Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

It really doesn't seem to me like Lumley was anything special outside of 1953 and 1954. Clarification - he was good enough to keep a starter's job in a 6 team league for over a decade, which is an accomplishment on it's own, but he didn't stand out outside of those two years.

4th in Hart voting in the still-tainted 1946 is good, but not great, though it is much more meaningful than any all-star votes against a still questionable field of goalies (Durnan was the only other HHOFer who seems up to speed in 1946 and he was way ahead of Lumley and the rest. Brimsek, who came back partly through the season, was 2nd).

Then Lumley spent the next 5 years as an unspectacular starter, outshone by Rayner, Broda, and others. Then he goes to Toronto, and in his 2nd and 3rd seasons in Toronto, has 2 great seasons. By 1954 and 1955, the competition was quite strong, and his Hart voting record in those two seasons backs up the All-Star teams.

Are those two seasons enough to push Lumley ahead of the older Rayner, who was better than him when the two were in the league at the same time? I'm honestly not sure.

I think that bold point needs a little more investigation into the state of the Blackhawks at the time. They were 5th/6th for 4 years before Lumley came in (including the previous season with Brimsek between the pipes), and Lumley's arrival furthermore coincided with the twilight of many of the Blackhawks' "marquee" names like the Roy Conacher, Bentley, Mosienko, etc. Olmstead shipped out for a couple of guys who ended up amounting to nothing, etc.

Now true, Lumley didn't seem to improve those fortunes, and it looks like the replacement of Rollins propels them to a rare trip to the playoffs, but I think the players Chicago bought off Detroit did a lot more for their fortunes as a "band-aid" solution. Sure enough, the honeymoon was over fairly quickly, and with a lot of key players in their 30s and fading, the Blackhawks went into the cellar for another 4 years despite having Rollins arguably in his prime.

So in the end, while Lumley probably looks statistically "unspectacular" for a stretch - particularly during his short stint in Chicago - I imagine his actual on-ice performance could have looked something like Luongo in Florida (when Luongo's ~2.7 GAA looked less than unspectacular next to, say, Roy's - and others' - ~2.00, but we know what he was dealing with there). I mean, look at the more than 1.00 GAA jump Lumley has going from Detroit to Chicago, and then again going from Chicago to Toronto just a couple of years later.

Now, the Rangers of Rayner's day look to have been in pretty similar shape as the league bottom dweller. I understand that a Hart trophy carries a lot of weight, but I'm personally not ready to concede Rayner as the better of the two "overall" during their career overlap (or overall period, even), and I see more career value (longer career, certainly) and a Stanley Cup favouring Lumley as well.

 

[bluesfan94]

I completely agree. Lumley was facing a crazy amount of pressure.

The Wings peppered goalie Harry Lumley with 55 shots, 48 of which he stopped. Meantime, Sawchuk had a minimum of trouble with only 15 stops in all.

It was also the first game in two weeks for Harry Lumley, one of hockey's best goaltenders, whose fate most of this season has been to play behind a defence sadly weakened by injuries to such top performers as Jack Stewart and Bill Gadsby

It's a backhander as he (Rocket Richard) reaches a Chicago defence that makes Goalie Harry Lumley look bad!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Weighed Voting

The other thing is that All-Star voting in 1954 and 1955 was done on the two votes basis, one at midseason and one at the end of the season. In both years Lumley solidly beat out Sawchuk in the first half but lost ground in the second half. The 1954-55 voting is particularly notable, given that Lumley was almost unanimously voted into first place for the first half where he held a 1.69 - 1.91 GAA lead over Sawchuk (the Jan. 17, 1955 Ottawa Citizen gives him 89 out of a maximum 90 points, which makes no sense considering that a 5-3-1 voting system can't result in 89 points, but presumably they meant 88/90). Yet by the end of the year Lumley only won the All-Star voting by 25 points, which means that Sawchuk must have solidly outpointed him in end of season voting.

Given his team's defensive reputation, the heavy GAA bias of the time and the unusual voting circumstances, I tend to agree with TDMM that Lumley's First Team All-Stars shouldn't necessarily be given a lot of weight.

