. Some players are simply better than others. You may as well attribute Wayne Gretzky put up over 200 points, but Dale Hawerchuk not to some reason other than Gretzky was better.

You have it set in your head that rule changes are defining benchmarks that change everything. (I assume this because you have a background in coach, and rule changes do make a lot of work for coaches.) But reality clearly demonstrates that the creme of the crop is the creme of the crop and it rises irregardless of rule changes. And you should let reality determine how you vote, not preconceptions.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I doubt Gardiner would have featured too prominently, right? He finished with the most losses, most goals against, highest goals against average, least shutouts* and least wins.

*- Flat Walsh had 4 shutouts in 11 games played on two teams as a replacement; Gardiner had 5 in 44 games. Imagine that, a 1.85 GAA to finish dead last in the league...

I'm still a little uneasy about some of these names yet...gotta spend these last 24 hours here to do some more poking and/or prodding...I also feel like Tony Esposito and Ed Belfour are being unsold...but I could be out to lunch...

Right now, there is no way to tell who would have been the 2nd Team All Star in 1928-29* (that was Hainsworth's record-breaking season after all), but Gardiner definitely received some serious press that season:

*There actually was a GM-voted team in 1928-29 and Worters was the 1st Teamer, but we don't have records of the rest of the voting.

It would be perhaps be advisable in the first place to point out that such a choice is after all merely the opinion of one man."
...
Goal: Roy Worters, backed up by Charlie Gardiner

About Worters: "he makes the hardest chances look easy"
About Gardiner: "with the team he has in front of him, we have every reason to suspect that Gardiner has very little time to collect his wits."

-The Morning Leader, Jan 26, 1929
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&pg=1583,2668747&dq=worters+gardiner&hl=en

But Gardiner played a great game, the sort of display local fans are beginning to expect from this sensational youngster, who seems to combine the best tricks of the late Houdini in keeping a storm of rubber out of his net. Gardiner gave another demonstration of black magic last night, and the only "curtains" he used were a puck, a goaler's stick and a keen eye and brain...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

So rule changes had no bearing on Cooney Weiland leading the NHL in goals and scoring during the 1929-30 season? Weiland never matched this performance before or after.

So are we attributing that "blip" to rule changes, and not the fact that they had a 13 point Pittsburgh Pirates team in the division? I think they scored at almost a 2 goal clip higher against Pittsburgh that year than the rest of their opponents, for example. Dit Clapper also scored way, way more than any season before or after. Gainor, etc, etc.

Now, did it impact Boston more than anyone else, or something? Doesn't seem to. Next highest scoring team in the division was the Rangers, and lo-and-behold, there's Boucher with a number that sticks out. Both Cook brothers also set career highs. Keeling established his career high, Murdoch's wasn't a high, but sticks out like a sore thumb beside other consecutive seasons, etc.

Lets look at the highest scoring teams in the other division, shall we? Start with the Habs. Morenz? Not a career high in '29/30. Lepine? Yes. Joliat? No. Larochelle? No. Mantha? Yes. Not as strong a correlation. How about the next highest scoring team, the Maroons? Stewart had a career high at age 27. It wasn't Siebert's career year. Nor Smith's. Nor Trottier. Was for Phillips. Again, not as strong of a correlation.

It looks to me like the rule change affected league scoring, but Nalyd seems to be closer to the truth when he suggests that the rule change didn't affect who was "the best", just how they had to play. Since one of the aberrations you point to has a plausible enough alternate explanation (imo), I have to suppose the others do, too.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Weaknesses

1. Why was Tim Thomas' lateral mobility not an asset before? Why did Johnny Bower finally crack an NHL roster at 34 and not earlier?
Why was there essentially no change in every other elite goalie between 2003/04 and 2005/06? Because sometimes player development cycles don't follow a linear path.

You are bringing up an outlier and acting like he provides definition. If the rule changes in 2005 made a significant difference, why was there not a significant change in every goalies performance? Why didn't Brodeur, Kiprusoff and Luongo struggle?

