Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Killion]

Apparently Plante was coaching in the Flyers organization in the late '70s - early '80s.

Ah yes... he was a Consultant with Oakland, Philly, St. Louis & the Habs at various times post career. I thought perhaps Peeters had encountered him in Edmonton when Plante was finishing out his career with the Oilers in the WHA.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Ah yes... he was a Consultant with Oakland, Philly, St. Louis & the Habs at various times post career. I thought perhaps Peeters had encountered him in Edmonton when Plante was finishing out his career with the Oilers in the WHA.

Funny incident that shows even the great ones make mistakes: Apparently when Patrick Roy was in the juniors, Plante told the Canadiens that he wouldn't amount to anything

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The case for Rayner over Worsley

I'm probably going to have Rayner over Worsley. Rayner's consistent recognition on a bad team is awfully impressive - "3rd Team All Star in 1942," lost 3 years to the war, then was either awarded Team MVP or got significant recognition for the league-wide All Star Team in 5 of 6 seasons after the war, along with significant Hart consideration. And the one year of those 6 during which he didn't receive recognition, there were special circumstances (Rangers trying to get their pre-war goalie Jim Henry back into the action, an injury to Rayner, and Rayner taking the job back for the playoffs).

Keep in mind that Rayner was a 2nd Team All Star for 3 seasons in a row when the 1st Team always went to the GAA winner (who played a minimum number of games), and "if the GAA leader wasn't actually the best goalie, you had to be the best goalie just to be named a 2nd Teamer."

Other factors:

• Worsley was Rayner's successor on the weak Rangers, and does not appear to be as highly regarded as Rayner, while playing for them. Worsley got more recognition after he was traded to the dynasty Habs.
• Worsley did win 4 Cups in Montreal (2 as a starter, 2 in a platoon with 2 different goalies), but despite playing on a bad team, Rayner has a defining playoff run of his own, where the HHOF historical committee awarded Rayner the Retroactive Conn Smythe in a losing cause in 1950 (the year Lumley won his Cup).
• It wasn't just the media who voted on awards who liked Rayner. He received a lot of praise from his peers - possibly as much as any goalie left. Gump Worsley and Johnny Bower both called Rayner their mentor. Glenn Hall ranked Rayner second behind Sawchuk "in his assessment of historic talent," which I assume means goalies that Hall saw play before Hall had established himself.

I had Rayner several spots below Worsley and Lumley on my submitted list, but I've changed my mind. I didn't realize how highly regarded he was by people who saw him play (both the press and other goalies) until I looked at it more closely.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Jack Marshall of the Torontos thinks a lot of Harry Holmes, the parkdale boy, as a goaltender, and says that with some coaching will be as good as an net guardian in the NHA.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=4702,5397404&dq=harry+holmes&hl=en

Holmes, in goal, was very good, and he clears faster now and uses his head to good advantage.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=4430,5288760&dq=harry+holmes&hl=en
Two articles I posted last thread. Holmes comes into the NHA with a lot of potential and made noticeable improvements in his first season. Toronto finished third overall in the league and it was their first season in the NHA. By 1914 Toronto tied the Vezina-led Canadiens for first in the NHA, while allowing the fewest goals in the league. To resolve the tie, Toronto beat the Habs 6-2 in a two-game total goals series where Holmes pitched a shutout in the second contest. 1914 ends with Toronto lifting the Stanley Cup over Victoria in the first PCHA-NHA clash. Holmes certainly made Jack Marshall look prophetic.

Sharing the honors with Foyston and Patrick were the rival goalies. "Happy" Holmes was at his best, his work inside the cage saving more than one goal, while Fowler upheld his reputation in the rival cage as a goaltender of no mean ability.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=6629,1466753&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

Harry Holmes, the sterling goaler, is still in Toronto and will be found between the posts when the season opens.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=408,28577365&dq=harry+holmes+hockey&hl=en
After two seasons in Seattle and another Stanley Cup Holmes returns to Toronto. He actually signed with the Montreal Wanderers, but he was loaned to Toronto for the year. (Same season the Wanderers folded due to the fire destroying their arena)

Outplaying their opponents by a margin not so very wide, the Flying Frechmen showed Seattle fans how hockey is played in the east. A whirlwind but futile defence was put by Seattle against a whirlwind and successful attack by Montreal.

Lalonde was the star of both teams, scoring all four of the visitors points and playing well on defence and offence...He beat Rickey and Rowe time and again around the Seattle nets and his shooting was deadly in its accuracy.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=4186,3550454&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en
After a poor showing in the first two games of the 1919 Stanley Cup, the Canadiens give Holmes and Seattle a tough time. The article seems to pin the blame more on Seattle's skaters, specifically their defenders Rowe and Rickey, than Holmes.

