Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[BM67]

Let's look at who else is missing in the Hart voting for 1925-26 besides Connell.

1925-26
HART: (519)
1. Nels Stewart, Mtl M C 88
2. Sprague Cleghorn, Bos D 75
3. Frank Nighbor, Ott C 68
T4. Roy Worters, Pit G 44
T4. Hooley Smith, Ott C/R 44
6. Howie Morenz, Mtl C 34
7. Jimmy Herberts, Bos C 33
8. King Clancy, Ott D 28
T9. Charles Stewart, Bos G 24
T9. Lionel Conacher, Pit D 24
11. Billy Burch, NYA C/L 18
12. Reg Noble, Mtl M D 14
13. Bert McCaffery, Tor D 13
14. Babe Siebert, Mtl M LW 12

Cy Denneny and Carson Cooper finished #2 & #3 in scoring and are missing. Could Connell be as valuable as the #2 scorer in the league?

 

[Michael Farkas]

A lot of what I read from the time (right now, 1925-26, specifically) seems to often refer to Ottawa as a "machine", a "system", and refers to other teams playing against the Senators as "individuals" - it really emphasizes how much team is involved, and really focuses heavily on Nighbor, far and away more than anyone else. It's just very possible that Connell was just not anywhere near the most important player on that team...

EDIT: Reading from 1925 to 1928 about Connell. Mentioned here and again, but rarely in the spotlight. Always the other players on Ottawa first. Regarded as "smart" at one point. I found an article from Dec. 1927 that says he's one of the best goalies in the game but it says the same thing about John Ross Roach...and then talks more about Roach in a scoreless tie (saves: 43 for Roach, 29 for Connell). That kind of anecdotal evidence (shots) that is, was also found - partially - from a game Mar. 7, 1928 where Hal Winkler (Bos) faced 19 shots in the first period to Connell's six. Another contest from Dec. 12, 1928 had Charlie Gardiner making 20 saves in the third period to Connell's six.

The praise for Connell - if it exists at all - is always secondary. It's not like Worters or Benedict or Gardiner or Vezina...it's just not there really. I'm actively looking for something that would indicate that he wasn't considered elite in this time before award voting (sans the Hart) and it's really just not there...other than the odd mention, but it's a blip on the radar compared to other elite 'tenders...

Here's from a western paper (Saskatoon - Oct. 20, 1928):

When Col. Hammond, president of the New York Rangers of the National Hockey League, starts broadcasting he "goes first class." Witness his announcement Thursday night of the deal in which Lorne Chabot is traded to Toronto Leafs by Rangers for John Ross Roach. In his own quiet way Col. Hammond tells Frank Getty, United Press sports editor, that the Rangers shelled out $25,000 in addition to Chabot in order to land Roach. That kind of "ballyhoo" may read well in New York, but out here on the prairies it sounds terrible.

Professional hockey is making rapid strides in the sport world and with such clubs as Canadiens, Montreal Maroons, Boston Bruins, and New York Rangers palying to huge crowds, the owners can well afford to pay big salaries and good prices for players but Col. Hammond's elaborate announcement is worth framing at this stage in the game. Lorne Chabot isn't such a rotten goaltender that he he can be tossed into any deal just for good measure - and while John Ross Roach is admittedly a pretty fair custodian, he's got nothing on three or four others in the NHL. Chabot played a mighty useful game in the nets for the Rangers last winter. Bill Cook, popular former local puck star, now captain of the New Yorkers recently told the writer that he figured Chabot was one of the best in the NHL last winter and didn't see any reason why the Rangers hould let him go.

Frank Getty, one of the best known sports writers across the border, whose interesting articles are carried in The Star-Phoenix, is now branching out as a hockey critic. Here's hoping he doesn't pay too much attention to Col. Hammond. In his article on the Chabot-Roach deal, Mr. Getty writes, "Roach, with Roy Worters of the Pittsburgh club, top the National League goaltenders." It might be well to point out to Mr. Getty that George Hainsworth was presented with a handsome trophy last winter offered to "the best goaltender in the NHL" and also that Alex Connell [sic] of the Ottawa Senators was runner-up for the honors, with Roy Worters third.

