Disproving the supposed "bad" Glenn Hall Playoffs Volume II: Hawks vs Wings 1963
This is the second edition of the series of newspaper article gathering created to disprove my goali, Glenn Hall, of having any questionability in the playoffs. Volume I can be found here:
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22327576&postcount=47
All quotes are taken directly from the globe and mail archive.
The year is 1963. The Chicago Blackhawks, coming off a rather poor end to the season, finish second in the NHL in what would be a close year points wise in the standings. The Red Wings, who finished a mere 4 points behind the Hawks, would be their opponents. The Hawks were favored, but the Red Wings certainly had a chance.
This playoff year would prove to be the highest GAA in a single playoff season of Glenn Hall's career. That must mean he performed poorly, right?
Wrong.
Game 1 account: Hawks win 5-4
It was the first game game of the best-of-seven series and the Hawks, incompetent in the closing weeks of the schedule, played with a deliberate nonchalance that is normally not witness in playoff games.
Seems like the Hawks were playing poorly. As I showed in volume I of this series, team play can have a dramatic effect on GAA.
Each team played with a reckless indifference and it was not determined whether this was deliberate or otherwise.
There was no indication in last night's game that the Hawks would make it two in a row.
Looks like neither team was playing well and without emotion- likely causing the high score.
Delvecchio and Howe scored in the third period and the anxious chicago stadium fans thought Wins would least tie the score. Goalkeepers Terry Sawchuk and Glenn Hall, of the Hawks, had to make several big saves. At other times, their performance was erratic. Each appeared uneasy on routine of shots.
Glenn Hall evidently was able to perform to some degree, making big saves. Terry Sawchuk in opposing net seems to have played similarly. Although it appears the style of game threw off Hall (again, evidence that team play has an effect on GAA and goalie play), Sawchuk, another great goalie, also seemed to be thrown off to the same degree. As far as shots, Detroit would outshoot the Hawks 35-34.
And Account of the first goal, and evidence of the nonchalant attitude leading to poor defence on chicago's part:
Detroit defenceman Marcel Pronovost tied the score with an end to end rush which looked ridiculously easy. He wasn't even knocked off balance as he split the Chicago defence of Al MacNeil and Wayne Hillman. He beat Hall with a backhand shot.
Looks like lazy and weak defensive and checking work; and it directly led to a goal against Hall.
An account of the fourth goal scored on Hall:
Then Al MacNeil, a Chicago defenceman, drilled a shot at Detroit defenceman shin guards. The puck bounced back about 15 yards and Howe broke away, recovered the puck and went on a solo to score.
Looks like Howe on a breakway scored another. Hall is a fantastic goalie and I am sure he stopped Howe a number of times, but still, there were very few, if any, goalscorer in NHL history better than Howe. And giving him a breakaway?
Post game account:
Pious and Detroit coach Sid abel agreed that the type of hockey in the series opener was not what they would endorse. They thought both teams were exceptionally casual in their checking. "It wasn't a good hockey game. said Abel, a frank admission that might cause him to be regarded suspicously by the coaches union. "Both teams will probably play a lot tigher in the remaining games. Hell, they'll have to." "I never thought either team would be loose or careless in a playoff game. The goalkeeping on both teams was bad, and the checking was weak."
Hall was in no way outplayed by Sawchuk, it appears. The nonchalant attidude's power on defensive play hurt both goalies, it seems. They both struggled somewhat, but I am based on the poor play on defence and, in Hall's case, letting in a goal with one of the greatest goalscorers of all time coming in on a breakaway, it does not seem like Hall had a poor game (to me at least) and was certainly not outplayed or the cause of loss for Hawks.
Game 2 account: Hawks win 5-2
Hawks, excercising the same muscular dominance that used to identify their play early in the season, took a 2-0 lead in their best of seven series against the unimpressive Red wings.
The Hawks seemed to have come out of their slumping form of the late-regular season and back into the beginning of the regular season, the play that really made them where they were in the standings. Hall lets in two less goals as a result of this change of form. coincedence?
