Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Canadiens1958]

Qshl

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.

QSHL during the 1941-42, 1942-43 seasons was a transient league, armed forces or war effort job, players. Bill Durnan early career and first NHL contract:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Lege...er.jsp?mem=p196402&type=Player&page=bio&list=

Had to be convinced to play in the NHL:

http://www.hhof.com/htmlSpotlight/spot_oneononep196402.shtml

http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com/2006/04/bill-durnan.html

AST voting of the era featured the 6 NHL coaches so I doubt that the opposing coaches did not reflect a team consensus. Also 6 Vezina Trophies in 7 seasons speak for themselves. Matched only by Jacques Plante.

The NHL.com - John McGourty :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Durnan

 

[Canadiens1958]

George Hainsworth

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.

Consider George Hainsworth, pre forward pass and post forward pass performance:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hainsge01.html

Pre forward pass era, in three seasons, Hainsworth,twice led the NHL in GAA/three Vezinas and twice lead in shutouts - more than half of his career record of 95.

Post forward pass, even though Hainsworth played for two SC champions in 1930 and 1931, basically the same Canadiens team from the pre forward pass era, Hainsworth did not dominate statistically, nor did he recapture his dominance later with Toronto. Never lead in GAA or shutouts and never was voted to an AST.

So after the rule changes Hainsworth did not dominate like he did before. He adapted but at a much lower level solid vs previously dominant. The goalie hierarchy reflects this.

Hainsworth adapted to the rule changes associated with the post forward pass era but never performed at his previous level. he went from dominant to solid. This adaptation element was within his control but others simply surpassed him - adapted better. Other goalies won Vezinas, led in shutouts, earned AST honours including John Ross Roach and Lorne Chabot, bottom half contemporaries of Hainsworth in the pre forward pass era. Rather sharp drop from a dominant position. This impacted the long term hierarchy as well.

 

[MXD]

I had filled my "vote" yesterday, but finally scratched it due to numerous issues.

+ I had Durnan ranked first. However, I'm just not convinced that's where he goes, even if I think he has to be considered the best goalie of his era (no matter how small his era was). All arguments that can be made against Durnan (namely, some playoffs failures, playing on a team with great defense... and great offence) can also be made for Brimsek when the latter reaped 1st AST's... And even then, Boston was a better team pre WWII than Montreal was post WWII (mainly due to offensive depth, which was simply ridiculous, but they also had the best D, unless everybody admits ranking Dit Clapper so high in the HOH Top-60 D was wrong.

+ I had Benedict and Vezina in the Top-8, but out of the Top-4, and one after another. Vezina was indeed the best for the '10ies as a whole (but by how much and against whom?), Benedict was indeed the best for the 20ies as a whole (who did had some hooplas... in circumstances much less acceptable than aforementionned Durnan).

+ I ended up having Tony Esposito and Charlie Gardiner quite high. I'm pretty convinced for Gardiner. A bit less for Esposito. Espo and Parent will be neck-and-neck in my rankings.

+ Unless somebody explains me how Turk Broda was any better than the 4th best goalie in the league at any time (for a sortof decent period), he's completely out of the Top-8 (mainly because 4th best makes him bottom-half...). His great playoffs performances are simply not equal to Gardiner's great performances (team support...) and probably wouldn't look so great... if he played like Durnan did in the regular season. Broda could get away with average regular season performances. Chuck Rayner couldn't.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

+ I had Benedict and Vezina in the Top-8, but out of the Top-4, and one after another. Vezina was indeed the best in the '10ies (but by how much and against whom?), Benedict was indeed the best in the '20ies (who did had some hooplas... in circumstances much less acceptable than aforementionned Durnan).

.

I don't think Benedict as the best of the 1920s is quite as clearcut as Vezina the best of the 1910s. In the early 20s, it appears that some still considered Vezina the best and Vezina was a starting goaltender in the NHL as late as 1924-25.

