Goalies before 1950 research thread

[jigglysquishy]

There are some things that don't add up to me for early AS voting.

How can a guy like Hainsworth win the Vezina 3 times as well as dominate in terms of SOs and GAA, yet fail to ever be a first team all-star?

In 1928-29 he had a 22% better GAA than any other goalies (a whopping .92), had 22 shutouts in 44 games, yet failed to be the first AS goalie?

Maybe I'm just reading it all wrong.



This is a brilliantly informative thread. I love it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

^ All Star teams began in 1930-31, which probably screwed Hainsworth and Connell more than anyone. They were the top competitors for the 1st spot in the years immediately before the beginning of AS ballots, but played long enough into the AS era to give the impression that they were never quite good enough to make one.

Those two definitely deserve an extra look at that * by their numbers on the chart.

 

[overpass]

^ All Star teams began in 1930-31, which probably screwed Hainsworth and Connell more than anyone. They were the top competitors for the 1st spot in the years immediately before the beginning of AS ballots, but played long enough into the AS era to give the impression that they were never quite good enough to make one.

Those two definitely deserve an extra look at that * by their numbers on the chart.

It probably screwed Roy Worters as much as anyone.

Worters was named the first team goaltender multiple times on an All star team voted by team managers at the end of the season.

From the Ottawa Citizen, March 23, 1928:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...383,1118873&dq=all+star+roy+worters+hay&hl=en

"Five of the six places on an all-star National Hockey League team picked for the New York Evening Post by the managers of the ten clubs and announced today go to players in the American division."

"For the second consecutive year, Roy Worters, wee goalie of the Pittsburgh Pirates, is placed at the all-star nets. Worters polled seven votes for first team and one for second."

Worters won the Hart trophy in the 1928-29 season, as he joined the NY Americans and led them to a much improved record. It's very possible he would have beaten Hainsworth out for the all-star team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Roy Worters' "hockey card" says he was a 1st Team All Star 4 times (see his profile). The 1928 unofficial GM team says it was his 2nd year in a row. So it stands to reason that the GMs voted him 1st Teamer in 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930, the last four seasons before the official teams. Hainsworth was voted 2nd Teamer in 1928 (according ro the article you posted); I haven't seen any indication of the results for the other years

 

[tarheelhockey]

Should make for an interesting discussion if Hainsworth was a 2AS after utterly demolishing the record book in 1929.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Should make for an interesting discussion if Hainsworth was a 2AS after utterly demolishing the record book in 1929.

We have the top 7 in Hart voting for 1929. Roy Worters won the Hart. Hainsworth's defensive defenseman Sylvio Mantha finished 4th. Hainsworth didn't place top 7.

1. Roy Worters, NYA G 74
2. Ace Bailey, Tor RW 64
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 62
4. Sylvio Mantha, Mtl D 60
5. King Clancy, Ott D 50
6. Andy Blair, Tor C
7. Lionel Conacher, NYA D

Seventieslord has had some epic anti-Hainsworth posts before.

To Hainsworth's credit, he was very good apparently in Montreal's back to back Cup wins and the HHOF awarded him a Retroactive Conn Smythe for one of them.

 

[BM67]

Should make for an interesting discussion if Hainsworth was a 2AS after utterly demolishing the record book in 1929.

We do know that he wasn't in the top 7 for Hart voting.

1928-29
HART: (310)
1. Roy Worters, NYA G 74
2. Ace Bailey, Tor RW 64
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 62
4. Sylvio Mantha, Mtl D 60
5. King Clancy, Ott D 50
6. Andy Blair, Tor C
7. Lionel Conacher, NYA D

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's conceivable to me that a goalie could have a legendary season and not win the Hart. Not even placing high in the voting... that's a little dubious.

But not being 1st All Star after posting 22 shutouts and 13 one-goal games on a 44 game schedule? Do the math on that. Hainsworth was perfect or near-perfect 35 times in 44 games. Not being 1AS after that kind of season begs for explanation.

Looking at his game-by-game record that season, a few things jump out.