During that period NHL media voting was weighed to reflect respective media representation. The US cities had three votes each but the Canadian cities with upwards of 23 accredited media per city saw their three votes weighed down to three, so a 5/5/4 vote after weighing was possible.

 

[BM67]

So which is it - age matters or not? Revisit your position on an old Lehman and a young Lumley.

1950 playoffs, semi finals, Red Wings without Howe, down 3-2 in games. Lumley blanks the Leafs in games 6 and 7. Wings go to the Finals. Indicator that Lumley played a significant role.

Let's see? Your position has been that coaches and media get things wrong in AST voting - Bill Durnan.Now your position is that the same coaches that got it wrong for Durnan got it right for Rayner.

The noble Rangers. Rayner was a free agent signing with the Rangers after WWII, so the loyalty to Henry position is questionable. Also the Rangers were the weakest NHL team at that time. Seems like the Rangers were the only team that wanted Rayner.

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

As for alternating/tandem with Jim Henry, the GP data does not support your assertion:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/henryji01.html

1945-46 Henry played 11 games, 1946-47 - 2 games. Hardly alternating.

1947-48 Henry played 48. Rayner spent 15 games in the minors. 10 is more than sufficient for rehab.

Assuming Mowers wanted to stick around the AHL. Was there a future for him? This is the rub with the pre 1943 NHL goalies - Henry, Bibeault, Mowers, Rayner, Brimsek, - the young next wave of the 1939- 43 era. How good were they? Bottom 1/3 to 1/2 in a six team league by the late 1940s?

The GP data is wrong. The data shows one shared game for Rayner and Henry.

The HHoF gives the season of the alternating goalie experiment as 47-48, referring to the Rangers making the playoffs that year, but a quick search finds an exhibition game in October of 45 and NHL games in November and December of 45. So that's at least 2 shared games in 45-46.

Looking at the game summaries in the Montreal Gazette, I find that Henry was sent to the minors on January 13th of 1946, thus ending the two goalie experiment after 26 games. Before then we have only two games where both goalies are mentioned in the write-up, but 13 games where the other goalie was listed as a sub.

Contrary to the modern style, the games where they gave up the most goals are not the ones where the ones with a sub goalie listed.

We have Henry with 10 starts, 1 split game relief, and 7 other games where he is listed as a sub in 1945-46.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

WRONG. Rangers were a much better team. In 51, Rangers had 61 points and Hawks had 36. In 52 Rangers had 59 and Hawks 43.

1949 Rangers were the last place team in the league and Rayner was still awarded the 2nd Team All Star. 1950 Rangers made the playoffs by the skin of their teeth and Rayner won the Hart Trophy (to go along with a 2nd Team All Star). 1951 Rangers were 2nd to last (to Chicago) and Rayner was a 2nd Team All Star.

No, none of the Rangers were as bad as the 36 point Blackhawk team. But maybe part of that is that Rayner was just better than Lumley in 1951. The voters thought he was:

GOALTENDER: (146/162, 15-9-8) Terry Sawchuk, Det 70 (10-6-2); Chuck Rayner, NYR 40 (5-3-6); Al Rollins, Tor 36 ();

Though it is noteworthy that Rollins was coming off a "3rd Team All Star" in his only full season when he was traded (with 2 more NHLers and an AHLer) for Lumley.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1950 playoffs, semi finals, Red Wings without Howe, down 3-2 in games. Lumley blanks the Leafs in games 6 and 7. Wings go to the Finals. Indicator that Lumley played a significant role.

Of course, Lumley played a significant role. He was the starting goalie of the Cup winner! I'm just not sure if he played any better than Rayner did those playoffs, though. The group of historians who awarded the retro Smythe to Rayner don't think he did.

Let's see? Your position has been that coaches and media get things wrong in AST voting - Bill Durnan.Now your position is that the same coaches that got it wrong for Durnan got it right for Rayner.

My "position" has been to restate the fact that the 1st Team AS was attached at the hip to the goalie with the lowest GAA, while 2nd Team and below were not nearly so dependent on GAA. The whole point of the case for Frank Brimsek was that a 2nd Team could have been just as impressive as a 1st Team, (edit: but you would need supporting evidence on a season by season basis to make that case).