Benedict was the leading goalie in Hart voting in 1924-25. On the GM-voted unofficial All Star Teams (which agree with the Hart voting), Roy Worters seemed to be considered the best goalie for four straight years from 1925-26 to 1928-29.

 

[MXD]

I don't think Benedict as the best of the 1920s is quite as clearcut as Vezina the best of the 1910s. In the early 20s, it appears that some still considered Vezina the best and Vezina was a starting goaltender in the NHL as late as 1924-25.

Benedict was the leading goalie in Hart voting in 1924-25. On the GM-voted unofficial All Star Teams (which agree with the Hart voting), Roy Worters seemed to be considered the best goalie for four straight years from 1925-26 to 1928-29.

You're just... I meant, like, 20ies as a whole, from an historical perspective. Early twenties, Vezina was arguably better.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

As an aside here, I wanted to thank everyone involved in this project. I know next to nothing about original six era goaltending and goaltenders so I don't comment as much as I ask questions. You guys are teaching me the subject and I wanted to thank you all for that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're just... I meant, like, 20ies as a whole, from an historical perspective. Early twenties, Vezina was arguably better.

I'm just... being an obnoxious jerk with my nitpicking is what you were going to say?

I know you know this, but I didn't want what you wrote to be interpreted as "Vezina was only great in the 1910s when competition sucked," which isn't true.

 

[MXD]

I'm just... being an obnoxious jerk with my nitpicking is what you were going to say?

I know you know this, but I didn't want what you wrote to be interpreted as "Vezina was only great in the 1910s when competition sucked," which isn't true.

Good point

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I had filled my "vote" yesterday, but finally scratched it due to numerous issues.

+ I had Durnan ranked first. However, I'm just not convinced that's where he goes, even if I think he has to be considered the best goalie of his era (no matter how small his era was). All arguments that can be made against Durnan (namely, some playoffs failures, playing on a team with great defense... and great offence) can also be made for Brimsek when the latter reaped 1st AST's... And even then, Boston was a better team pre WWII than Montreal was post WWII (mainly due to offensive depth, which was simply ridiculous, but they also had the best D, unless everybody admits ranking Dit Clapper so high in the HOH Top-60 D was wrong.

+ I had Benedict and Vezina in the Top-8, but out of the Top-4, and one after another. Vezina was indeed the best in the '10ies (but by how much and against whom?), Benedict was indeed the best in the '20ies (who did had some hooplas... in circumstances much less acceptable than aforementionned Durnan).

+ I ended up having Tony Esposito and Charlie Gardiner quite high. I'm pretty convinced for Gardiner. A bit less for Esposito. Espo and Parent will be neck-and-neck in my rankings.

+ Unless somebody explains me how Turk Broda was any better than the 4th best goalie in the league at any time (for a sortof decent period), he's completely out of the Top-8 (mainly because 4th best makes him bottom-half...). His great playoffs performances are simply not equal to Gardiner's great performances (team support...) and probably wouldn't look so great... if he played like Durnan did in the regular season. Broda could get away with average regular season performances. Chuck Rayner couldn't.

Broda did lead the league twice in GAA (meaning Vezinas). And the 47-48 season has to be one of the best ever for a goalie, winning the Vezina and then going 8-1 to win the Cup with the best GAA.

From 40-41 to 47-48 Broda played 5 seasons and lost 3 to the War. In those 5 seasons he was 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st in GAA. And won 3 Cups. That's a decent period where he was better than 4th best.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Good point

Which paragraph?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Broda did lead the league twice in GAA (meaning Vezinas). And the 47-48 season has to be one of the best ever for a goalie, winning the Vezina and then going 8-1 to win the Cup with the best GAA.

In an era where having the best GAA always meant the 1st Team All Star, Broda's 1947-48 was one of the weaker 1st Team All Stars. He tied with Frank Brimsek in points, losing on a tiebreak. And Brimsek was 2nd in Hart voting, while Broda did not receive a single vote for the Hart. Obviously, winning the Cup so easily makes the season better though.