0 goals - 22 times (16-0-6)
1 goal - 13 times (5-0-7)
2 goals - 2 times (0-1-1)
3 goals - 3 times (0-2-1)
4 goals - 3 times (0-3-0)
5 goals - 1 time (0-1-0)

There's something weirdly non-linear about those splits. My uneducated guess is that Montreal broke out of a defensive shell if they fell behind. Even then, it's nuts that the guy tied more games than he won if he let in one goal. That has to be near-unique in the sport.

Also, of the games in which he got hammered for 3 or more, the only team that did it twice was the Rangers. 6 of Hainsworth's 9 opponents walked away from a game thinking he wasn't such hot stuff. Maybe that influenced voting. I'd like to get into the game summaries from Hainsworth's losses and see whether there was a sense that the Habs defense inflated his reputation.

Also, I don't know if voting was tallied before or after the playoffs -- but the first-place Habs were swept out by Boston, by scores of 0-1 0-1 2-3. Perhaps that plays a role as well.

One last thing -- Hainsworth was the Lidstrom of goalies, noted for cool efficiency but lacking flair. Perhaps, in an era when the eyeball test was the ONLY test, he just didn't knock enough people's socks off by making hard saves look easy.

 

[seventieslord]

Also, of the games in which he got hammered for 3 or more, the only team that did it twice was the Rangers. 6 of Hainsworth's 9 opponents walked away from a game thinking he wasn't such hot stuff. Maybe that influenced voting.

That doesn't really make any sense. those 6 teams also had 3-4 more games against him where he allowed 0-1 goals. By your logic, "6 of 9 Hainsworth's opponents walked away from a game thinking he was really hot stuff. Maybe that influenced voting."

One last thing -- Hainsworth was the Lidstrom of goalies, noted for cool efficiency but lacking flair. Perhaps, in an era when the eyeball test was the ONLY test, he just didn't knock enough people's socks off by making hard saves look easy.

Yet, boring defensive defensemen caught the voters' eyes enough to earn significantly more Hart votes than him.

This is all easy math here.

Would you campaign for Roman Turek? What about Marty Turco? Why not? They won Jennings trophies, after all. Which is the same thing Hainsworth won three times, just under a different name. And the goalies that won the Vezina (the one based on the eye test) had higher GAAs than they did.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That doesn't really make any sense. those 6 teams also had 3-4 more games against him where he allowed 0-1 goals. By your logic, "6 of 9 Hainsworth's opponents walked away from a game thinking he was really hot stuff. Maybe that influenced voting."

I think you may be reading my point differently than I intended.

In that era, voters would only have seen each opposing player 4-5 times a year. No matter what he did in the other 40 games, a voter's eyeball test would consist ONLY of those 4-5 games. So the body of work in each individual city was important for awards voting.

It's one thing if the same team shells Hainsworth 5 times that season, because that one team only represents a limited number of potential Hart votes. But to spread his bad nights evenly across the league, even if it was only one time each, may have been enough to leave MOST voters in doubt that he was really "that good", even if every other game he played that season was virtually perfect.

(FWIW I also made a mistake in the original count. Both the Rangers and Leafs had two 3+ goal games)

Yet, boring defensive defensemen caught the voters' eyes enough to earn significantly more Hart votes than him.

The only defenseman that fits that description is Hainsworth's teammate, Mantha. Shore, Clancy and Conacher is hardly a "boring" group.

So the most substantial question in the discussion: why did Mantha get votes and not Hainsworth?

Would you campaign for Roman Turek? What about Marty Turco? Why not? They won Jennings trophies, after all.

1) Who is "campaigning"? This is the research thread. I was asked to write a bio and did. That bio has led to some provocative questions which we are exploring. I certainly hope this project isn't going to be some kind of staging ground for ATD arguments, if that's what is happening here.

2) I also hope you're not serious about comparing the achievements of Hainsworth to those of Turek and Turco. Hainsworth's peak is quite obviously worthy of attention in this project and the question of low AS/Hart voting is completely relevant here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hainsworth won 3 straight Vezinas for his team having the lowest GAA in the league. Here are the Hart votes we have for those seasons. Hainsworth's teammates in bold.