While Col. Hammond tells Frank Getty that the Rangers had to shell out $25,000 in addition to goaltender Chabot in order to land Roach, a Canadian Press dispatch from Toronto carries an announcement from the Leafs that $12,500 was involved in the deal. One wonders where Col. Hammond dropped the other $12,500 - and if truth were only known - it would doubtless be discovered the Rangers did not actually pay more than $6,000 for Roach. Hockey magnates do not broadcast their dealings to the public -- and as in many other branches of sport -- when a player is signed to a big contract or bought for a big price - the announcement is "boosted" in nine cases out of ten. It reads well, you know.

Ed's note: It appears Worters actually finished 4th for the Vezina...not mentioned, Hal Winkler.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Frank Getty "branching out as a hockey critic", names Roach and Worters about a month into the season, but doesn't mention either of the Vezina winner/runner-up combo from just a few months before, in his opinion of who "looks best to him"... well there's credibility.

But seriously, the all-star and Hart voting were weighted so heavily from the beginning, how far below #1 do we think Roy would have ended up?

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's not that far-fetched is it? I mean, Halak/Elliott won the Jennings (Vezina equivalent of the time), I don't consider either of them anywhere close to the best goalies in the league. Nor top-5...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Barrasso vs. Beezer vs. Cujo

I haven't had as much time to work on this as I wanted, but I'm going to post what I have for now, and hopefully be able to add some later. A lot of this info has been posted before, but this will only look at these three guys and have everything in one place.


Vezina Finishes

Barrassso | Beezer | Cujo
1 | 1 | 2
2 | 2 | 3
2 | 4* | 3
2 | 6 | 4
7* | 6 | 5*
9* | 6 | 6*
| 6* | 8*
| 7* | 12*
| 7* |

* Received 3 votes or less

Vezina w/o Big 4 (only seasons with more than 3 votes)

Barrassso | Beezer | Cujo
1 | 1 | 1
1 | 1 | 2
1 | 4 | 2
2 | 4 | 3
2 | 6 |

Save% Rank (only 40+ GP seasons)

Barrassso | Beezer | Cujo
2 | 2 | 1
3 | 2 | 2
3 | 5 | 6
4 | 5 | 7
5 | 9 | 9
8 | 10 | 14
15 | 14 | 15
15 | 14 | 16
18 | 16 | 17
22 | 16 | 19
23 | 18 | 20
27 | 19 | 37
31 | 22 |
| 26 |
| 26 |
| 26 |

Save% - % over league average (only 40+ GP seasons)

Barrasso | Beezer | Cujo
2.29 | 3.24 | 2.94
1.82 | 2.48 | 2.48
1.81 | 1.69 | 1.79
1.77 | 1.55 | 1.33
1.37 | 1.49 | 1.22
1.13 | 1.14 | 0.33
0.69 | 0.68 | 0.22
0.45 | 0.67 | 0.22
0.11 | 0.56 | 0.11
-0.22 | 0.34 | -0.11
-0.34 | 0.23 | -0.22
-0.68 | 0.23 | -1.33
-0.77 | 0.22 |
| -0.22 |
| -0.66 |
| -0.77 |

From The Above Table

| Barrasso | Beezer | Cujo
3 Best | 1.97 | 2.47 | 2.40
| | |
6 Best | 1.70 | 1.93 | 1.68
| | |
9 Best | 1.27 | 1.50 | 1.18
| | |
12 Best | 0.85 | 1.19 | 0.75
| | |
Total | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.75

Playoffs
pt diff refers to the difference in regular season standings that year

Barrasso
1984: Swept in 1st round by 3rd seed in division as 2nd seed (+9pt diff)

1985: Lost in 1st round to 2nd seed in division as 3rd seed in 5 games (-1pt diff)

1988: Lost in 1st round to 2nd seed in division as 3rd seed in 6 games (-9pt diff)

1989: Won in 1st round against 3rd seed in division as 2nd seed in 4 games (+5pt diff)
Lost in 2nd round to 4th seed in division in 7 games (+7pt diff)

1991: Won in 1st round against 4th seed in division as 1st seed in 7 games (+9pt diff)
Won in 2nd round against 3rd seed in division in 5 games (+7pt diff)
Won in 3rd round against 1st seed in conference as 2nd seed in 6 games (-12pt diff)
Won Stanley Cup against team with 7th best record in other conference and 16th best in league (+20pt diff)