Three old-time favorites with local fans were the stars for the winners. "Happy" Harry Holmes, goalie without a peer, was his old self. His saving was of the finished order, and he kept the score down.

Holmes came out to save when Denneny was within scoring distance. Holmes pulled off a rather spectacular save a few minutes later when Denneny duplicated his performance.

Ottawa were all over Seattle for awhile and peppered Holmes with dangerous shots. The former Toronto goalie, however, proved equal to the occasion and turned all and sundry away with regularity.

To open the third Holmes again proved the saving grace when Cleghorn shot low from close range.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...pg=4664,6709170&dq=harry+holmes+seattle&hl=en
Expanding an article I posted last thread as well. It seems worth noting the Toronto papers would describe Holmes as looking like his old self. Obviously he impressed observers in his previous stints with the Blueshirts.

Although Vancouver had nothing to gain by a win they played hard hockey and only the sensational and sometimes lucky saves of Happy Holmes in the Victoria's net prevented a different tale.

The breaks were with the winning team and had Lehman been given any kind of a defence in front of his well-nigh perfect work, the Cougars might have been travelling on very thin ice just now.

Moran...stickhandled his way through the whole team for the prettiest effort of the night. From then, on Holmes stopped dozens of shots from all angles and "Lady Luck" was perched on the top of his net.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=2233,2897601&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

Holmes Is At His Best
Holding a two-goal leader, the Cougars elected to play a strong defensive game and due to the smooth work of Halderson, Fraser and Loughlin, the Sheiks were given a rough ride in trying to get through on Happy Holmes. The Victoria goalie has never played a better game than he did here tonight. He had lots of luck also, a whole lot of shots he turned aside never being seen. The Sheiks rained in shots on a ratio of three to one against the Cougars' efforts at Hainsworth but Holmes never had a lapse except on Denneny's goal which came from outside the defense and went through Holmes's legs.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=5263,1239124&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

Morenz, with his terrific shot, was blazing away at Holmes an the "Happy one" had to pull phenomenal stuff in order to keep them from scoring.

Anxious to avoid three straight defeats, the Canadiens came on with the greatest display they have given during the series. They crowded the play in front of the Victoria net and eventually Holmes was forced to concede a goal by Joliat, who slammed in a fast pass from Boucher.

Less than two minutes later Morenz flashed through the Victoria defense like a buzz saw an had Holmes handcuffed with his bullet drive that nearly went through the net.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&pg=6703,3500583&dq=morenz+scores+three&hl=en

Victoria showed a defense that surprised the most seasoned critics. Still minus Halderson and Fraser, they went in there and tossed off the power of the Tiger drives with surprising strength. It was in the last eight or ten minutes that the Tigers ripped in savagely and broke through repeatedly, but Happy Holmes never showed better stuff. He was in wonderful form, stopping seventeen shots in the closing stretch. Briden and Oliver were through on him regularly, but he handled their delivery with an ease that was exasperating to the Bengal snipers, and his form was but the finishing touch to a show by Victoria that convinced Calgarians that the world's champions are a game set

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=1705,6605432&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

The St. Pats seemed able to penetrate the Detroit defense at will and only magnificent work by Holmes, Cougars' goalie, kept the score down.

McCaffrey slammed the puck at Holmes from ten feet out and followed it, but to no avail...Twice Carson stole the puck from the Cougary offence in mid-ice, and went down, once to be aided by Day in giving Holmes a busy two minutes...Carson slid through the Detroit team early in the second period and forced Holmes to make a magnificent save...Day nearly made a third score as the period opened, taking a pass from Carson and giving Holmes opportunity to add another scintillating save to his already long string.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&pg=4629,537374&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

Happy Holmes, goalkeeper; Loughlin, defence, and Sheppard, forward, are the only three of the team which finished for the Cougars in the past season who are likely to be retained.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=5934,2275776&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en
Jack Adams began managing Detroit following his retirement at the end of the 26-27 season. He decided to retain only three players including Holmes.

Rangers had the lead twice...but wild New York shooting...together with sensational goalkeeping by Happy Holmes, were factors in Detroit's victory.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=2208,6509486&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

"Happy" Holmes, Detroit goal-keeper, was credited with preventing Ranger scoring. The drive of Ching Johnson and Taffy Abel, was topped by the Detroit defencemen.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&pg=1739,6006675&dq=happy+holmes&hl=en

Was Holmes "boring" like Hainsworth?