Certainly makes Rayner's 1950 when he won the Hart Trophy but finished second in AS voting to Durnan's lead-leading GAA season look interesting.

Though Hart voting in the 1950s was really screwy with Al Rollins winning a Hart in a last place season, and Ted Kennedy winning what certainly seems like a career achievement.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I thought that until I looked at it closer - but what do you make of the fact that he finished 4th, then 2nd in Hart voting in those two years?

It's something in Lumley's favour, and maybe reason not to completely write him off as a team creation, sure. But on the other hand it wouldn't be the first time that a goalie on a defensive team with no true standout offensive players got Hart voting because observers wanted to give the credit to somebody.

Still goes on today when something happens like Columbus making the playoffs under Hitchcock or something like that, it's much easier to file an article that solely praises the goalie than to analyze the complete situation. That's not necessarily what happened in 1955 given that Lumley's teammate finished ahead of him, but Hart voting seems pretty erratic in the '50s so I think it should be taken a bit with a grain of salt.

So in the end, while Lumley probably looks statistically "unspectacular" for a stretch - particularly during his short stint in Chicago - I imagine his actual on-ice performance could have looked something like Luongo in Florida (when Luongo's ~2.7 GAA looked less than unspectacular next to, say, Roy's - and others' - ~2.00, but we know what he was dealing with there). I mean, look at the more than 1.00 GAA jump Lumley has going from Detroit to Chicago, and then again going from Chicago to Toronto just a couple of years later.

I agree that Chicago was a terrible team while Lumley was there, but I don't think it's fair to compare him to Luongo (who IMO should definitely be up for voting right now given the other post-WHA guys on the list). I think the main difference is that Lumley's numbers didn't stand out much compared to the other goalies around him.

Henry, 1949: .885*
Brimsek, 1950: .884*
Lumley, 1951: .887*
Lumley, 1952: .898*
Rollins, 1953: .918
Rollins, 1954: .905
Rollins, 1955: .892

(*-Unofficial, based on incomplete records with missing games filled in assuming that all goalies faced shots against at their overall seasonal rates)

League average was climbing in the early '50s as the goalie talent pool improved. Lumley's 1951-52 season was probably pretty good, not Rollins in 1952-53 good but probably very competitive with the other top goalies in the league.

I think there is a very good chance that Lumley was just as good in Chicago as he was in Detroit or Toronto. If anyone is downgrading him for his years there then they are probably getting it wrong. The problem is that I think there were other lesser-rated goalies who had similar or better performances to what Lumley did in Chicago when accounting for their own team situations (Rayner, Rollins, maybe even Henry). If they could match Lumley on a poor team, and Lumley was just as good on that poor team as he was on a good team, then that sort of raises the question of how much of the difference in reputation between Lumley and those other guys today was a matter of talent and how much was a function of opportunity.

That doesn't explain the 1953-54 season, though. And I posted an article in my bio of Lumley that said that although the Leafs were on the right track, they weren't quite proper fits into the defensive system. And if you're going to play that game, shouldn't Sawchuk be equally discredited due to the team he played behind?

1953-54 Save Percentage Leaders:

1. Terry Sawchuk, DET: .933
2. Harry Lumley, TOR: .923
3. Johnny Bower, NYR: .922
3. Gerry McNeil, MTL: .922
5. Jim Henry, BOS: .913
6. Al Rollins, CHI: .905

Was the Leafs' defensive system worse than what the Rangers had? I doubt it. The Leafs went from out of the playoffs to making the playoffs, and Lumley led the league in GAA because of Toronto's shot prevention. Those two factors alone probably are easily enough to account for the Hart and All-Star voting, even though save percentage suggests the goalies may have been on a pretty similar level around the league that year.

And adjusting for team effects is not a game, it's a basic element of goalie evaluation. It is not "discrediting" a goalie to point out that he played on a strong defensive team, it just means that he had advantages that should be accounted for. I didn't take Sawchuk's peak numbers in Detroit at face value, and I doubt many others did either. If not for team adjustments there's not much of a statistical argument for Hall over Sawchuk, for example, yet that's not the way this panel voted.