1992:Won 1st round against 2nd seed in division as 3rd seed in 7 games (-11pt diff)
Won 2nd round against 1st seed in division in 6 games (-18pt diff)
Won 3rd round against 6th seed in conference as 4th seed in 4 games (+3pt diff)
Won Stanley Cup against team with 3rd best record in other conference in 4 games (0pt diff)

1993: Won in 1st round against 4th seed in division as 1st seed in 5 games (+32pt diff)
Lost in 2nd round to 3rd seed in division in 7 games (-32pt diff)

1994: Lost in 1st round to 7th seed in conference as 2nd seed in 6 games (+13pt diff)

1996: Lost in 3rd round to 4th seed in conference as 2nd seed in 7 games (+10pt diff) - Goes 1-2 in 1st 3 games of 1st round, then replaced by Wregget for rest of 1st round, all of 2nd round, and 1st game of 3rd round, goes 3-3 in the last 6 games of 3rd round.

1998: Lost in 1st round to 7th seed in conference as 2nd seed in 6 games (+11pt diff)

1999: Won in 1st round against 1st seed in conference as 8th seed in 7 games (-15pt diff)
Lost in 2nd round to 4th seed in 6 games (-7pt diff)

2000: Lost in 1st round to 3rd seed in conference as 6th seed in 6 games (-5pt diff)


Beezer
1986: Won in 1st round against 1st seed in division as 4th seed in 5 games (-32pt diff)
Won in 2nd round against 2nd seed in division in 6 games (-29pt diff)
Lost in 3rd round against 2nd seed from other division in 5 games (-9pt diff)

1987: Lost in 1st round to 1st seed in division as 4th seed in 6 games (-24pt diff) - Went 1-3 in 4 games

1989: Swept in 1st round to 2nd seed in division as 3rd seed (-5pt diff) - Went 0-2 in 2 games

1990: Won in 1st round against 4th seed in division as 1st seed in 5 games (+12pt diff) - Went 1-1 in 2 games
Lost in 2nd round against 3rd seed in division in 5 games (+7pt diff) - Went 1-2 in 3 games

1992: Won in 1st round against 4th seed in division as 1st seed in 7 games (+18pt diff) - Went 2-1 in 3 games
Lost in 2nd round to 3rd seed in division in 6 games (+18pt diff) - Went 0-4 in 4 games

1996: Won 1st round against 5th seed in conference as 4th seed in 5 games (+1pt diff)
Won in 2nd round against 1st seed in conference in 6 games (-11pt diff)
Won in 3rd round against 2nd seed in conference in 7 games (-10pt diff)
Swept in Stanley Cup against 2nd seed from other conference (-12pt diff)

1997: Lost in 1st round against 5th seed in conference as 4th seed in 5 games (+3pt diff)

1998: Lost in 1st round to 4th seed in conference as 5th seed in 6 games (-4pt diff)


Cujo
1990: Won 1st round against 3rd seed in division as 2nd seed in 5 games (+3pt diff)

Did not play 2nd round

1992: Lost 1st round against 2nd seed in division as 3rd seed in 6 games (-4pt diff)

1993: Won 1st round against 1st seed in division as 4th seed in 4 games (-21pt diff)
Lost 2nd round against 3rd seed in division in 7 games (-14pt diff)

1994: Swept in 1st round by 4th seed in conference as 5th seed (-6pt diff)

1995: Lost in 1st round to 6th seed in conference as 3rd seed in 7 games (+13pt diff)

1997: Won 1st round against 2nd seed in conference as 7th seed in 7 games (-23pt diff)
Lost in 2nd round to 1st seed in conference in 5 games (-26pt diff)

1998: Won 1st round against 2nd seed in conference as 7th seed in 7 games (-15pt diff)
Lost 2nd round to 1st seed in conference in 5 games (-29pt diff)

1999: Won 1st round against 5th seed in conference as 4th seed in 6 games (+4pt diff)
Won 2nd round against 8th seed in conference in 6 games (+7pt diff)
Lost in 3rd round against 7th seed in conference in 6 games (+6pt diff)

2000: Won 1st round against 6th seed in conference as 3rd seed in 6 games (+5pt diff)
Lost in 2nd round against 4th seed in conference in 6 games (-3pt diff)

2001: Won 1st round against 2nd seed in conference as 7th seed in 4 games (-19pt diff)
Lost in 2nd round against 1st seed in conference in 7 games (-21pt diff)