Holmes played a stand-up style, and relied on proper positioning to stop the puck. Holmes' play was consistent, and he was relaxed and nonchalant in the nets, leading some to describe his play as almost lazy.

Wikipedia is certainly weak, but this is cited from Without Fear pg 100.

Charles Coleman's take

Happy Holmes was an exceptional goaler who played in both the east and west, compiling an average that is second only to that of Clint Benedict when weighted with the length of his career. He was on seven championship teams, four of which won the Stanley Cup.

This great goalkeeper seemed taken for granted and little reference was made of the extraordinary record that he was compiling. The eccentricities of other goalers kept many of them in the news but Holmes, if mentioned, was usually reported as playing a steady game. This he maintained throughout his career.

I don't see what makes Connell similar to Holmes aside from being in the Hall of Fame. Yes he didn't win the All-Star awards over Lehman, but he still got his fair share of praise despite the "boring" concerns mentioned in Without Fear and Trail of the Stanley Cup. He also won an all-star spot over Hainsworth in the WCHL so there was more to him than just a Jennings Trophy champion.

We don't really expect him to show up in the Hart voting in his final two years as a pro, right? In '27 no one from Detroit showed up in the top 10 listed, this was the offseason Adams came in with the intent to purge Detroit of all but Holmes and two others. George Hay finished 4th in '28 as he finished with 15 more points than his second closest teammate, and doubled the third place total.

For the crowd who cared about Broda v Durnan head-to-head, Holmes went 4-0 (2-0 in Stanley Cup finals with 1919 being canceled) against Vezina. He went 2-3 against Lehman in the playoffs, but beat him for the Stanley Cup in 1918 the only time they met there. He went 0-2 against Benedict in the '20 and '21 Stanley Cups against strong Ottawa clubs. He also knocked Hainsworth's teams out of the playoffs both times they met in the WCHL.

Considering longevity and the praise he received at every stop in his career I'm probably going to have Holmes in one of my 2-5 spots with Lumley, Rayner, and Worsley. Though Cs58's preference for Barrasso and Joseph over Worsley really interests me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The case for Rayner over Worsley

I'm probably going to have Rayner over Worsley. Rayner's consistent recognition on a bad team is awfully impressive - "3rd Team All Star in 1942," lost 3 years to the war, then was either awarded Team MVP or got significant recognition for the league-wide All Star Team in 5 of 6 seasons after the war, along with significant Hart consideration. And the one year of those 6 during which he didn't receive recognition, there were special circumstances (Rangers trying to get their pre-war goalie Jim Henry back into the action, an injury to Rayner, and Rayner taking the job back for the playoffs).

Keep in mind that Rayner was a 2nd Team All Star for 3 seasons in a row when the 1st Team always went to the GAA winner (who played a minimum number of games), and "if the GAA leader wasn't actually the best goalie, you had to be the best goalie just to be named a 2nd Teamer."

Other factors:

• Worsley was Rayner's successor on the weak Rangers, and does not appear to be as highly regarded as Rayner, while playing for them. Worsley got more recognition after he was traded to the dynasty Habs.
• Worsley did win 4 Cups in Montreal (2 as a starter, 2 in a platoon with 2 different goalies), but despite playing on a bad team, Rayner has a defining playoff run of his own, where the HHOF historical committee awarded Rayner the Retroactive Conn Smythe in a losing cause in 1950 (the year Lumley won his Cup).
• It wasn't just the media who voted on awards who liked Rayner. He received a lot of praise from his peers - possibly as much as any goalie left. Gump Worsley and Johnny Bower both called Rayner their mentor. Glenn Hall ranked Rayner second behind Sawchuk "in his assessment of historic talent," which I assume means goalies that Hall saw play before Hall had established himself.

I had Rayner several spots below Worsley and Lumley on my submitted list, but I've changed my mind. I didn't realize how highly regarded he was by people who saw him play (both the press and other goalies) until I looked at it more closely.

Odd awards voting, even for that time, in 50-51 season.

Al Rollins won the Vezina, Sawchuk was 1st team all-star, yet Rayner was 2nd team all-star.

Also that season, Howe dominated the scoring race yet Milt Schmidt won the Hart Trophy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Odd awards voting, even for that time, in 50-51 season.

Al Rollins won the Vezina, Sawchuk was 1st team all-star, yet Rayner was 2nd team all-star.

Also that season, Howe dominated the scoring race yet Milt Schmidt won the Hart Trophy.