Now, the Rangers of Rayner's day look to have been in pretty similar shape as the league bottom dweller. I understand that a Hart trophy carries a lot of weight, but I'm personally not ready to concede Rayner as the better of the two "overall" during their career overlap (or overall period, even), and I see more career value (longer career, certainly) and a Stanley Cup favouring Lumley as well.

Rayner's career really wouldn't have been much shorter at all if not for WWII.

During that period NHL media voting was weighed to reflect respective media representation. The US cities had three votes each but the Canadian cities with upwards of 23 accredited media per city saw their three votes weighed down to three, so a 5/5/4 vote after weighing was possible.

OK thanks, good to know.

 

[bluesfan94]

And adjusting for team effects is not a game, it's a basic element of goalie evaluation. It is not "discrediting" a goalie to point out that he played on a strong defensive team, it just means that he had advantages that should be accounted for. I didn't take Sawchuk's peak numbers in Detroit at face value, and I doubt many others did either. If not for team adjustments there's not much of a statistical argument for Hall over Sawchuk, for example, yet that's not the way this panel voted.

I didn't mean it as a game, as in it's a joke, more as a figure of speech.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Rayner's career really wouldn't have been much shorter at all if not for WWII.

Let's see:

Rayner: Partial season at the age of 20. Full time starter from 21-31* except for one injury-plagued season. Partial season at the age of 32.

*missed his age 22-25 years because of the war, but was getting All-Star votes before the war, and was a full time starter for years after the war

Lumley: Played a few games at the age of 17 and most of a season at the age of 18 when most of the league's starters were away. Full time starter from 19-29. Sat out his age 30 year in a contract dispute. Partial seasons at the ages of 31-33.

If you give Rayner full credit for the war years, there is basically no difference in longevity. It's always a question as to how much credit you can give a player for the war years, but I think you need to assume that he probably continues to be an NHL starter during that time.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I didn't mean it as a game, as in it's a joke, more as a figure of speech.

OK never mind that bit then, sorry for my poor reading comprehension, I'm probably just a bit trigger-happy on people using the word "discredited" related to goalie team effects based on past experience.

 

[seventieslord]

And if you're going to play that game, shouldn't Sawchuk be equally discredited due to the team he played behind?

Considering we voted him 7th, I'd say he was somewhat "discredited", or "discounted" might be a more appropriate word.

 

[bluesfan94]

Considering we voted him 7th, I'd say he was somewhat "discredited", or "discounted" might be a more appropriate word.

Not that this in any way alters your point, but he was 5th, right?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

So basically you are parroting a false comparable in the instance of the mid to late 1940s goalies.

I'm going to be more direct this time.

THIS IS THE EXACT SORT OF ACCUSATORY POST THAT I'VE BEEN REPEATEDLY REFERRING TO.

It needs to stop. IT WILL STOP.

Anyone who doesn't want to play nice, won't play at all.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I agree that Chicago was a terrible team while Lumley was there, but I don't think it's fair to compare him to Luongo (who IMO should definitely be up for voting right now given the other post-WHA guys on the list).

Why not? Team effect factored into the statistics to such a level that anyone comparing raw GAA stats would be extremely reluctant to classify Luongo among the top goalies in the league at the time, and I'm gonna argue that the same is happening to Lumley. Whether the scope or scale holds up to scrutiny is kind of irrelevant compared to the recognition that the effect is, certainly, there, and it's large and obvious.

I think the main difference is that Lumley's numbers didn't stand out much compared to the other goalies around him.

Henry, 1949: .885*
Brimsek, 1950: .884*
Lumley, 1951: .887*
Lumley, 1952: .898*
Rollins, 1953: .918
Rollins, 1954: .905
Rollins, 1955: .892

(*-Unofficial, based on incomplete records with missing games filled in assuming that all goalies faced shots against at their overall seasonal rates)

Based on unofficial, incomplete records, with no other context involved, Lumley "didn't stand out" on that list... got it.

League average was climbing in the early '50s as the goalie talent pool improved. Lumley's 1951-52 season was probably pretty good, not Rollins in 1952-53 good but probably very competitive with the other top goalies in the league.

