DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
Yeah, I figured.I mean North Americans because it involves both canadians and americans.
Yeah, I figured.I mean North Americans because it involves both canadians and americans.
The "classic" question asked by Fedorov detractors is why should he rank over Doug Gilmour?
I'm sure Swedes don't like being called Finns
But have you been called a Dane?????!!!!!I've been called a Finn on this site and it didn't crush me.
Durnan ahead of Gardiner is something I really, really have to be explained, let alone having suspicions over the latter while lauding the former. Especially playoffs that something that matters to you (and it appears it's the case, considering your paragraph on Fedorov). Both have the same "strike" against them (longevity), it's just that Durnan 'tended for a powerhouse that ended up underachieving while it was mostly the other way around for Gardiner.
You mean "Canadian", I assume (based on the size of the hockey playing population). I'm sure Swedes don't like being called Finns and vica versa.
Ingmar & Ingrid Bergman
Muminpappan and Muminmamman beats out those guys.
Would I take Gardiner over Durnan in a playoff series? Yes, but we're dealing with some really small sample sizes here. Chicago upset Detroit in the 1934 Final...is this enough to declare them over-achievers during Gardiner's career? Most of the playoff series they played in during the early 1930s were pretty much toss-ups, it's not like they were repeatedly slaying giants. They did win more of them than they lost though, so this does build Gardiner's case.
Regular season I'd have to lean towards Durnan. Gardiner has the string of AST selections, as does Durnan. But Gardiner's do not come with any accompanying Hart support. Some of Durnan's AS-1 selections have been criticized as a product of the selection appearing to default to the Vezina winner...does the same not apply to Gardiner? Notably, Chicago defenseman Lionel Conacher just missed winning the Hart in 1933-34. Hart support for goaltenders looks a bit thin during Gardiner's career, other than Roy Worters, with a win and a runner-up. In general, I think it's reasonable to declare Gardiner the best goaltender overall from 1930-1934, but it seems no less reasonable to do the same for Durnan from 1945-1950.
Durnan's apparent nervous breakdown during the 1950 playoffs is not a good look. But Clint Benedict was said to be showing up drunk for playoff games in the mid-20s and still got listed last round. It really seems to me that Durnan is being punished harshly for this instance, combined with being the goaltender of record for one big upset (in which his team lost four one-goal games, including a 1-0 loss).
I guess I'm left thinking that these two goaltenders are pretty similar, and it's still unclear to me why a number of participants were clamoring for Gardiner three rounds ago while simultaneously suggesting Durnan had no business being available that soon.
- Gardiner, if anything, appear to have been the sole reason why these "toss-ups" were toss-ups to begin with. Here is how Gardiner teams fared offensively during his career :
27-28 : 9th out of 10
28-29 : 10th out of 10 (last team with less than 1 GPG, as far as I know)
29-30 : 6th out of 10
30-31 : 4th out of 10
31-32 : 8th out of 8
32-33 : Tied for last, out of 9.
33-34 : 9th out of 9
That's.... not exactly a huge margin of error. They did take out the Leafs in 30-31 : that team outscored the Hawks in the regular season and finished with a slightly better record... and that's with the Hawks allowing 21 less goals per game, something about which Gardiner certainly had something to do.
They did bow out to Montréal in the finals that season, but then again, Montreal was also quite a bit better then.
Chicago's anemic offense is a good observation. It begs the question though, why was Gardiner's Hart support almost non-existent?
Looking at AST voting, it doesn't seem like Chicago defensemen got any significant support, other than Conacher in 1934. So on the surface, there's really no evidence that Chicago's generally good record was attributable to anyone besides Gardiner.
It is a little strange. Roy Worters similarly carried his teams in a lot of seasons, and this was acknowledged by the awards voters. Perhaps there was the sentiment that Gardiner was getting the Vezina anyway, and thus was ignored by Hart voters?
Vote 16 Candidates
- Aurele Joliat
- Bill Durnan
- Boris Mikhailov
- Brett Hull
- Charlie Gardiner
- Cy Denneny
- Jari Kurri
- Max Bentley
- Sergei Fedorov
- Turk Broda
No, he's due here. Selänne got voted in two rounds ago but Fedorov's a few rounds too early? TDMM, you crack me up.
Basically this.
Fedorov had an extremely long and productive career and was the best player in the world for a period of time and has by far the best playoff resume here.
If anything he is overdue.
He did most of his damage at the start of his career and after age 26, he started to go downhill.
He was never, ever the best player in the world for any time. He had 2 great seasons, 4 or 5 above average seasons and the rest were average or below average. The 2 Selke's help him to go along with the Hart and then when he was at his prime, a terrific 2 way player. He did most of his damage at the start of his career and after age 26, he started to go downhill. He was a great playoff performer also.
Forsberg 51st, but Lindros hasn't come up yet?
He was never, ever the best player in the world for any time. He had 2 great seasons, 4 or 5 above average seasons and the rest were average or below average. The 2 Selke's help him to go along with the Hart and then when he was at his prime, a terrific 2 way player. He did most of his damage at the start of his career and after age 26, he started to go downhill. He was a great playoff performer also.
The placement of these guys (Fedorov and Lindros) around Selanne is definitely problematic for this list. Both were far superior players imo.
Henri Richard was 49th, but Keon hasn't come up yet?
Forsberg 51st, but Lindros hasn't come up yet?
You mean Gilmour, right?
Fully agree here, for 7 years we saw a pretty large sample, even with the missed time, that his hype was backed by performance.