These are the GAAs for that season:

1. Al Rollins-TOR 1.77
2. Terry Sawchuk*-DET 1.99
3. Turk Broda*-TOR 2.23
4. Gerry McNeil-MTL 2.63
5. Jack Gelineau-BOS 2.81
6. Chuck Rayner*-NYR 2.85
7. Harry Lumley*-CBH 3.90

I think the All Star voting makes sense. Rollins only played 40 of 70 games for Toronto, while Broda (in his last season) played the rest. All other starters basically played the full season. Sawchuk was 2nd in GAA, but played all 70 games and was 1st Star. Rollins was 1st in GAA playing many fewer games than anyone else, and was "3rd Star." Those are easy to figure out.

Rayner was 6th of 7 goalies in GAA, though closer to the pack than he was to 7th. He was 2nd All Star. I really can think of no other explanation than he just played very well for a weak team.

The Hart voting that season was crazy (as it was several other times in the 1950s) and I'm not even going to begin to try to make sense of it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for putting this together. A couple of things.

Charles Coleman's take

Coleman seems to take a very statistical view of the early goalies - picking Benedict over Vezina because of his better GAAs. This is consistent with his view that people who watched Holmes playing underrated him because of his "boring" style. There's nothing wrote with the way Coleman is evaluating the goalies, but realize that he is putting a fairly high emphasis on GAA and less so on the popular opinion of people who watched this guys.

(Coleman was born in 1902, and I'm not sure how much he saw the earliest players he wrote about, or if it was based on the historical research available at the time).

I don't see what makes Connell similar to Holmes aside from being in the Hall of Fame.

Their place among their generations seem similar - Holmes was probably 4th best of his, Connell was probably 5th best of his. It seems to me that Holmes was farther behind 3rd than Connell was behind Hainsworth. Both are best known for being key players in the postseason (though Connell has "only" two Cups with two Teams, and Holmes has four, although 2 of Holmes' were during WWI).

Yes he didn't win the All-Star awards over Lehman, but he still got his fair share of praise despite the "boring" concerns mentioned in Without Fear and Trail of the Stanley Cup. He also won an all-star spot over Hainsworth in the WCHL so there was more to him than just a Jennings Trophy champion.

Well, I'm still a skeptic as to how good Hainsworth was at his peak, considering in the height of his NHL prime in 1928, he only beat out Connell for 2nd Team All Star by a single vote. I voted Hainsworth in last time based on his longevity as a top player, more than peak value.

Considering longevity and the praise he received at every stop in his career I'm probably going to have Holmes in one of my 2-5 spots with Lumley, Rayner, and Worsley. Though Cs58's preference for Barrasso and Joseph over Worsley really interests me.

Right, I guess Holmes didn't really have down years in the middle of his career like Connell did.

3 more Original 6 goalies before a guy who peaked after 1990, eh?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Right, I guess Holmes didn't really have down years in the middle of his career like Connell did.

Which of Connell's years would you consider "down years"?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Thanks for putting this together. A couple of things.



Coleman seems to take a very statistical view of the early goalies - picking Benedict over Vezina because of his better GAAs. This is consistent with his view that people who watched Holmes played underrated him because of his "boring" style. There's nothing wrote with the way Coleman is evaluating the goalies, but realize that he is putting a very high emphasis on GAA and less so on the popular opinion of people who watched this guys.

(Coleman was born in 1902, and I'm not sure how much he saw the earliest players he wrote about, or if it was based on the historical research available at the time).

Good context. I was more interested in his affirmation of the "boring" factor than him talking about Holmes's weighted GAA, but didn't address this.

Their place among their generations seem similar - Holmes was probably 4th best of his, Connell was probably 5th best of his. It seems to me that Holmes was farther behind 3rd than Connell was behind Hainsworth. Both are best known for being key players in the postseason (though Connell has "only" two Cups with two Teams, and Holmes has four, although 2 of Holmes' were during WWI).

I just think Holmes was on a different level than Connell honestly. Holmes did everything he did and more. If I'm going to appeal to just the balancing act I'm really not going to look at Connell's case as #5 of his era at this point.

I'd like to see the names Connell beat out in the playoffs to see if they compare favorably to Holmes. It seems like Connell gets a lot of mileage for beating a geriatric Hainsworth in the playoffs, yet Holmes dispatched him twice in the WCHL playoffs 5 years earlier. I find his record vs Vezina far more compelling than anything Connell did in the playoffs. I mean Connell only won 1 more playoff series than Holmes won Cups.

I don't put much stock in the war concern either. The 1917 Canadiens had a very good team that lost depth and gained star power.