I think there is a very good chance that Lumley was just as good in Chicago as he was in Detroit or Toronto. If anyone is downgrading him for his years there then they are probably getting it wrong. The problem is that I think there were other lesser-rated goalies who had similar or better performances to what Lumley did in Chicago when accounting for their own team situations (Rayner, Rollins, maybe even Henry). If they could match Lumley on a poor team, and Lumley was just as good on that poor team as he was on a good team, then that sort of raises the question of how much of the difference in reputation between Lumley and those other guys today was a matter of talent and how much was a function of opportunity.

Sure, I mean, in theory if the other goalies faced such simliar plights, then weighing of the consequences on even ground might yield something. But I'm going to argue that none of them did. Find me a team that has a healthy top 6 forwards, healthy top 4 defense, and a top goaltender, but finishes dead last in the league... THEN, in the next year, sees its top 2 centres miss a combined ~50 out of 140 possible games, their top defenseman play only 25 of 70 games, and top defensive acquisition (Fogolin) and arguably most experienced defenseman (Stewart) play a combined 60/140 games...

Seriously, I need to see this broken down and see how any of the other teams you're alluding to started off in such a hard place, and then on top of that went on the very next season to miss so many man games from so many key players. And yet... still... Lumley posts better numbers than Brimsek and Henry before him.

Yes, Rollins comes onto that team a couple of years later and puts up better statistics. That money deal also brought with him what turned out to effectively be a #2 centre in Gardner and #1 defenseman in Mortson. I would imagine that the two smallest moves you could do that would positively impact a goalie's statistics would be to add centre and defense depth to your team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

REMINDER: Posts that focus on goalies not available for voting this round will be deleted.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Let's see:

Rayner: Partial season at the age of 20. Full time starter from 21-31* except for one injury-plagued season. Partial season at the age of 32.

*missed his age 22-25 years because of the war, but was getting All-Star votes before the war, and was a full time starter for years after the war

Lumley: Played a few games at the age of 17 and most of a season at the age of 18 when most of the league's starters were fighting. Full time starter from 19-29. Sat out his age 30 year in a contract dispute. Partial seasons at the ages of 31-33.

If you give Rayner full credit for the war years, there is basically no difference in longevity. It's always a question as to how much credit you can give a player for the war years, but I think you need to assume that he probably continues to be an NHL starter during that time.

I find counting seasons a little too convenient of an avenue when we're talking about two guys who both played the vast majority of their pro hockey at the same time, after the war, and one ended up with ~400 games played while the other put up over 800. And I refuse to give credit to anyone for seasons they never played. Benefit of the doubt in terms of estimated/guessed "talent" level, perhaps, but absolutely 0 on the contribution to "career value" or resume building scale.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I find counting seasons a little too convenient of an avenue when we're talking about two guys who both played the vast majority of their pro hockey at the same time, after the war, and one ended up with ~400 games played while the other put up over 800. And I refuse to give credit to anyone for seasons they never played. Benefit of the doubt in terms of estimated/guessed "talent" level, perhaps, but absolutely 0 on the contribution to "career value" or resume building scale.

The way you do it just punishes one player for when he was born IMO. One was old enough to be drafted into the military and one wasn't. One played half his career before the NHL expanded the schedule to 70 games, one didn't. IMO, counting "full seasons" is the only fair way to account for the changes in league dynamics.

Rayner did miss most of 1947-48 with injury, then basically had his career altered/ended by an injury in 1952, while Lumley didn't miss significant time in his 11 years as a full-time starter, so there is that. I would say Lumley does have something of a durability advantage. But it isn't as simple as counting games.

 

[seventieslord]

Not that this in any way alters your point, but he was 5th, right?

Whoops. Bad memory. And yeah, it does kinda change my point. Although 5th is still lower than where a lot of establishment-types would put him.

edit: then again, even if 5th is only a spot or two below where many older guys would put him, there are big differences at the top so it could be argued that "being conclusively behind Plante and Hall, and edging out Brodeur" is still quite a bit lower than dogma.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The way you do it just punishes one player for when he was born IMO. One was old enough to be drafted into the military and one wasn't. One played half his career before the NHL expanded the schedule to 70 games, one didn't. IMO, counting "full seasons" is the only fair way to account for the changes in league dynamics.