2002: Won 1st round against 5th seed in conference as 4th seed in 7 games (+4pt diff)
Won 2nd round against 7th seed in conference in 7 games (+6pt diff)
Lost 3rd round against 3rd seed in conference in 6 games (+9pt diff)

2003: Swept in 1st round by 7th seed in conference as 2nd seed (+15pt diff)

2004: Won 1st round against 8th seed in conference as 1st seed in 6 games (+18pt diff) - Went 2-0 in 2 games
Lost 2nd round against 6th seed in conference in 6 games (+15pt diff)


Playoff Summary (records reflect series not games)

| Barrasso | Beezer | Cujo
w/in 5pts | 3-2 | 1-2.5 | 3-2
- | | |
6-10pt fav | 2-2 | 0-.5 | 2-2
11-15pt fav | 0-2 | .25-0 | 0-2
>15pt fav | 2-1 | .5-1 | .5-1
- | | |
6-10pt dog | 1-1 | 1-1 | 0-1
11-15pt dog | 3-0 | 1-1 | 1-1
>15pt dog | 1-0 | 2-.75 | 3-3

*1996 not included for Barrasso


It's pretty safe to say these guys performed well in their upset wins, but more research should be done as to how they performed in upset losses. We know that Barrasso has some excuse in 93' and played well in 94'. There could be some more situations like those.

 

[seventieslord]

A good point.

Voting for the player that is truly most valuable, a great goalie on a bad team has a much better chance of getting Hart votes than the same goalie on a great team. So it seems for the pre-expansion era.

The point about Hart voting has been made many times, and it's true to an extent, but all-star voting has always meant the same thing, and it does favour a guy like Worters - heavily - while not favouring Connell at all.

Let's look at who else is missing in the Hart voting for 1925-26 besides Connell.

1925-26
HART: (519)
1. Nels Stewart, Mtl M C 88
2. Sprague Cleghorn, Bos D 75
3. Frank Nighbor, Ott C 68
T4. Roy Worters, Pit G 44
T4. Hooley Smith, Ott C/R 44
6. Howie Morenz, Mtl C 34
7. Jimmy Herberts, Bos C 33
8. King Clancy, Ott D 28
T9. Charles Stewart, Bos G 24
T9. Lionel Conacher, Pit D 24
11. Billy Burch, NYA C/L 18
12. Reg Noble, Mtl M D 14
13. Bert McCaffery, Tor D 13
14. Babe Siebert, Mtl M LW 12

Cy Denneny and Carson Cooper finished #2 & #3 in scoring and are missing. Could Connell be as valuable as the #2 scorer in the league?

I don't get it. Are you advocating Connell, or pointing out that you can have "nice" stats while not being as valuable as the stats look?

Frank Getty "branching out as a hockey critic", names Roach and Worters about a month into the season, but doesn't mention either of the Vezina winner/runner-up combo from just a few months before, in his opinion of who "looks best to him"... well there's credibility.

But seriously, the all-star and Hart voting were weighted so heavily from the beginning, how far below #1 do we think Roy would have ended up?

...

It's not that far-fetched is it? I mean, Halak/Elliott won the Jennings (Vezina equivalent of the time), I don't consider either of them anywhere close to the best goalies in the league. Nor top-5...

exactly.

 

[MXD]

Is it possible to submit the votes in advance?
I might be away from Dec 27 to Dec 29, and I usually like to take more than 5 minutes to fill in my vote...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I recall a couple ATDs ago that MXC was incredibly high on Connell and I saw no good justification for it.

At the time the records we had weren't as good as now, but I recall pointing out that he never showed up in hart or all-star voting once, which is pretty weak, good GAA or not.

That was four years ago, though, so I'm not sure that that reflects much on MXD's current opinion of Connell.

If we'd done this thing four years ago, Sawchuk would have been my certain #1. We all evolve.

 

[MXD]

That was four years ago, though, so I'm not sure that that reflects much on MXD's current opinion of Connell.

If we'd done this thing four years ago, Sawchuk would have been my certain #1. We all evolve.

I'd add -- I always thought, and I still do, that Connell was great pick WHERE HE WAS PICKED. That means, after 25th, and often pass 30.