The champions had lost McNamara, Prodgers, Arbour, and Ronan. However, after [re-]signing Vezina, Pitre, Laviolette, Lalonde, Corbeau and Berlinquette, they picked up Harry Mummery and Tommy Smith from Quebec and a new player Billy Couture or Coutu. They were so well loaded that they let Skinner Poulin to the Wanderers.

Here's the notes on 1918's Millionaires

Vancouver replaced Patrick and Griffis with Ran McDonald an Lloyd Cook of Spokane for the defence. Taylor, MacKay, and Stanley were back as forwards but Gordie Roberts had been transferred to Seattle.

Patrick retired, I'm not sure what Griffis did (also retired??) but he was back for the Stanley Cup. It's a shame they lost Roberts the year after he led the league in scoring, but his movement had nothing to do with the war.

Well, I'm still a skeptic as to how good Hainsworth was at his peak, considering in the height of his NHL prime in 1928, he only beat out Connell for 2nd Team All Star by a single vote. I voted Hainsworth in last time based on his longevity as a top player, more than peak value.

I saw Hainsworth the same way and had him 5th last round. I think the further we go though, the more Holmes longevity stands out as Hainsworth's did despite the doubts. I see more similarities between Hainsworth and Holmes than Connell.

3 more Original 6 goalies before a guy who peaked after 1990, eh?

That's the problem and why I wanted to be transparent. Am I being unfair to Barrasso, Joseph, and Beezer? Or is it more fair considering we're light on the 80s goalies as well? No one's really calling for Liut and he has to the best 80s guys left out of the voting right? (I have Fuhr #1 this round FWIW.)

Honestly, Worsley is the one I'm least comfortable with. So if I'm being too kind to the older guys I'd probably take the birth year arguments out on him.

Is there a good reason to take Barrasso or Cujo over that Lumley, Rayner, and Holmes group? I wouldn't call those guys weak HHOFers so are we at the point that goalies just outside of the Hall are better than merited HHOFers?

I gave you my top 5, but Barraso and Cujo are comfortably holding down 6 and 7 in an undecided order and I'd be glad to bump them up as seems fit. I just don't see how I could get them any higher than above Worsley so help me see where I'm erring.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Which of Connell's years would you consider "down years"?

1933 and 1934, when he was no longer an NHL starter at the ages of 30 and 31 (before having one final great year at the age of 32 in 1935). I also think Connell probably wasn't very good in 1931.

Compare to Hap Holmes who was a regular starting goaltender until the age of 39.

BBS definitely has a point - Holmes does have massive longevity and consistency as a noteworthy player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's the problem and why I wanted to be transparent. Am I being unfair to Barrasso, Joseph, and Beezer? Or is it more fair considering we're light on the 80s goalies as well? No one's really calling for Liut and he has to the best 80s guys left out of the voting right? (I have Fuhr #1 this round FWIW.)

Honestly, Worsley is the one I'm least comfortable with. So if I'm being too kind to the older guys I'd probably take the birth year arguments out on him.

Is there a good reason to take Barrasso or Cujo over that Lumley, Rayner, and Holmes group? I wouldn't call those guys weak HHOFers so are we at the point that goalies just outside of the Hall are better than merited HHOFers?

I gave you my top 5, but Barraso and Cujo are comfortably holding down 6 and 7 in an undecided order and I'd be glad to bump them up as seems fit. I just don't see how I could get them any higher than above Worsley so help me see where I'm erring.

Transparency is definitely a good thing.

I think Hawkey Town made a great point in Post 195 when he asked if any goalie left other than perhaps Fuhr accomplished more in a 10 year period than Tom Barrasso did. After examining the goalies left, I think Chuck Rayner is the only one with a record over 10 years that can compare, depending on how much credit you want to give him for the war years. I don't think Rayner can get full credit like someone like Brimsek or Milt Schmdt, who was a star for years both before and after the war. But Rayner needs to get some credit, as he was a 3rd Team AS the season before the War, and a star-calibre player for years afterwards. This isn't Ken Reardon, who was a star for years after the war, but didn't get any recognition beforehand, Rayner did get recognition before the war, but only in his final season before leaving.

I'm leaning towards Rayner over Barrasso just because of the Hart Trophy, but I think it says something that Barrasso had a 10 year stretch that probably compares favorably to everyone else left but Fuhr.

As for the HHOF, I think Barrasso would have already been inducted if he wasn't such a jerk to the media and sometimes his teammates. The HHOF normally would not keep out someone who was a 5-time Vezina finalist (with 1 win) who won 2 Cups (and not as a passenger).

It's possible that I'm trying too hard to have another "modern" goalie added sooner rather than later, but I think Barrasso's record stands up well against almost anyone who is left.