"This looked like the rough, tough Chicago team of a few weeks ago- which nobody pushed around.
Evidently Chicgo played a much better game and dominated a lot more- and as shown by the GAA difference, Hall benefitted greatly. Again, another indication of how team play is an effect on GAA.
Post game account
"It's as simple as this" Rudy Pious told waiting to flash the word to a breathless world. "We've tighened up our goals against average and our goal production is up. How are you going to beat it?"
Hawks evidently put up a much better show in all aspects of the game, and managed to outshoot the Wings 36-29. Although not much is said of Hall's goaltending, it seemed he had a good game based on letting only 2 goals in on 29 shots. And again, the benefit of better team play in relation to GAA is evident in these two games.
And becomes more evident in game 3:
Game 3 account: Wings win 4-2
The Hawks, before they ran into an injury problems, won the first two games of this best-of-seven series set in Chicago. Fourth game will be played here tomorrow and if the incredible Howe plays with similar stamina and skill, the series will probably revert to Chicago tied.
Hawks run into injures, Howe dominates, Hawks lose and Hall lets in 4.
Stan Mikita, one of the few Hawks that didn't wilt in the soggy heat of the Olympia, scored two goals.
Looks like almost all the Hawks played poorly and worse. But what about Hall's play?
Although the Hawks outshot Hawks by a 48-21 margin they had to fight from behind twice and went ahead two goals in 41 seconds in the third period when Chicago goaltender goalkepper Glenn Hall suddenly stopped performing mircales. Hall was magnificent, tumbling acrobat throughout and, for a great part of the game, it appeared as though he would frustrate the Wings. But Howe wouldn't concede.
Hall stopped 44 of 48 shots in this game, and was brilliant. Of course, the GAA of 4.00 would have you believe he performed poorly. GAA can be a liar sometimes.
More on Hall:
Hall's brilliance prevented the Wings from tying the score until near the mid-way point of the game.
A description of the first goal:
Nesterenko, who was trying to skate with Howe, took a wrong turn as he guessed wrong on Howe's plan. Howe rambled, unescorted, down right wing. Nesterenko and the Chicago defence were trapped. Howe took careful aim and drove the puck between Hall's pads.
Another one with one of the greatest goalscorers ever scoring on a breakaway..is Hall really bad for that?
A description of another goal:
Howe nudged the puck to Young, he shot through a tangle of players but Hall blocked the shot. Parker tapped in the rebound with his customary delicacy.
Hall even made a good stop through a bunch of bodies on this one; just one of those pesky rebound goals.
And the other two described:
Faulkner gave the Wings the lead for the first time in the third period, also on a rebound. Howe trapped the puck in the in the Chicago zone, faked two Hawks with a bewildering shift, and drove a hard shot at the embattled Hall. Faulker darted in and scooped the rebound past Hall. Then, 41 seconds later, MacGregor fired from the right point, and the puck skipped past Hall.
Poor defensive play evidently contributed as well.
Post game:
Another look at Howe's breakaway goal-
He strode in 30 feet, then whistled a wrist shot, knee high. Hall flailed at the puck but his sprawling effort was futile. Howe had been beating goalies from this range in the National Hockey league for 17 years.
Another account of Hall's play and the team play:
Chicago led 2-1 late in the second period but at that juncuture the Hawks were like a reeling fighter, reeling and desperate. They were in contention soley because Hall was commiting acts of thievery that would have earned him a 10-year stretch in in civillian life. Before it was over he was to stop 44 shots, most of them tough, Terry Sawchuk made 19 saves for Detroit, the majority routine.
Looks like Hall played a fantastic game and robbed a lot of people, and kept the Hawks in it very well.
Coach Pious's thoughts on why Hall let in a few goals:
"Hall was tremendous" Mr.Pious said "Outstanding, terrific, and also pretty good." "But"- Mr.Pious stabbed at the reporters chest- "it was like Hall was in a shooting gallery. You get enough shots at the clay pigeon and you're going to crack him.