From 40-41 to 47-48 Broda played 5 seasons and lost 3 to the War. In those 5 seasons he was 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st in GAA. And won 3 Cups. That's a decent period where he was better than 4th best.

Broda finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, (war), (war), (war), 3rd, 1st in All Star voting during this period.

He beat Brimsek by 1 voting point in 1940-41 and 1947-48 was a tiebreaker.

Agree that he was better than 4th best - I think he was clearly better than Rayner. In the 3 years leading up to the war, I think he was clearly the 2nd best goalie in the world after Brimsek.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

In an era where having the best GAA always meant the 1st Team All Star, Broda's 1947-48 was one of the weaker 1st Team All Stars. He tied with Frank Brimsek in points, losing on a tiebreak. And Brimsek was 2nd in Hart voting, while Broda did not receive a single vote for the Hart. Obviously, winning the Cup so easily makes the season better though.



Broda finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd, (war), (war), (war), 3rd, 1st in All Star voting during this period.

He beat Brimsek by 1 voting point in 1940-41 and 1947-48 was a tiebreaker.

Agree that he was better than 4th best - I think he was clearly better than Rayner. In the 3 years leading up to the war, I think he was clearly the 2nd best goalie in the world after Brimsek.

And he won 5 Cups. That should count for something.

 

[MXD]

In the 3 years leading up to the war, I think he was clearly the 2nd best goalie in the world after Brimsek.

He's behind Dave Kerr if you add a few years and take out the last year (because Kerr wasn't playing anymore).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He's behind Dave Kerr if you add a few years and take out the last year (because Kerr wasn't playing anymore).

Yes, it looks like 21-25 year old Broda (1936-37 to 1939-40) was behind Dave Kerr. I doubt Broda was in his prime at that point, though.

 

[MXD]

Yes, it looks like 21-25 year old Broda (1936-37 to 1939-40) was behind Dave Kerr. I doubt Broda was in his prime at that point, though.

Another way to put it is that, while their careers overlapped, Kerr was superior to Broda.

I must retract myself on Broda being 4th best in the league between the day he broke in until WWII.

But boy, that era was something of an endless rotation, with pretty much only Kerr, Broda and Brimsek being regular fixtures. I thought Karakas was one, but it wasn't the case.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Charlie Gardiner and Bill Durnan

Both played 7 seasons in the NHL

Durnan = 6 1st Team All Stars, but 2 of them were over competition that was probably worse than AHL quality and a 3rd was over competition that was still recoving from the war

Gardiner = 3 1st Teams, 1 2nd Team, plus a 4th likely 1st Team in 1929-30.

I don't see any advantage for Durnan in the regular season.

Advantages for Gardiner:

1) He generally exceeded expections in the playoffs. Durnan did not.

2) Gardiner's career was cut short by his sudden death due to illenss. Durnan's career was cut short after he pulled himself in the middle of the playoffs and retired because he couldn't mentally handle playing in the NHL anymore. Look at the difference in their stories as reported by Joe Pelletier:

Gardiner

Gardiner's finest moment came in the 1934 playoffs, as "Smiling Charlie" advanced the Hawks to the Stanley Cup Finals against Detroit. This despite the fact that Gardiner was feeling quite ill at the time. Unbeknownst to him or his doctors, Gardiner had long suffered from a chronic tonsil infection. The disease had spread and had begun to cause uremia convulsions. Undaunted, Gardiner pressed on as winning the Stanley Cup had become an obsession with him. Though playing in body-numbing pain, the Hawks prevailed over the Wings. He permitted only 12 goals in 8 playoff games - a 1.50 GAA.

A well liked and jovial fellow, Gardiner served as the Blackhawks captain, a rarity for a goalie even when it was allowed. Before the decisive 4th game, the "Roving Scotsman" showed his leadership and reportedly told his teammates that they would only need to score one goal that night. Sure enough, the game had gone into double overtime at a 0-0 tie. Suffering from growing fatigue, Gardiner was weakening considerably as the game went on. But he managed to hold the Red Wings scoreless until Chicago's Mush March finally scored.