 

[pappyline]

Transparency is definitely a good thing.

I think Hawkey Town made a great point in Post 195 when he asked if any goalie left other than perhaps Fuhr accomplished more in a 10 year period than Tom Barrasso did. After examining the goalies left, I think Chuck Rayner is the only one with a record over 10 years that can compare, depending on how much credit you want to give him for the war years. I don't think Rayner can get full credit like someone like Brimsek or Milt Schmdt, who was a star for years both before and after the war. But Rayner needs to get some credit, as he was a 3rd Team AS the season before the War, and a star-calibre player for years afterwards. This isn't Ken Reardon, who was a star for years after the war, but didn't get any recognition beforehand, Rayner did get recognition before the war, but only in his final season before leaving.

I'm leaning towards Rayner over Barrasso just because of the Hart Trophy, but I think it says something that Barrasso had a 10 year stretch that probably compares favorably to everyone else left but Fuhr.

As for the HHOF, I think Barrasso would have already been inducted if he wasn't such a jerk to the media and sometimes his teammates. The HHOF normally would not keep out someone who was a 5-time Vezina finalist (with 1 win) who won 2 Cups (and not as a passenger).

It's possible that I'm trying too hard to have another "modern" goalie added sooner rather than later, but I think Barrasso's record stands up well against almost anyone who is left.

Actually, I am kind of shocked to see Barrasso up for votes so early and being promoted as a top 30 guy no less. To me, this would be the second big mistake, Even worse than Billy Smith as a top 25 guy.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Transparency is definitely a good thing.

I think Hawkey Town made a great point in Post 195 when he asked if any goalie left other than perhaps Fuhr accomplished more in a 10 year period than Tom Barrasso did. After examining the goalies left, I think Chuck Rayner is the only one with a record over 10 years that can compare, depending on how much credit you want to give him for the war years. I don't think Rayner can get full credit like someone like Brimsek or Milt Schmdt, who was a star for years both before and after the war. But Rayner needs to get some credit, as he was a 3rd Team AS the season before the War, and a star-calibre player for years afterwards. This isn't Ken Reardon, who was a star for years after the war, but didn't get any recognition beforehand, Rayner did get recognition before the war, but only in his final season before leaving.

I'm leaning towards Rayner over Barrasso just because of the Hart Trophy, but I think it says something that Barrasso had a 10 year stretch that probably compares favorably to everyone else left but Fuhr.

As for the HHOF, I think Barrasso would have already been inducted if he wasn't such a jerk to the media and sometimes his teammates. The HHOF normally would not keep out someone who was a 5-time Vezina finalist (with 1 win) who won 2 Cups (and not as a passenger).

It's possible that I'm trying too hard to have another "modern" goalie added sooner rather than later, but I think Barrasso's record stands up well against almost anyone who is left.

Wasn't 41-42 a War year?

Besides, is a 3rd team AS saying much in a 7 team league?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wasn't 41-42 a War year?

Not really in terms of effects on the NHL.

Milt Schmidt and his linemates were famous as the first NHL players to leave for the War and they did pretty close to the end of 1941-42 (Schmdit played 38 of 50 games) . I don't believe any goalies missed games because of the war.

Among starting goalies in 1941-42:

• Chuck Rayner (Brooklyn Americans) missed 42-43 to 44-45. The Americans folded as the war started, and he took Jim Henry's job with the Rangers after the war.
• Jim Henry (Rangers) missed 42-43 to 44-45 but didn't get a starter's job back until 47-48.
• Sam Lopresti (Blackhawks) missed 42-43 to 45-46. He never played again in the NHL but played in the minors.
• Johnny Mowers (Red Wings) missed 43-44 and 44-45, but couldn't get a starter's job after he returned.
• Turk Broda (Maple Leafs) missed 43-44 and 44-45 and most of 45-46.
• Frank Brimsek (Bruins) missed 43-44 and 44-45 and the beginning of 45-46.

Besides, is a 3rd team AS saying much in a 7 team league?

I think it means something - Rayner, in his first NHL season as his team's primary goalie, looks to be the only goalie in the NHL other than Frank Brimsek and Turk Broda to receive any All-Star votes. He then lost the next 3 years to the war before coming back and firmly establishing himself as something of a star.

The votes in 1941-42 were (1st place vote - 2nd place vote)

1) Frank Brimsek (24-6)
2) Turk Broda (3-22)
3) Chuck Rayner (3-2)

It's a little wacky because I think they were already weighting per city, but on the face of it, 5 of 30 voters thought Rayner was a top 2 goalie in the league, and nobody thought anyone other than these three was a top 2 goalie. Rayner obviously finished way behind the top 2 (all 30 voters thought Brimsek was a top 2 goalie and 25 of 30 thought Broda was). But I do think it means something that the 5 of 30 voters who didn't think Broda was a top 2 goalie all picked Rayner.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hope everyone had/is having a Happy Holiday.