2. If the rule changes benefited Weiland, why didn't it benefit him after? Weiland's season has a lot more in common with Dennis Maruk's 1981-82 season than anything else. Again, you bring up a random outlier like it proves some kind of point. It doesn't. All it does is demonstrate that you have absolutely no argument.

3. Because Charlie Gardiner is better than Tiny Thompson. There is no arbitrary involved. Some players are simply better than others. You may as well attribute Wayne Gretzky put up over 200 points, but Dale Hawerchuk not to some reason other than Gretzky was better.

You have it set in your head that rule changes are defining benchmarks that change everything. (I assume this because you have a background in coach, and rule changes do make a lot of work for coaches.) But reality clearly demonstrates that the creme of the crop is the creme of the crop and it rises irregardless of rule changes. And you should let reality determine how you vote, not preconceptions.

1.) Dead puck era favoured the north/side goalies, Very few teams had east/west elements in their offence. Actually Roberto Luongo had his weakest season since his rookie season - SV% and GAA dropped to their lowest level:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/luongro01.html

Kiprusoff likewise saw his GAA rise despite sustaining his SV% for one season, then dropped below .910 :

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kiprumi01.html

Brodeur took a season to adapt to the trapezoid rule, anti Brodeur rule, then bounced back:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/brodema01.html

All were impacted by the rule changes.

Touched on Johnny Bower in my response to Killion upthread.

2.) Cooney Weiland benefitted from the 1929-30 rules that initially allowed the offside and goal-hanging. The offside rule introduced at the 1/4 mark of the season and defensive adaptations to goal-hanging took away his edge. Rule changes giveth and taketh.

3.) Why is Charlie Gardiner better than Tiny Thompson? Absolutes without support do not cut it. Gretzky is better than Hawerchuk because of his superior vision, anticipation, appreciation of the horizontal and vertical game. Just three reasons. Step-up with three for Gardiner over Thompson.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting

Right now, there is no way to tell who would have been the 2nd Team All Star in 1928-29* (that was Hainsworth's record-breaking season after all), but Gardiner definitely received some serious press that season:

*There actually was a GM-voted team in 1928-29 and Worters was the 1st Teamer, but we don't have records of the rest of the voting.



-The Morning Leader, Jan 26, 1929
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...BAJ&pg=1583,2668747&dq=worters+gardiner&hl=en

Interesting article - attributed to The Falcon", a pen name. Newspaper is Regina based. Doubt if the author had a chance to actually tour the league and see the players and goalies play. No TV in those days. How much credit should we give to hearsay reports or newspaper accounts that are not attributed to writers known to actually cover games on a regular basis?

"Players Who Starred in Western Canada" is after all the main headline.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brodeur took a season to adapt to the trapezoid rule, anti Brodeur rule, then bounced back:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/brodema01.html

Brodeur did not play at all during the 2004--05 lockout and came back extremely rusty. His rust showed through the first month or two of the season. After getting back in game shape, he played very well for the rest of the season and ended up finishing 2nd in Vezina voting (which was controversial, but really that season was Kiprusoff then the pack).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Interesting article - attributed to The Falcon", a pen name. Newspaper is Regina based. Doubt if the author had a chance to actually tour the league and see the players and goalies play. No TV in those days. How much credit should we give to hearsay reports or newspaper accounts that are not attributed to writers known to actually cover games on a regular basis?

"Players Who Starred in Western Canada" is after all the main headline.

If "The Falcon" didn't regularly watch those guys, he sure was a good faker.

Agree that it would be better if we knew who he was.

 

[Sanf]

Agree. Too random.

self censorig. Message deleted

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Few days ago I find mentioning that Roach had a tight race with Worters for goaltending honours in 1928-1929. Didn´t find that today but did find this.

Nov 09 1929 Lethbridge Herald

Yeah, I don't think it's at all clear who would have been voted the second best goalie after Roy Worters in 1928-29. But the useful thing to me this round is to know that Gardiner was considered a standout by then.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Source

Yeah, I don't think it's at all clear who would have been voted the second best goalie after Roy Worters in 1928-29. But the useful thing to me this round is to know that Gardiner was considered a standout by then.