Again, more proof of Hall's brilliance of the game. Looks like it was the team play, and not Hall, that was a greater factor in the 4 goals against.
And Pious thoughts on how the team played
"All we did was check and let them come back in wave after wave. Nester checked Howe good enough but we didn't have enough guys to back him up."
Poor defensive work on Howe, it seems.
And again, more on Hall's play:
They were thourughly beaten in the third game here although the score was only 4-2Wings, a flottering tribute to the magnificent play of Glenn Hall.
Game 4: Wings win 4-1
Detroit Red wings, superior in stamina, skill, and speed, trounced the Chicago Blackhawks here last night to send last night to tie their Stanley Cup best of seven semi final 2-2.
Wings, skating with suprising vigour in the pressure cooker that is the Detroit Olympia, dominated play with ridiculous ease.
Looks like Wings dominated- again- and Hall let in 4 goals- again. But wait..
Hall prevented several Detroit goals as the Wings outshot the Hawks 39-28
Looks like Hall still managed to play well.
Another account of Detroit's dominance:
"Wings, seldom out of position and all dedicated in their pursuit of the puck,
seldom gave the Hawks room to manouevre, a formula that incited the Chicago
team to needless fits of petulance late in the game.
An account of a goals:
Faulkner deflected Alex Delveccio's shot from the right point past Hall.
Those dang deflected shots..difficult to stop, no?
Howe made it 2-0 in the second period on one of his typical romps down right wing. Hawks Bob Turner lost the puck in Detroit's zone, Parker MacDonald slid it ahead of Howe and tramped down the right boards, ignored some harrasament by Vasko and rammed a shot in the short side.
Looks like more poor defensive work leading to a goal.
Bill Gadsby's shot was blocked by chicago's defenceman Pierre Pilote but Pronovost spurted in from left wing and slapped the rebound past Hall.
A rebound.
A few seconds after the third period got under way, Smith deflected Doug Barkley's shot from right point into the Chicago net for his first goal of the series.
And another deflection.
Does not at all seem like Hall was letting in bad goals. And it seems, based on the one statement, Hall played fairly well. But there will be more support of this from coach Pious.
Post-Game:
Pious perspective on Wings dominance:
"Our guys might have well worn shoes out there for all the skating they did"
he said after watching Wings manhandle the Hawks with ease to tie the series
at two games each.
It seems as a result of this poor play, he calls all the players to come out for
early practice. But he leaves out..
" He ordered all of them, with the exception of Glenn Hall, to report to practice session in Chicago tomorrow morning."
A sign that he was one of the only ones to perform well, perhaps?
This confirms that:
"Chicago, which jumped into a two game lead on its home ice, looked ragged and tired in dropping it's second successive game on Detroit ice."
" I was suprised when Bobby Hull (who fractured his nose last Thursday's game in chicago) showed up today to play and he did a real terrific job out there, but he and Hall could not do it all themselves." Pious said
Looks like Hull and Hall were the only guys doing a good job based on these comments and the game accounts.
An elaboration on why Hall wasn't at pracite the next day:
" Hull took part in a 75 minute scrimage at the Stadium here yesterday. Only absentee was goalkeeper Glenn Hall. Pious figures he doesn't need practice.
Game 5 account: Wings win 4-2.
"There is aboslutely nothing in the conduct of the Chicago Blakhawks last night to indicate that they were capable of prolonging the series beyond Sunday.
Wings did nothing glamourous or outstanding in winning. They simply adhered
to a monotonous routine of skating and checking and were seldom out of position.
It was the same formula that discouraged the Hawks the past two games and will
probably succeed again.
Looks like the Wings employed the same formula, and the Hawks were still terrible when it was employed.
But despite Hall let in 4 goals:
"Wings outshot the Hawks, 44-35 throughout the game"
He was overworked but seemed to perform well, stopping 40 shots.
More on the dominance:
"In the final few minutes, Wings were skating and checking viguourlsly, and Hawks looked weary and confused.
Another game where not much is said on Hall: but he clearly stopped a ton of shots to keep the Hawks in it on the shot count, and again appeared to be poorly supported.