Given that some guys are that in at this point or up for voting would be No Draft for me, and that time made me change my views on a few goalies (namely, Chuck Rayner and Roy Worters), well, saying that Connell was a great pick past 25th sorta make sense, considering whom (and for which ranks) we are voting for right now.

Besides, and TDDM would confirm this (TDDM, you have my permission to check and confirm), if we go by my master list, Connel would BARELY be available for voting this round. I might even have underrated him a bit (in other words, I was wrong to have him below Mike Liut, amongst others)

I just wish that I was clear that there is NO BIAS WHATSOEVER here. And I hope I was.

Besides, why EXACTLY would a guy with my background would show THAT SPECIFIC bias.

That's not Gerry McNeil or Felix Potvin we're talking about.

 

[Killion]

We all evolve.

Not everything that can be counted counts,
and not everything that counts can be counted.
Albert Einstein

 

[BM67]

I don't get it. Are you advocating Connell, or pointing out that you can have "nice" stats while not being as valuable as the stats look?

From the first Hart vote in 24 to 37, the last year of Connell's career, only two goalies appeared in Hart voting more than once, Worters and Forbes. Only once did a goalie on a first place team, league or division, appear in the voting record, Forbes in 24-25. None of the Vezina winners appear in the voting record.

It would appear that very few Hart votes went to any goalies on successful teams at the time.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's not that far-fetched is it? I mean, Halak/Elliott won the Jennings (Vezina equivalent of the time), I don't consider either of them anywhere close to the best goalies in the league. Nor top-5...

Big difference between one season and an entire career.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Big difference between one season and an entire career.

Hmm? The article is from 1928 after Connell's only season leading the league in GAA and it's talking about the "state" of goaltending basically...so it's not talking about anyone's entire career I don't think. Just, "who's the best right now"

Sometimes you can just recognize when a goalie isn't as good as his stats would lead you to believe...not even just after one year, but after multiple years...

Connell, does seem to fall into that criteria, given the many opportunities to praise him and the overall lack of praise. Having looked through a number of game summaries from the pre-forward pass era, it's conceivable that he wasn't a top-5 player on his own team. Which is a shame because like I said, Connell is someone I was hoping would emerge from this a little more prominently, but it's simply not there...anywhere...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did any NHL goalie spend as large a percentge of his career playing in the NHL in the late 20s as Connell?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hmm? The article is from 1928 after Connell's only season leading the league in GAA and it's talking about the "state" of goaltending basically...so it's not talking about anyone's entire career I don't think. Just, "who's the best right now"

Sometimes you can just recognize when a goalie isn't as good as his stats would lead you to believe...not even just after one year, but after multiple years...

Connell, does seem to fall into that criteria, given the many opportunities to praise him and the overall lack of praise. Having looked through a number of game summaries from the pre-forward pass era, it's conceivable that he wasn't a top-5 player on his own team. Which is a shame because like I said, Connell is someone I was hoping would emerge from this a little more prominently, but it's simply not there...anywhere...

My original statement on Connell:

"However, since then I have learned that even if you have the all-time very best statistic in a category like Goals Against Average (as Connell has) it really means almost nothing."

Clearly, you agree.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Did any NHL goalie spend as large a percentge of his career playing in the NHL in the late 20s as Connell?

Player (pro career) - GP from 1923-24 through 1928-29 - Pro Games Total - percentage
Regular Season only, H-R used, NHA, NHL, PCHA, WCHL, WHL considered "pro" - min. 100 games played in year range

Jake Forbes (19/20 - 32/33) - 151 GP of 210 (71.9%)
Clint Benedict (12/13 - 29/30) - 212 GP of 443 (47.9%)
Alec Connell (24/25 - 34/35, 36/37) - 198 GP of 417 (47.5%)
John Ross Roach (21/22 - 34/35) - 220 GP of 492 (44.7%)
Roy Worters (25/26 - 36/37) - 161 GP of 484 (33.3%)
Lorne Chabot (26/27 - 36/37) - 124 GP of 412 (30.1%)
George Hainsworth (23/24 - 36/37) - 132 GP of 553 (23.9%)

 

[Michael Farkas]

My original statement on Connell:

"However, since then I have learned that even if you have the all-time very best statistic in a category like Goals Against Average (as Connell has) it really means almost nothing."

Clearly, you agree.