Voting opens tomorrow, so get any final arguments in soon.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually, I am kind of shocked to see Barrasso up for votes so early and being promoted as a top 30 guy no less. To me, this would be the second big mistake, Even worse than Billy Smith as a top 25 guy.

Do you like Cujo and Beezer better than Barrasso or do you think it's too early for all of them?

Even if you don't think he should be added yet, is it really to early to even be talking about a 5-time Vezina finalist who was a key part of 2 Cup winners?

 

[pappyline]

Do you like Cujo and Beezer better than Barrasso or do you think it's too early for all of them?

Even if you don't think he should be added yet, is it really to early to even be talking about a 5-time Vezina finalist who was a key part of 2 Cup winners?

Well, I didn't even have Barrasso in my top 60 and it is not because I didn't consider him. He just never impressed me that much. Maybe I was wrong and I will follow the arguments for him. I had cujo at 30 and Beezer at 35 so I can see them coming up at this point (maybe a little early for Beezer).

 

[MXD]

The votes in 1941-42 were (1st place vote - 2nd place vote)

1) Frank Brimsek (24-6)
2) Turk Broda (3-22)
3) Chuck Rayner (3-2)

It's a little wacky because I think they were already weighting per city, but on the face of it, 5 of 30 voters thought Rayner was a top 2 goalie in the league, and nobody thought anyone other than these three was a top 2 goalie. Rayner obviously finished way behind the top 2 (all 30 voters thought Brimsek was a top 2 goalie and 25 of 30 thought Broda was). But I do think it means something that the 5 of 30 voters who didn't think Broda was a top 2 goalie all picked Rayner.

The only thing -- not very good competition.

Henry, Lopresti, Mowers (who appeared to have a down year), and Paul Bibeault were the starters. Both Henry and Bibeault were young -- not that it's relevant for Bibeault.

His third place is somewhat revealing that he could hold a regular NHL job, but it's certainly not as impressive as if he would have been doing this against Durnan & Lumley (amongst others).

All in all -- I think it does have to be considered in the same light than Reardon's rookie season, but I might have had a better opinion (of Reardon's season) than what you seemed to have.

 

[BM67]

Let's look at what Rayner did in his early career:

In 1939-40 Rayner was playing for the Kenora Thistles. Red Dutton called him the best goalie prospect in Canada, and he got Kenora to the Memorial Cup Final, where they lost 3 games to 1 to the repeat champs from Oshawa.

1940-41 he was a 2nd team all-star in the AHL, and got a 12 game call up with the Americans.

In 1941-42 Rayner took the starting job from Robertson, a 2 time 2nd team all-star, and finished 3rd in all-star voting.

Rayner spent 42-43, 43-44 and 44-45 in military service.

In 1945-46, Rayner returned to the NHL with the Rangers, and platooned with Henry for the first 26 games of the season, before Henry was sent to the minors, and he took over full starter duties.

In 46-47, Rayner remained the Rangers starter and finished 4th in all-star voting and tied for 4th in Hart voting with Broda. All-star voting was done by the 6 NHL coaches and the Hart by the writers.

In 47-48, Rayner was injured in the 10th game of the season. He played 15 games in the AHL while Henry took over in NY, but returned to play the last 2 games of the season, and played well in the Rangers' playoff loss to Detroit. Neither Henry or Rayner get any awards voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I ended up voting Rayner 2nd after Fuhr.

If there is one player who I underrated on my original list, it's Rayner.

Let's look at what Rayner did in his early career:

In 1939-40 Rayner was playing for the Kenora Thistles. Red Dutton called him the best goalie prospect in Canada, and he got Kenora to the Memorial Cup Final, where they lost 3 games to 1 to the repeat champs from Oshawa.

1940-41 he was a 2nd team all-star in the AHL, and got a 12 game call up with the Americans.

In 1941-42 Rayner took the starting job from Robertson, a 2 time 2nd team all-star, and finished 3rd in all-star voting.

Rayner spent 42-43, 43-44 and 44-45 in military service.

In 1945-46, Rayner returned to the NHL with the Rangers, and platooned with Henry for the first 26 games of the season, before Henry was sent to the minors, and he took over full starter duties.

In 46-47, Rayner remained the Rangers starter and finished 4th in all-star voting and tied for 4th in Hart voting with Broda. All-star voting was done by the 6 NHL coaches and the Hart by the writers.