Again drifting further away from NHL centers, not attributed to recognized NHL writers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again drifting further away from NHL centers, not attributed to recognized NHL writers.

The Montreal Gazette which wrote that "Gardiner played a great game, the sort of display local fans are beginning to expect from this sensational youngster," was in an NHL center, however.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

[Aurel Joliat] picked an All-Star Team for Mr. Howawrd confined to the players who played against him during his 16 years as a professional. He puts Clint Benedict or Charlie Gardiner in goal; Eddie Shore and Reg Noble on defense; Frank Nighbor at centre, with Bill Cook and Busher Jackson on the wings. It's a well-balanced outfit.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FYItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YpkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7118,2044166

Interesting to see Joliat has a hard time deciding which goalie he'd pick for his all-time team. Remember this ignores his real-life teammates like Vezina and Hainsworth.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Criteria

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FYItAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YpkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=7118,2044166

Interesting to see Joliat has a hard time deciding which goalie he'd pick for his team. Remember this ignores his real teammate Vezina.

Criteria was players that Joliat had played against. Teammates were not eligible for consideration so Hainsworth and Vezina were not part of the consideration.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Criteria was players that Joliat had played against. Teammates were not eligible for consideration so Hainsworth and Vezina were not part of the consideration.

By "his team" I meant Joliat's all-time one, not his Habs sorry for this confusion.

Good call on Hainsworth, I didn't think about him being affected too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By "his team" I meant Joliat's all-time one, not his Habs sorry for this confusion.

Good call on Hainsworth, I didn't think about him being affected too.

Articles like this (and there are several of them) really are key as to why Vezina, Benedict and Gardiner were the standout goalies until Brimsek came along. When players and observers talk about the best goalies they saw or played against, it's very rare to hear them talk about Worters, Hainsworth, or Thompson. It's almost always either Gardiner, Benedict, or Vezina.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1928-29 Gardiner vs Montreal Maroons and Benedict

The Montreal Gazette which wrote that "Gardiner played a great game, the sort of display local fans are beginning to expect from this sensational youngster," was in an NHL center, however.

November 17,1928 vs Maroons and Clint Benedict:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ACMjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MYwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6494,3246419

January 10,1929 vs Maroons and Clint Benedict:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=i3AtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K4wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6630,1674782

January 31, 1929 vs Maroons and Clint Benedict:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ym8tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IowFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6540,125092

From Available accounts, the Hawks were not much of a team, somewhat suspect on defence, few viable forwards but they featured an outstanding goalie in Charlie Gardiner.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Articles like this (and there are several of them) really are key as to why Vezina, Benedict and Gardiner were the standout goalies until Brimsek came along. When players and observers talk about the best goalies they saw or played against, it's very rare to hear them talk about Worters, Hainsworth, or Thompson. It's almost always either Gardiner, Benedict, or Vezina.

I definitely agree, my takeaway from the information presented this round was that I had Gardiner way too low. I think Vezina and Benedict belong together more than the WW2 trio do, and Gardiner definitely seems to have been in Vezina/Benedict's company despite such a short career.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I finally got around to running the home/road splits on the incomplete save percentages numbers I presented for Bill Durnan last round, and wanted to slip it in just in case this is the last chance to discuss Durnan:

1948-49:
Home: 1800 Min, 576 SA, 51 GA, .911 Save %, 19.2 SA/60
Road: 1680 Min, 694 SA, 67 GA, .903 Save %, 24.8 SA/60

1949-50:
Home: 1920 Min, 663 SA, 64 GA, .903 Save %, 20.7 SA/60
Road: 1680 Min, 737 SA, 68 GA, .908 Save %, 26.3 SA/60

The fairly large shot differential (5.6 SA/60 in each season) does suggest the possibility of undercounting or inaccuracy in compiling the results, and therefore perhaps gives reason to be less confident in these numbers, although as some have noted home ice advantage was pretty significant back then. I think it remains unlikely that Durnan was dominant save percentage-wise in those seasons, despite playing on a very strong defensive team, which in addition to his short career, his underwhelming senior league record, and the poor quality of opposition in the war years is why I still have him ranked relatively low in this round.