You're totally right, and I will fully admit that what you're talking about has a direct impact on how high I'm willing to value guys from the 10-20 game seasons era. However, realize that even if you give Rayner the benefit of 3 completely healthy 70 game seasons instead of the way, that brings the totals on the resumes to ~600 games vs. Lumley's ~800. And both played without (non-injury) interruption during the transition from 50 to 60 to 70 game seasons.

Rayner did miss most of 1947-48 with injury, while Lumley didn't miss significant time in his 11 years as a full-time starter, so there is that.

Durability has definitely been argued as a bonus in close calls for other player comparisons. I'm not sure I feel the need to pimp this aspect of Lumley necessarily (heck, I'm surprised I'm talking about him so much, as I don't think he'd even be my top vote if I had one), but at a certain point you also play enough games (either through injury, or at the end of your career, or whatever) that it's easier to pile up a list of "bad" ones that seems to outweigh the list of bad of someone "worse" who maybe simply played for a shorter time. That's why I start off with weighing the good, and Lumley's "good list" somewhat clearly outweighs that of Rayner - even with the Hart - imo.

 

[bluesfan94]

If there's anything else you guys want/need in my bio of Harry Lumley, just let me know.

I'd also be interested if someone would do a Giacomin and Thomas comparison, or at least post a bio/link to a bio of Giacomin, if one's been done already!

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Why not? Team effect factored into the statistics to such a level that anyone comparing raw GAA stats would be extremely reluctant to classify Luongo among the top goalies in the league at the time, and I'm gonna argue that the same is happening to Lumley. Whether the scope or scale holds up to scrutiny is kind of irrelevant compared to the recognition that the effect is, certainly, there, and it's large and obvious.

Is it? Let me repeat myself then, I don't think Lumley was any worse in Chicago than he was in Detroit or Toronto. The main reason I'm still debating whether he makes my top 8 this round is because I'm not convinced he was all that elite on those strong teams, not because I think he was awful in Chicago. Chicago wasn't the only place Lumley put up similar or worse numbers compared to the goalies before and after him. None of Lumley's playoff underperformance came as a Black Hawk, and neither did losing his job to Ed Chadwick or being the #2 option for Boston in the only two seasons in Don Simmons' career that he was an NHL starting goalie. Maybe the Chicago fans were very happy with Lumley, but Toronto fans reportedly got on him in 1952-53 when he had a poor first season in Toronto. I see a number of reasons to question Lumley beyond how he might have done for two years on a terrible Chicago team.

Based on unofficial, incomplete records, with no other context involved, Lumley "didn't stand out" on that list... got it.

(Edit: Realized you were probably referring to league average here. Here are the same numbers adjusted to league average using the error rate and a .910 scoring context):

Henry, 1949: .895
Brimsek, 1950: .900
Lumley, 1951: .896
Lumley, 1952: .900
Rollins, 1953: .912
Rollins, 1954: .894
Rollins, 1955: .886

If you want to argue that Lumley was as good as the 34-year old Brimsek in the final year of his career, I won't argue with you. I'm also not sure how much the rapidly increasing league average in the early '50s was because of style of play and how much it was because of improved talent level, but it is possible that Rollins wasn't that far ahead of Lumley in Chicago if the whole league got more defensive and there were significant team differences over those seasons.

Sure, I mean, in theory if the other goalies faced such simliar plights, then weighing of the consequences on even ground might yield something. But I'm going to argue that none of them did. Find me a team that has a healthy top 6 forwards, healthy top 4 defense, and a top goaltender, but finishes dead last in the league... THEN, in the next year, sees its top 2 centres miss a combined ~50 out of 140 possible games, their top defenseman play only 25 of 70 games, and top defensive acquisition (Fogolin) and arguably most experienced defenseman (Stewart) play a combined 60/140 games...

Seriously, I need to see this broken down and see how any of the other teams you're alluding to started off in such a hard place, and then on top of that went on the very next season to miss so many man games from so many key players. And yet... still... Lumley posts better numbers than Brimsek and Henry before him.