The Hawks hoisted their first Stanley Cup, but Gardiner, the only goalie to captain a Cup champion, was just as happy he could escape the ice and collapse in the dressing room. A few weeks later Gardiner underwent brain surgery after suffering a massive brain hemorrhage. Unfortunately complications from the surgery would cost him his life on June 13, 1934.

Durnan:

Durnan left the game he loved because of the pressures involved in tending the net.

"Hockey started to get rough for me at the end of the 40's. I had broken my hand and after it mended it felt as if my arm was falling off whenever I'd catch the puck," said Durnan. "One of my main reasons for chucking it all was because the fun was going out of the game for me. A lot of my old pals were leaving - or had gone - and much of the camaraderie was missing."

Durnan also cited the money as a reason he got out of hockey.

"My reflexes had gotten a little slow and, besides, the money wasn't really that good. I'll admit, if they were paying the kind of money goaltenders get today, they'd have had to shoot me to get me out of the game! But at the end of any given season when I was playing I never seemed to have more than $2000 in the bank, so I wasn't really getting anywhere that way. I wasn't educated and I had two girls to raise."

Things came to a head in the 1950 playoffs against the New York Rangers however. The Rangers were on the verge of an upset when they had the Habs on the brink of elimination 3 games to 1. Durnan pulled himself from the series.

"I was afraid I was blowing things. I really wasn't, I guess, but we hadn't won a game and I didn't want to be blamed for it. And I felt I wasn't playing as well as I did in the past.. The nerves and all the accompanying crap were built up. It was the culmination of a lot of thinking and I realized 'What the hell, I'm quitting and this is as good as time as any'"

Gerry McNeil stepped in and finished the playoffs.

"A lot of people thought it was a nervous breakdown but it wasn't. To this day, people still won't believe me."

Conclusion: These two great short-career goalies are close, but Charlie Gardiner should be ranked a little bit higher.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Can I just kind of talk outloud for the sake of generating further conversation as we near the bell? If not, just ignore me, I won't be offended...

Instead of figuring out what's right, it might be easier to eliminate what's wrong...like Parent can't be #1 this round...Brimsek can't be below #6...Esposito has to be an odd number or else Belfour has to be on a multiple of 3 which would throw off...etc. whatever.

So, what are we sure of here, anything? Vezina was better than Benedict, it seems, right? I'm having trouble put spacers between the 40's goalies (Brimsek, Durnan, Broda), so I gotta believe they travel pretty close together don't they? Does one have an unanswerable drawback?

Concern: Brimsek looks kinda weak after the war.
Answer: Brimsek had a sloth-like defense that really struggled for him on the road. Comparatively, at home, he seemd to hang with the crowd despite probably having the weakest team of the 3.

Concern: Durnan only played 7 NHL seasons.
Answer: But he won the Vezina 6 times.

Concern: Broda's regular season.
Answer: Still 3x 1st or 2nd teamer, 5 Cups in 7 years, clutch.

So, was Durnan the Dryden of the 40's? I know we keep talking about these three guys to the point that you wonder if anyone else is up for vote but we keep getting to "yeah, but" scenarios. Dryden was punished for lack of longevity and being on a really strong team. So, let's punish Durnan too. He was smart, he was probably a bit ahead of his time, his head and/or heart was/were not exactly in it, he won an obscene amount of stuff.

Broda was iffy in the regular season and didn't take a lot of acclaim it seems, relatively, to being on the fringes of a top-10 candidate of all-time, but was a monster in the postseason. A better version of Billy Smith/Grant Fuhr? I don't think we're prepared to let someone "get away" with having a few more two-week hot streaks (8 to win in his day) than his nearest competitors. That's disturbingly obtuse and simplistic. It's not like Durnan didn't win any (won 2 in 7), it's like Brimsek didn't win any (won 2 before the War). All that and it's unclear if Broda was the against-all-odds difference maker. Probably a definite help, big help, but could Brimsek have filled in and won there also? It seems pretty likely. So, since I don't see any Fuhr's or Smith's up here, let's knock Broda down a bit.