If my only two choices are "stats meaning everything" or "stats mean nothing", it's no contest, the latter.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If my only two choices are "stats meaning everything" or "stats mean nothing", it's no contest, the latter.

No, those are not the only 2 choices.

Just that in Connell's case that seems to be the opinion.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hmm? The article is from 1928 after Connell's only season leading the league in GAA and it's talking about the "state" of goaltending basically...so it's not talking about anyone's entire career I don't think. Just, "who's the best right now"

Sometimes you can just recognize when a goalie isn't as good as his stats would lead you to believe...not even just after one year, but after multiple years...

Connell, does seem to fall into that criteria, given the many opportunities to praise him and the overall lack of praise. Having looked through a number of game summaries from the pre-forward pass era, it's conceivable that he wasn't a top-5 player on his own team. Which is a shame because like I said, Connell is someone I was hoping would emerge from this a little more prominently, but it's simply not there...anywhere...

In the 31-32 season Connell was the top player on his team. Only one team in the league scored less goals than the Detroit Falcons. Yet on this team Connell had the second best GAA (to Charlie Gardiner) and got his team into the playoff.

In the 34-35 season Connell led the Montreal Moorons to the Cup. Though a more talented team than the Falcons, I don't see any of there players placing high in the scoring lists from that season. Toronto was 30-14-4 with Hainesworth in goal, 11 points ahead of the Maroons (24-19-5). But Connell led the league in shutouts with 9 and was again 2nd in GAA (to Chabot) with a 1.86. In the playoffs he dropped that down to a 1.12. Maroons swept Toronto 3-0.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

If my only two choices are "stats meaning everything" or "stats mean nothing", it's no contest, the latter.

And if I have to conclude that Worters is the best NHL goalie between 1923 and 1950 because he's the only one with a Hart trophy, then I know something's wrong there, too.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In the 31-32 season Connell was the top player on his team. Only one team in the league scored less goals than the Detroit Falcons. Yet on this team Connell had the second best GAA (to Charlie Gardiner) and got his team into the playoff.

In the 34-35 season Connell led the Montreal Moorons to the Cup. Though a more talented team than the Falcons, I don't see any of there players placing high in the scoring lists from that season. Toronto was 30-14-4 with Hainesworth in goal, 11 points ahead of the Maroons (24-19-5). But Connell led the league in shutouts with 9 and was again 2nd in GAA (to Chabot) with a 1.86. In the playoffs he dropped that down to a 1.12. Maroons swept Toronto 3-0.

That's all very possible, but I didn't really get to in-depth research on that part yet. I was talking about his career up until the forward pass. Perhaps you want to take over and paw through some game summaries too. I know in 1935 (as I did a profile for Connell in the pre-1950 goalies thread) he was regarded very highly for his playoff performance. Maybe there's even more to him than that. From accounts and voting of the time, from various years (pre-forward pass, just so I'm clear), I wouldn't assume that Connell was a top-3 player on his team at least, nor would I suppose that he's a top-3 goalie in the league at least.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And if I have to conclude that Worters is the best NHL goalie between 1923 and 1950 because he's the only one with a Hart trophy, then I know something's wrong there, too.

If someone voted him in just on that very basis alone, then we'd have a problem, sure. In which case, if that were true, I'd expect Chuck Rayner to make the top-4 this round...let's see if that theory holds water.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

If someone voted him in just on that very basis alone, then we'd have a problem, sure. In which case, if that were true, I'd expect Chuck Rayner to make the top-4 this round...let's see if that theory holds water.

Well, if it's not that, then what's his case over someone like Connell? Surely it's not his invalid "GAA-biased Vezina", right, because stats must be thrown out the door. Rarely started all his team's games in an era where that was "standard", losing record both regular season and playoffs, no Cups, etc...

Basically I think more work needs to be done bridging the gap of understanding between what it means to be the most valuable guy to your team and the best in the league at your position in this era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, if it's not that, then what's his case over someone like Connell? Surely it's not his invalid "GAA-biased Vezina", right, because stats must be thrown out the door. Rarely started all his team's games in an era where that was "standard", losing record both regular season and playoffs, no Cups, etc...

Basically I think more work needs to be done bridging the gap of understanding between what it means to be the most valuable guy to your team and the best in the league at your position in this era.