If we're going to massively adjust Johnny Bower's numbers because of shot quality against (which is probably the correct move), then it would stand to reason that Durnan should have a similar adjustment, and this evidence (limited and incomplete though it may be) does suggest that Durnan probably wasn't even as far ahead of the rest of the pack as Bower was, at least from 1947-48 to 1949-50.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scheduling

I finally got around to running the home/road splits on the incomplete save percentages numbers I presented for Bill Durnan last round, and wanted to slip it in just in case this is the last chance to discuss Durnan:

1948-49:
Home: 1800 Min, 576 SA, 51 GA, .911 Save %, 19.2 SA/60
Road: 1680 Min, 694 SA, 67 GA, .903 Save %, 24.8 SA/60

1949-50:
Home: 1920 Min, 663 SA, 64 GA, .903 Save %, 20.7 SA/60
Road: 1680 Min, 737 SA, 68 GA, .908 Save %, 26.3 SA/60

The fairly large shot differential (5.6 SA/60 in each season) does suggest the possibility of undercounting or inaccuracy in compiling the results, and therefore perhaps gives reason to be less confident in these numbers, although as some have noted home ice advantage was pretty significant back then. I think it remains unlikely that Durnan was dominant save percentage-wise in those seasons, despite playing on a very strong defensive team, which in addition to his short career, his underwhelming senior league record, and the poor quality of opposition in the war years is why I still have him ranked relatively low in this round.

If we're going to massively adjust Johnny Bower's numbers because of shot quality against (which is probably the correct move), then it would stand to reason that Durnan should have a similar adjustment, and this evidence (limited and incomplete though it may be) does suggest that Durnan probably wasn't even as far ahead of the rest of the pack as Bower was, at least from 1947-48 to 1949-50.

Limited and incomplete is a very apt description. The scheduling factor seems to have zipped right by the study and numbers you present.

As posted previously O6 era Canadiens and Leafs played the Sunday game on the road. Toronto did not allow Sunday hockey. Verify the Canadiens 1947-48 schedule below:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

Note the March 3/4/6/7, 1948 sequence in their schedule and the 3 games in 4 nights sequences throughout the season.

The four US teams used to the Sunday dates.

Effectively the SOG splits are to be expected given the scheduling circumstances.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1939-40 Allan Cup

I finally got around to running the home/road splits on the incomplete save percentages numbers I presented for Bill Durnan last round, and wanted to slip it in just in case this is the last chance to discuss Durnan:

1948-49:
Home: 1800 Min, 576 SA, 51 GA, .911 Save %, 19.2 SA/60
Road: 1680 Min, 694 SA, 67 GA, .903 Save %, 24.8 SA/60

1949-50:
Home: 1920 Min, 663 SA, 64 GA, .903 Save %, 20.7 SA/60
Road: 1680 Min, 737 SA, 68 GA, .908 Save %, 26.3 SA/60

The fairly large shot differential (5.6 SA/60 in each season) does suggest the possibility of undercounting or inaccuracy in compiling the results, and therefore perhaps gives reason to be less confident in these numbers, although as some have noted home ice advantage was pretty significant back then. I think it remains unlikely that Durnan was dominant save percentage-wise in those seasons, despite playing on a very strong defensive team, which in addition to his short career, Bunderwhelming senior league record, and the poor quality of opposition in the war years is why I still have him ranked relatively low in this round.

If we're going to massively adjust Johnny Bower's numbers because of shot quality against (which is probably the correct move), then it would stand to reason that Durnan should have a similar adjustment, and this evidence (limited and incomplete though it may be) does suggest that Durnan probably wasn't even as far ahead of the rest of the pack as Bower was, at least from 1947-48 to 1949-50.

Bill Durnan won the 1940 Allan Cup, 1 Allan Cup loss in 17 games, with the Kirkland Lake Blue Devils and went to the Allan Cup playoffs on three other occasions

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/durnabi01.html

Not many other goalies played on Senior teams that went to the Allan Cup playoffs in four consecutive seasons. Rather impressive record that was used as a plus for Durnan's career. Now you misrepresent his achievements. Why?