So the 40's would be Brimsek then Broda/Durnan or Durnan/Broda. I'm inclined to go to Broda probably, because Durnan only really supplied us with 3 post-war years. 43-44, 44-45 and for much of 45-46, we were still very much in the "war zone" The only time Durnan started to crack even a little (only non-Vezina season, W/L record wasn't obscene, didn't win either of his Cups) were in those last 3 seasons when the talent started to even out.

So, I'm going to go with Brimsek, Broda, Durnan for the 40's. You might be able to slip a goalie between Brimsek and Broda...maybe one or two between Broda and Durnan I guess. So, maybe they aren't joined at the hip after all...

So, I'm guessing it's Vezina that gets one of those [spacer] spots there. Even though I'm not terribly comfortable with a pre-forward pass goalie there, I can't sit there and nitpick every thing and ever come to a conclusion. Vezina did what he did with the environment he was given and by all accounts was awesome at it...I think there's some sort of goalie prize named after him or something...or so I've heard...

So, if we open the door for pre-forward pass goalies like Vezina, we have to open the door for Benedict. Even though a small sample size indicates that he may have struggled with the adjustment...but he was also 38 at the time.

Is there a verdict on Benedict vs. Gardiner? For some reason in my head I confuse the two and never remember about them.

Personally, I'm not really sold that Parent was better than Esposito. In fact, I can't figure a way to make that so.

We seem pretty content on backburnering Belfour and Bower for now...I think I'm ok with that too.

EDIT: Ya know, maybe I'm confused, I don't think I know that much about Bower relative to the other guys...he couldn't hack it in the NHL for a decade, we know that backstory, and that's a drawback for me...but I have some serious reservations about Parent, the more and more I look it into it - and I've said this already 999 times, so just one short of cliche levels - the more I sour on his resume. Bower wasn't better was he? Maybe? Does his '64 even remotely answer Parent's '74? Does it even work like that? I get that Parent's 2-year peak is up there with or even ahead of Hasek's best, it's a terrific peak. How much weight is that gonna carry here...right now, it's lugging him up into the far reaches of this thing...but honestly, is he even top 15? Can we draw any comparisons to the defensemen list in terms of players that were like him?

 

[vecens24]

I'm completely and totally unsold on Broda being above the Grant Fuhr/Billy Smith level. Anyone willing to convince me otherwise?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can I just kind of talk outloud for the sake of generating further conversation as we near the bell? If not, just ignore me, I won't be offended...

Instead of figuring out what's right, it might be easier to eliminate what's wrong...like Parent can't be #1 this round...Brimsek can't be below #6...Esposito has to be an odd number or else Belfour has to be on a multiple of 3 which would throw off...etc. whatever.

So, what are we sure of here, anything? Vezina was better than Benedict, it seems, right? I'm having trouble put spacers between the 40's goalies (Brimsek, Durnan, Broda), so I gotta believe they travel pretty close together don't they? Does one have an unanswerable drawback?

Concern: Brimsek looks kinda weak after the war.
Answer: Brimsek had a sloth-like defense that really struggled for him on the road. Comparatively, at home, he seemd to hang with the crowd despite probably having the weakest team of the 3.

How does Brimsek look weak after the war? Brimsek was the only goalie to be a Postseason All Star in all the three years following the war. In 1945-46, he was a 2nd Teamer despite missing part of the season and having to get back in game shape on the fly. In 1946-47, he was a 2nd Teamer again. In 1947-48, he lost the 1st Team on a tiebreak to Vezina winner Broda and was 2nd in Hart voting. Newspaper articles from 1948 talk about Durnan and Brimsek as the best 2 goalies in the league. Seems to me that Brimsek was arguably the best goalie in the world for the 3 years following the war (Durnan was obviously also in the conversation by this point). After 1948, Brimsek seems to have declined.

Concern: Durnan only played 7 NHL seasons.
Answer: But he won the Vezina 6 times.

Vezina at the time = modern Jennings trophy.