Account of game 6- Wings win 7-4
"But the Wings, employing the formula that was successful for them in earlier
games, simply skated away from the Hawks with three goals in the third period."
Again, Wings employ the strategy that appears to be a weakness for the Hawks,
and Wings dominate. But yet again, more justification for Hall's play:
"There were moments in this erratic game when it appeared that Hull
and Hawk's goalie Glenn Hall were providing the only opposition for the
Wings.
Seems like Hall and Hull were again the only ones performing well, with everyone else, including Hall's supporting defensive cast, playing poorly.
Checking was careless, sometimes indifferent, there was blatant defensive
lapses by both teams and goaltending, especially by Wing's Terry Sawchuk,
was inferior.
Defensive lapses it seems, and Hall did outplay goalie Sawchuk too.
And Hall would again be overworked; Wings outshot the Hawks 45-24.
Hall, Hawks overworked goalie, had another exasperated time. The game was delayed about 10 minutes in the first period when he had to retire to get 15 stiches underneath his nose. He returned to play with his usual efficency. You couldn't say the same for the other Hawks.
Hall shows toughness to return to the game after getting stiches. And he played how he usually does; it again seems like the team in front is responsible for the high GAA.
Accounts of the goals:
Ullmann missed the open side of the net but the puck bounced off the back-boards and Macdonald poked it past Hall."
Bad luck with those crazy backboards.
"He rached in on right wing, trapped Delveccio's rebound and flipped the puck into the Chicago net.
Doesn't seem like Hall's team is doing well to get rebounds out.
..and Delveccio stole the puck from Stan Mikita and romped in to beat Hall with a backhander in the short side.
Poor defensive work leading to a goal.
Faulkner, alert an elusive, thurst in the tie breaker after Hall had foiled Andre Pronovost.
Hall stops a shot but is overwhelemd by a second guy coming in to score, it seems.
Ullman scored his second while Chicago defenceman Jack Evans was sitting on Gordie Howe in the goal crease.
Seems like Hall was getting some interefrence- somewhat from his own defenceman- in letting this one in.
Gadsby scored with a drive from the right point.
Summary
In game 1, both teams play nonchantly, and both goalies come up with big saves but struggle to an extent. Seems like defensive work is the more-so responsible for the GAA.
In game 2, Hall performs well, letting in only 2 goals on 29 shots.
in game 3, Hall plays brilliantly, the sole reason why the Hawks were kept in it, stopping 44 of 48 shots.
In game 4, Hall stops 35 of 39 shots; his team in front gets dominated and skates poorly. Pious calls out his team to early practice, except Hall, and ntoes that Hull and Hall could not do it all themselves. It looks like Hall played pretty well based on Pious specficially noting him seperate from the rest of the very poor team play.
In game 5, Wings still dominate but Hall, although not much is said of his goaltending, stops 40 of 44 shots. Seems like he again performed fairly well.
In game 6, it is noted it seems at time Hull and Hall were the only opposition to the Wings, clearly showing that Hall was not apart of the very poor team play around him.
Hall even comes back from some injury to play with his usual eficency; the other Hawks, on the other hand don't. Poor defensive work leads to numerous goals in this game, and in the series.
Hall, on a whole, seems to preform pretty well in this series. Not once is he singled out as a bad player compared to the rest or opposing goalie. The overworked Hall stops a ton of shots, performs brilliantly in a game, and performs pretty good in most others. This series does not at all seem to be a bad one for Hall, and Hall seems to show in it that he can perform well and can come up brilliantly in the playoffs in this series.
Well, I agree my fourth has two good defensive guys in Martin and Peters, but Walker and Laprade were two of the best defensive guys of their respective era's. Walker played excellent defensively and was said to have shut down Howie Morenz. Ultimate hockey gave him 7 retro selke's (not as much a real selke's, but it shows how dominant he was). Laprade I've covered. Walker and Laprade are by far the two best defensive guys on either line. But Martin and Peters are both good defensive players; particularly Peters. 