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Bill Durnan won the 1940 Allan Cup, 1 Allan Cup loss in 17 games, with the Kirkland Lake Blue Devils and went to the Allan Cup playoffs on three other occasions

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/durnabi01.html

Not many other goalies played on Senior teams that went to the Allan Cup playoffs in four consecutive seasons. Rather impressive record that was used as a plus for Durnan's career. Now you misrepresent his achievements. Why?

I was mainly referring to his performance in the QSHL for the Montreal Royals. Iain Fyffe discussed in the last voting thread about how Durnan's GAA results were not particularly good in that league, and the newspaper reports that I read about Durnan in the QSHL described him as "steady" and "dependable". The Canadiens had the mediocre Paul Bibeault in net for two straight seasons where they finished second-last in the league in goals against, and still didn't give Durnan a shot until 1943-44.

All that doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it does raise some question marks, particularly because Durnan had a short career and made it to the NHL relative late. You're probably right that Durnan's Allan Cup performances should add to his record (Durnan was apparently the 1940 amateur goalie of the year, which is to his credit). Maybe the Royals weren't that good and Durnan was better than his numbers suggested, I don't really know, I'd just like to see some strong evidence that Durnan was a truly dominant goalie and not just a good goalie on a dominant defensive team and it's tough to find it beyond high praise from some of his teammates and coaches.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

1.) Dead puck era favoured the north/side goalies, Very few teams had east/west elements in their offence. Actually Roberto Luongo had his weakest season since his rookie season - SV% and GAA dropped to their lowest level:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/luongro01.html

Kiprusoff likewise saw his GAA rise despite sustaining his SV% for one season, then dropped below .910 :

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kiprumi01.html

Brodeur took a season to adapt to the trapezoid rule, anti Brodeur rule, then bounced back:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/brodema01.html

All were impacted by the rule changes.

1. All goalies had their stats go down because scoring went up. We are speaking of relativity here. Raw stats do not reflect relativity.

2. The very next season both Brodeur and Luongo were nominated for the Hart trophy. Yes, players must adapt, but only players with clear deficiencies in their game can't adapt. Which is why, in the big picture, rule changes are irrelevant.

It is a complete rejection of the facts to assume a great player would be unable to adapt to a rule change were it placed in front of them.

It is a complete rejection of the ideals and intentions of this forum and this process to punish a player for elements that are out of their control and any reasonable assessment says they would adapt to.

Considering that the complete history of hockey demonstrates that rule changes have no long term effect on the hierarchy of players, the onus is on you to prove otherwise and you have consistently proven that your position is indefensible.

3.) Why is Charlie Gardiner better than Tiny Thompson? Absolutes without support do not cut it. Gretzky is better than Hawerchuk because of his superior vision, anticipation, appreciation of the horizontal and vertical game. Just three reasons. Step-up with three for Gardiner over Thompson.

1. Voting record. In their 4 seasons where they were both eligible for post season all-star teams, Gardiner got 74 1st place votes. Tiny Thompson got 16.
2. Post season play. Tiny Thompson played on dominant regular season teams that faltered in the playoffs. In an admittedly small sample size (8 rounds.) Gardiner never lost to a lower seeded team and twice beat a team that was better in the regular season.
3. Leadership. Gardiner is the only goalie to ever captain a team to the Stanley Cup.
4. Quick mind. Like his mentor Hugh Lehman, he was able to read plays very quickly and react accordingly.
5. Quick body. Fast glove hand. Fast skater, able to go down and back up quicker than most goalies. Excellent lateral mobility.
6. Aggressive. Would challenge shooters more frequently than his peers. Combined with his speed and ability to read plays, he could do this without putting himself out of position.

There. Six reasons. That should sufficiently demonstrate that Gardiner was so clearly above Thompson that it is a position that should never need to be defended. It honestly makes me question your research into the era that you thought it needed to be defended.