Concern: Broda's regular season.
Answer: Still 3x 1st or 2nd teamer, 5 Cups in 7 years, clutch.

So, was Durnan the Dryden of the 40's? I know we keep talking about these three guys to the point that you wonder if anyone else is up for vote but we keep getting to "yeah, but" scenarios. Dryden was punished for lack of longevity and being on a really strong team. So, let's punish Durnan too. He was smart, he was probably a bit ahead of his time, his head and/or heart was/were not exactly in it, he won an obscene amount of stuff.

I don't think so. Dryden has one of the best playoff records of any goalie ever. Durnan's playoff record was fairly disappointing, considering how strong his team was. Also, Dryden faced real competition for his All-Star teams, while Durnan only did for the last 3 or 4 of them.

So, I'm going to go with Brimsek, Broda, Durnan for the 40's. You might be able to slip a goalie between Brimsek and Broda...maybe one or two between Broda and Durnan I guess. So, maybe they aren't joined at the hip after all...

I think it's completely reasonable to separate the 40s goalies if you think one is a step up from the others. Because it stands to reason that there will be multiple guys from different eras in the same step.

So, if we open the door for pre-forward pass goalies like Vezina, we have to open the door for Benedict. Even though a small sample size indicates that he may have struggled with the adjustment...but he was also 38 at the time.

Benedict had just finished his 18th year of professional hockey when the forward pass was allowed and pretty clearly was already on the slow decline.

Is there a verdict on Benedict vs. Gardiner? For some reason in my head I confuse the two and never remember about them.

Peak vs longevity

Personally, I'm not really sold that Parent was better than Esposito. In fact, I can't figure a way to make that so.

We seem pretty content on backburning Belfour and Bower for now...I think I'm ok with that too.

I'm not entirely sold that Parent was better than Espo either. But I am fairly certain that Belfour was better than Espo.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm completely and totally unsold on Broda being above the Grant Fuhr/Billy Smith level. Anyone willing to convince me otherwise?

Even if he was never the best for an extended period of time, Broda seems to have been consistently very good in the regular season for a decade. I don't think Fuhr and Smith had that level of "consistent goodness" in the regular season.

I mean, Broda was top 3 in All Star voting literally every season for 10 years, other than the 3 years that he was gone for WW2. But he was usually 3rd.

 

[Michael Farkas]

How does Brimsek look weak after the war? Brimsek was the only goalie to be a Postseason All Star in all the three years following the war. In 1945-46, he was a 2nd Teamer despite missing part of the season and having to get back in game shape on the fly. In 1946-47, he was a 2nd Teamer again. In 1947-48, he lost the 1st Team on a tiebreak to Vezina winner Broda and was 2nd in Hart voting. Seems to me that Brimsek was arguably the best goalie in the world for the 3 years following the war (Durnan was obviously also in the conversation by this point).

Yeah, that's a really good point that I clearly didn't even recognize. I got so busy playing with the numbers that I didn't see the conclusions ahead of them. A rare instance where I got left in the fuzz of the math. Good call. You're right.

Vezina at the time = modern Jennings trophy.

Yeah...I mean, I agree. But, that happened a lot percentage wise...I mean, I came to the conclusion that he's 3rd of the 40's goalies, so why make a counter-point to something I ultimately agree with anyway...

I don't think so. Dryden has one of the best playoff records of any goalie ever. Durnan's playoff record was fairly disappointing, considering how strong his team was. Also, Dryden faced real competition for his All-Star teams, while Durnan only did for the last 3 or 4 of them.

I kinda meant on the "really good goalie, really good team and then he checked himself out" kinda deal...the playoff resume is why Dryden is no longer being discussed too. But I don't disagree with your conclusion. I probably should have been clearer initially anyway.

Benedict had just finished his 18th year of professional hockey when the forward pass was allowed and pretty clearly was already on the slow decline.

Like I mentioned, he was 38 which is a big number for that day and age. So, I'm giving the benefit of the small doubt. It's a shame it falls like that, but what can you do.