Lumley only posts better numbers if you use the save percentage stats that you were apparently dismissing two paragraphs back. Otherwise his win/loss record and GAA were worse, as I agree they should have been given the team situation. I do think you raise some fair points about Lumley's performance in Chicago, just be aware that the team effects argument works both ways, and make sure you do the same adjustments to account for Lumley's team playing "1-0 hockey" at his peak in Toronto.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

CG, do you have any of Rayner's estimated save percentages?

(I think it's proper to call them "estimated" since they are based on not-quite-complete reconstructed data though feel free to call them what you like).

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

CG, do you have any of Rayner's estimated save percentages?

(I think it's proper to call them "estimated" since they are based on not-quite-complete reconstructed data though feel free to call them what you like).

Calling them estimated save percentages sounds fair.

Chuck Rayner's estimated save percentage record:

1948-49: .909, 1st, .901 average
1949-50: .905, 3rd (behind Lumley .910 and Durnan .906), .896 average
1950-51: .895, 5th, .902 average
1951-52: .887, 6th, .908 average

If 5th in the league in save % was good enough for a 2AST, then leading the league is truly impressive. Rayner did apparently decline quite a bit over those four seasons and was finished in the NHL after 1952-53 (.901 in 20 GP, .916 average). Considering his numbers in 1946-47 and the fact that it was a higher scoring environment, I imagine that would also have been a pretty good save percentage season for Rayner as well, which rounds out a pretty strong five year peak. However with WWII and his late-career decline there isn't a whole lot left beyond that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Calling them estimated save percentages sounds fair.

Chuck Rayner's estimated save percentage record:

1948-49: .909, 1st, .901 average
1949-50: .905, 3rd (behind Lumley .910 and Durnan .906), .896 average
1950-51: .895, 5th, .902 average
1951-52: .887, 6th, .908 average

If 5th in the league in save % was good enough for a 2AST, then leading the league is truly impressive. Rayner did apparently decline quite a bit over those four seasons and was finished in the NHL after 1952-53 (.901 in 20 GP, .916 average). Considering his numbers in 1946-47 and the fact that it was a higher scoring environment, I imagine that would also have been a pretty good save percentage season for Rayner as well, which rounds out a pretty strong five year peak. However with WWII and his late-career decline there isn't a whole lot left beyond that.

His HHOF profile indicates that he was injured partly through 1951-52 and wasn't the same afterwards:

During the 1951-52 season, ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie,’ as he had been tagged by the press while a rookie, suffered a serious knee injury, and was never quite the same afterwards. He played just 20 games the next season, but watched while Gump Worsley emerged as the Rangers goaltender. Worsley eventually won the Calder Trophy as the NHL’s rookie of the year. Those 20 games were the final contests in Rayner’s fine NHL career. "I would have loved to be on a Stanley Cup team, but I have no complaints. I feel the Rangers treated me right and I don’t have anything to complain about," smiled Rayner.

It also lists 1947-48, the only season between the war and 1952-53 when Rayner wasn't a full-time starter

In 1946-47, Chuck led the NHL with five shutouts and had a solid goals-against average of 3.05, but the next season, the Rangers brought Sugar Jim Henry back to tend goal. Henry had been their goaltender in 1941-42, but had played in the minors since. Coach Frank Boucher attempted to alternate the two goaltenders, first by games and later by five-minute periods of time, changing Rayner and Henry like forwards. "Frank switched us every third line or so," explained Chuck Rayner. "The truth was, the club only had one set of goalie gloves. When I skated off to the bench and Sugar Jim came on the ice, we would meet at the blueline so we could exchange gloves in front of 15,000 fans." But when Rayner suffered a double fracture of the cheekbone, the experiment was concluded. Henry took over and finished the regular season. Ironically, the Rangers made the playoffs for the first time in six seasons that year. But when it came time to ice the playoff lineup, Boucher had Chuck Rayner in net.

http://www.hhof.com/htmlSpotlight/spot_oneononep197302.shtml

Only one set of goalie gloves? The Rangers were truly pathetic, lol.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Is it? Let me repeat myself then, I don't think Lumley was any worse in Chicago than he was in Detroit or Toronto. The main reason I'm still debating whether he makes my top 8 this round is because I'm not convinced he was all that elite on those strong teams, not because I think he was awful in Chicago. Chicago wasn't the only place Lumley put up similar or worse numbers compared to the goalies before and after him. None of Lumley's playoff underperformance came as a Black Hawk, and neither did losing his job to Ed Chadwick or being the #2 option for Boston in the only two seasons in Don Simmons' career that he was an NHL starting goalie. Maybe the Chicago fans were very happy with Lumley, but Toronto fans reportedly got on him in 1952-53 when he had a poor first season in Toronto. I see a number of reasons to question Lumley beyond how he might have done for two years on a terrible Chicago team.