In 47-48, Rayner was injured in the 10th game of the season. He played 15 games in the AHL while Henry took over in NY, but returned to play the last 2 games of the season, and played well in the Rangers' playoff loss to Detroit. Neither Henry or Rayner get any awards voting.

That's twice that Rayner took the starting job from an established NHL goalie who was good enough to be a post-season All Star in other seasons. (Henry was the Rangers' goalie before the war; Rayner's old team, the Brooklyn Americans, folded during the war).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I ended up voting Rayner 2nd after Fuhr.

If there is one player who I underrated on my original list, it's Rayner.



That's twice that Rayner took the starting job from an established NHL goalie who was good enough to be a post-season All Star in other seasons. (Henry was the Rangers' goalie before the war; Rayner's old team, the Brooklyn Americans, folded during the war).

Looks like there's going to be a wide range of votes this time around.

Not sure Rayner's even going to be in my top 8.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Quick survey: was 13 candidates too much or did it work fine?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Quick survey: was 13 candidates too much or did it work fine?

Quick answer: it lends itself to players getting lost in the wash and not discussed properly. Even if it doesn't have to. People immediately want to sort it down to a more manageable number so they go, "well, this guy doesn't belong at all..." and then someone takes exception about the "at all" part and you have a discussion about just how much this goalie doesn't belong, both full well knowing that he doesn't belong in some respect. So, I thought and still think, as I'm trying to formulate my vote, that 13 was too much.

 

[Michael Farkas]

John Vanbiesbrouck:

1986
Vezina: 1st (42.9% of first place votes)
All-Star: 1st (36.7% of first place votes)
Ranks: 1st GP, t-1st wins, 5th GAA, 10th SPct., 3rd SO

1987:
Vezina: 6th
All-Star: N/A
Ranks: 8th GP, t-16th wins, 30th GAA, 19th SPct.

1988:
Vezina: 6th
All-Star: 9th
Ranks: t-5th GP, 4th wins, 13th GAA, 10th SPct., t-7th SO

1989:
Vezina: 4th
All-Star: t-10th (one vote)
Ranks: 5th GP, t-4th wins, 23rd GAA, 17th SPct.

1992:
Vezina: 6th
All-Star: t-9th (one vote)
Ranks: t-16th GP, t-6th wins, 4th GAA, 4th SPct., t-8th SO

1994:
Vezina: 2nd
All-Star: 2nd
Ranks: t-15th GP, t-22nd wins, 4th GAA, 2nd SPct., t-28th SO

1995:
Vezina: t-5th
All-Star: N/A
Ranks: 13th GP, t-17th wins, 7th GAA, 3rd SPct., t-3rd SO

1996:
Vezina: 7th
All-Star: t-7th (one vote)
Ranks: t-10th GP, t-13th wins, 9th GAA, 18th SPct., t-16th SO

1997:
Vezina: t-7th (one vote)
All-Star: t-4th
Ranks: t-14th GP, t-11th wins, 5th GAA, 6th SPct., t-20th SO

Interesting that the league GMs thought more highly of Beezer than did the media. The only time the media really seems to get involved with him significantly more than the GMs are 1994 and 1997 - two of Beezer's best statistical seasons by rank. The other one is 1992, but it's largely ignored by the media because of the proximity to Richter in the ranks (GAA; Save pct. for Beezer/Richter: 4th/9th; 4th/6th). Richter and Beezer each got a vote from the media. Richter got a single 3rd place vote from the GMs, but Beezer received 5 votes, and had Richter's vote gone to Beezer, the latter would have finished t-4th in the Vezina that year. But meanwhile, he appeared on nearly a quarter of the GMs ballots.

A case of the GMs recognizing talent and worth to a club over statistics? A case of Beezer not being well liked by the media? A total coincidence?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Quick answer: it lends itself to players getting lost in the wash and not discussed properly. Even if it doesn't have to. People immediately want to sort it down to a more manageable number so they go, "well, this guy doesn't belong at all..." and then someone takes exception about the "at all" part and you have a discussion about just how much this goalie doesn't belong, both full well knowing that he doesn't belong in some respect. So, I thought and still think, as I'm trying to formulate my vote, that 13 was too much.

Basically, the next 6 goalies are separated by less than 20 points total. So either we add 6 (giving us 15 total candidates), add nobody (giving us 9 total candidates), or arbitrarily cut off guys who are separated by an insignificant amount.

Kind of messy...

(edit: there are natural breaks after this point, so there won't ever be a need to go beyond 15)