Peak vs longevity

Answer my question, damn it! I don't have time for your riddles...

I'm not entirely sold that Parent was better than Espo either. But I am fairly certain that Belfour was better than Espo.

Belfour better than Tony O, huh? I do believe Belfour (and Esposito) are undersold here, as I've stated...I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts on this Belfour > Esposito stance as well...so tricky to compare, Belfour is so out of sorts era-wise here...

Thanks for tolerating my wandering stream of consciousness in such an organized fashion...

 

[Canadiens1958]

1927-28 to 1933-34 NHL

Charlie Gardiner and Bill Durnan

Both played 7 seasons in the NHL

Durnan = 6 1st Team All Stars, but 2 of them were over competition that was probably worse than AHL quality and a 3rd was over competition that was still recoving from the war

Gardiner = 3 1st Teams, 1 2nd Team, plus a 4th likely 1st Team in 1929-30.

I don't see any advantage for Durnan in the regular season.

Advantages for Gardiner:

1) He generally exceeded expections in the playoffs. Durnan did not.

2) Gardiner's career was cut short by his sudden death due to illenss. Durnan's career was cut short after he pulled himself in the middle of the playoffs and retired because he couldn't mentally handle playing in the NHL anymore.



Conclusion: These two great short-career goalies are close, but Charlie Gardiner should be ranked a little bit higher.

Closer look at the NHL shows that between 1927-28 and 1930-31 the league featured 1or 2 each season teams that finished with a .136 to .273 winning percentage. It was only after contracting from 10 to 8 teams after the 1930-31 season that the league became competitive from top to bottom. Charlie Gardiner during his first two seasons was part of the bottom two teams then benefited from playing against two weak teams for two seasons.

Conversely during Durnan's first three seasons the NHL featured greater parity. 1943-44 Rangers were the only team with a sub .300 winning percentage (.170) during the 1943-44 thru 1945-46 seasons. Durnan's dominance during these regular season speaks for itself.

Durnan's playoff retirement is portrayed as a negative but did it hurt his team?

No it did not as Gerry McNeil was ready and played better.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1950.html

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I kinda meant on the "really good goalie, really good team and then he checked himself out" kinda deal...the playoff resume is why Dryden is no longer being discussed too. But I don't disagree with your conclusion. I probably should have been clearer initially anyway.

Yeah, I guess I can see the similarities in that Durnan played just as long as Dryden and (like Dryden) just flat out quit while he could still play. But I think the way Durnan quit (in the middle of a playoff series with his team down) is particularly onerous, especially considering that Durnan's playoff resume as a whole, while it's far from terrible, probably isn't as good as it could be.

Answer my question, damn it! I don't have time for your riddles...

Heh, I have no good answer for Gardiner vs Benedict. It really does depend on how much you value peak and whether you consider the fact that the circumstances surrounding the end of Gardiner's peak were... unique.

Belfour better than Tony O, huh? I do believe Belfour (and Esposito) are undersold here, as I've stated...I'd be curous to hear others' thoughts on this Belfour > Esposito stance as well...so tricky to compare, Belfour is so out of sorts era-wise here...

I just see Belfour and Esposito as very close in the regular season with a pretty large playoff edge for Belfour. I don't think anyone has talked about either that much because I think it's a round too early to consider either.

Thanks for tolerating my wandering stream of consciousness is such an organized fashion...

I've seen worse.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Turk Broda

I'm completely and totally unsold on Broda being above the Grant Fuhr/Billy Smith level. Anyone willing to convince me otherwise?

Turk Broda did not have to be managed during the regular season like Fuhr or Smith so that he would be playoff ready

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Turk Broda did not have to be managed during the regular season like Fuhr or Smith so that he would be playoff ready

True. Broda was a workhorse. Only missed 1 game total in the 6 seasons between 1936-37 and 1942-43 before leaving for the war. Then only missed 2 games total in the 4 seasons after the war.

Broda's durability is the one thing he definitely has over Johnny Bower.