Worters seems to be universally praised after every game for giving his team a chance - snatching victory for a low quality team. That was further backed by the 10 men that put those teams together as well...many of them are etched permanently on trophies that players today hope to win. It's tough to find any strong praise for Connell in game summaries from the era, meanwhile, the only way not to find praise for Worters is to not look.

Maybe Connell was a slightly better Chris Osgood of the era. Fundamentally, they were probably challenged as well. Osgood is a poor goaltender technically and it shows. Connell didn't start playing goalie until he was 18 I think, so I doubt he was very refined. But who knows...well, besides the managers and writers that saw them, that is...

I just don't know what you guys hope to bring about with your arguments...I guess that's my main issue. What is your point? And I mean it respectfully...I just can't seem to grasp what you hope to happen when it seems there's little more going on than crumbling up box scores and throwing them in my general direction...

If anything, this is a terrific lesson for all of us when these modern goalies start to come up. "System" goalies existed throughout the history of the league to some extent, and probably more so now than ever. So, when guys like Osgood, Giguere, Thomas, etc. come up, hopefully we won't get sucked in...

Doesn't this help to alleviate some of the mystery surrounding Hainsworth too? These guys recognized what goalies were critical to a team's success and which guys were passengers it would appear. Appear. It would appear. I repeat it so what I'm saying goes down as a talking point and not gospel.

When you look at detailed game summaries (I'm still in the 20's here) from the time...when Worters comes up, it's all about him and how he's the best goalie in the league and the biggest part of his team's success. When you get to Hainsworth and Connell, they're third or fifth in the pecking order. Usually talking about the strong defensive presence of guys like Nighbor and Mantha and the like...

Personally, and I may be alone in this, but this era -- pre-expansion -- is the time when I think first-hand accounts are the most valuable. These guys know the game, they know the players, they know the teams...as you get further and further away from this time, the line between media and fan blurs significantly...luckily, we have more and more video as that line blurs so we can judge for ourselves...case in point.

So, if we're going to go on stats...well, stat, I guess, it's just GAA from what I can see, right? If we're going on stat...why Connell now? Why not at #3 or #7...or #12, you know, behind Hainsworth...?

 

[MXD]

Worters seems to be universally praised after every game for giving his team a chance - snatching victory for a low quality team. That was further backed by the 10 men that put those teams together as well...many of them are etched permanently on trophies that players today hope to win. It's tough to find any strong praise for Connell in game summaries from the era, meanwhile, the only way not to find praise for Worters is to not look.

Maybe Connell was a slightly better Chris Osgood of the era. Fundamentally, they were probably challenged as well. Osgood is a poor goaltender technically and it shows. Connell didn't start playing goalie until he was 18 I think, so I doubt he was very refined. But who knows...well, besides the managers and writers that saw them, that is...

I just don't know what you guys hope to bring about with your arguments...I guess that's my main issue. What is your point? And I mean it respectfully...I just can't seem to grasp what you hope to happen when it seems there's little more going on than crumbling up box scores and throwing them in my general direction...

If anything, this is a terrific lesson for all of us when these modern goalies start to come up. "System" goalies existed throughout the history of the league to some extent, and probably more so now than ever. So, when guys like Osgood, Giguere, Thomas, etc. come up, hopefully we won't get sucked in...

Doesn't this help to alleviate some of the mystery surrounding Hainsworth too? These guys recognized what goalies were critical to a team's success and which guys were passengers it would appear. Appear. It would appear. I repeat it so what I'm saying goes down as a talking point and not gospel.

When you look at detailed game summaries (I'm still in the 20's here) from the time...when Worters comes up, it's all about him and how he's the best goalie in the league and the biggest part of his team's success. When you get to Hainsworth and Connell, they're third or fifth in the pecking order. Usually talking about the strong defensive presence of guys like Nighbor and Mantha and the like...

Personally, and I may be alone in this, but this era -- pre-expansion -- is the time when I think first-hand accounts are the most valuable. These guys know the game, they know the players, they know the teams...as you get further and further away from this time, the line between media and fan blurs significantly...luckily, we have more and more video as that line blurs so we can judge for ourselves...case in point.

So, if we're going to go on stats...well, stat, I guess, it's just GAA from what I can see, right? If we're going on stat...why Connell now? Why not at #3 or #7...or #12, you know, behind Hainsworth...?

Sorry, but Connell won a cup with a mid-calibre team. That disqualifies any Osgood comparison.