He had a poor season, or the team had a poor season, and Lumley was the focus of some (unwarranted?) fan hate? And what do we think Leafs fans' expectations were for the guy who was brought in at the expense of Rollins, and particularly Mortson and Gardner (who were more "support" players, but members of the Bentley/Broda dynasty nonetheless)? How much credit do we give these fans for "accurate" blame assessment of an individual when they may have had entirely unrealistic expectations for the team in general?

And given that on top of everything it was the coach, Joe Primeau, who was shown the door (bringing in Clancy) before Lumley (who went on to 1st all-star honous, obviously), I have my own lines of inference that point away from Lumley when it comes to explaining the disappointment of the Leafs of the 50s (specifically '52/53). Probably more negative effect from the Barilko Curse. But a bit more seriously, if Primeau had any concerns with Lumley's performance during that first year with the Leafs, surely he would have tried another goalie. After all, he platooned Rollins with a veteran Rollins not long before. I think any fans concentrating their disappointment on Lumley were off base, but that's my own opinion from my own lines of inference, admittedly.

That year also covers another base, as a lot is made of his playoff "failings", but how much would that be taking away from the dominance of Howe-Lindsay-Delvecchio-Kelly-Pronovost-Sawchuk that year (Toronto's top 5 scorers held to 9 points collectively over 5 games), and the next year (Howe, Lindsay, Delvecchio ALL set career highs for points in the playoffs - Detroit scoring as many goals against Montreal as Toronto, if I'm not mistaken), and even again the year after that?

Detroit seems like a more puzzling stretch of playoff disappointment. Until, that is, we remember that he was good enough to be called on to play 19 NHL playoff games before he turned 20 years old. How many other candidates so far even have such a record of "ahead of the curve" development? Despite the W-L record for the stretch, that's a "bonus" for comparison purposes, right?

(Edit: Realized you were probably referring to league average here. Here are the same numbers adjusted to league average using the error rate and a .910 scoring context):

Henry, 1949: .895
Brimsek, 1950: .900
Lumley, 1951: .896
Lumley, 1952: .900
Rollins, 1953: .912
Rollins, 1954: .894
Rollins, 1955: .886

If you want to argue that Lumley was as good as the 34-year old Brimsek in the final year of his career, I won't argue with you. I'm also not sure how much the rapidly increasing league average in the early '50s was because of style of play and how much it was because of improved talent level, but it is possible that Rollins wasn't that far ahead of Lumley in Chicago if the whole league got more defensive and there were significant team differences over those seasons.

No, I'd prefer to say that Lumley was better than a 34 year old Brimsek, and rather the next year's Blackhawks were(/performed) simply even worse of(/as) a team. On top of that, I believe a healthier season, plus the additions that came with Rollins from the Leafs) made the Blackhawks a decidedly better squad for Rollins than Lumley had just left.

Furthermore, I prefer to say that the Leafs in the early 50s were worse (or cursed! ) than the Leafs Rollins only sort of sniffed the tail end of when he joined them - before factoring in whatever Lumley's contribution was either way.

Keep in mind, I'm not pushing for Lumley to be high in the vote, and I'm fully aware that I'm covering more of why Lumley isn't as bad as his detractors believe, and less of why Lumley is as good as his supporters believe.

Lumley only posts better numbers if you use the save percentage stats that you were apparently dismissing two paragraphs back. Otherwise his win/loss record and GAA were worse, as I agree they should have been given the team situation. I do think you raise some fair points about Lumley's performance in Chicago, just be aware that the team effects argument works both ways, and make sure you do the same adjustments to account for Lumley's team playing "1-0 hockey" at his peak in Toronto.

Oh, totally agree. It's one of the hardest parts to juggle, having not seen the era myself.