1926-27
HART: (538)
1. Herb Gardiner, Mtl D 89
2. Bill Cook, NYR RW 80
3. Frank Frederickson, Bos C 75
4. Dick Irvin, Chi C 73
5. King Clancy, Ott D 48
6. Billy Burch, NYA C 43
7. Dunc Munro, Mtl M D 37
8. Howie Morenz Mtl C 30
9. Bill Carson, Tor C 25
T10. Georges Boucher, Ott D 19
T10. Roy Worters, Pit G 19

1927-28
HART: (415)
1. Howie Morenz, Mtl C 123
2. Roy Worters, Pit G 82
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 78
4. George Hay, Det LW 73
5. Ching Johnson, NYR D 31
6. Frank Nighbor, Ott C 28

1928-29
HART: (310)
1. Roy Worters, NYA G 74
2. Ace Bailey, Tor RW 64
3. Eddie Shore, Bos D 62
4. Sylvio Mantha, Mtl D 60
5. King Clancy, Ott D 50
6. Andy Blair, Tor C
7. Lionel Conacher, NYA D

Mtl M means Dunc Munro was a member of the Maroons, not Canadiens (a mistake I made before).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As for the quality of the OHA, the only method I can think of is to go through the league scoring tables season by season looking for HHOFers, top scorers, and other players who moved to the NHL. Then look at their ages and compare how each ranked in the OHA and then in the NHL in back to back seasons. You'd probably need a SIHR account for this. I could do it eventually, but it's not exactly something I'd look forward to.

 

[seventieslord]

I think you may be reading my point differently than I intended.

In that era, voters would only have seen each opposing player 4-5 times a year. No matter what he did in the other 40 games, a voter's eyeball test would consist ONLY of those 4-5 games. So the body of work in each individual city was important for awards voting.

It's one thing if the same team shells Hainsworth 5 times that season, because that one team only represents a limited number of potential Hart votes. But to spread his bad nights evenly across the league, even if it was only one time each, may have been enough to leave MOST voters in doubt that he was really "that good", even if every other game he played that season was virtually perfect.

(FWIW I also made a mistake in the original count. Both the Rangers and Leafs had two 3+ goal games)

I still don’t think that holds water. Not unless you can show that other goalies were all getting “lit up†by one or two teams, so their voting wasn’t affected as greatly. And to state the obvious, if a team “lights up†another team and it’s going to cause the reporters to not think much of that team defensively, it would probably not think much of their defensive defensemen, either, but clearly the voters did.

The only defenseman that fits that description is Hainsworth's teammate, Mantha. Shore, Clancy and Conacher is hardly a "boring" group.

So the most substantial question in the discussion: why did Mantha get votes and not Hainsworth?

Because he was considered more valuable and crucial to the team having the low GAA that it did.

And of course, you forgot Hart winning defenseman Herb Gardiner here.

1) Who is "campaigning"? This is the research thread. I was asked to write a bio and did. That bio has led to some provocative questions which we are exploring. I certainly hope this project isn't going to be some kind of staging ground for ATD arguments, if that's what is happening here.

2) I also hope you're not serious about comparing the achievements of Hainsworth to those of Turek and Turco. Hainsworth's peak is quite obviously worthy of attention in this project and the question of low AS/Hart voting is completely relevant here.

Well to be honest you’re making it look like you don’t think Hainsworth was getting a fair shake in voting, the evidence being that his GAA was so low. We’re trying to show you that there is more to judging his performance than that. Turco/Turek is a great comparison. No, they aren’t on Hainsworth’s level, but then, if they won three Jennings, then maybe they would be? (I’m only about 25% joking here)

As for the quality of the OHA, the only method I can think of is to go through the league scoring tables season by season looking for HHOFers, top scorers, and other players who moved to the NHL. Then look at their ages and compare how each ranked in the OHA and then in the NHL in back to back seasons. You'd probably need a SIHR account for this. I could do it eventually, but it's not exactly something I'd look forward to.

I did something like this to try to determine what Moose Watson’s offensive potential in the NHL would have been:

What Might Moose Watson's Stats Have Looked Like If He Was In the NHL?

Moose Watson isn't impossible to compare to NHL players - there are plenty of players of known value, who played between 16 and 61 games as forwards in the SOHA. I basically made a rather simplistic formula that you should all be able to follow, in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about his NHL-level offensive capabilities. Basically, the more games a player played in the SOHA, the more valuable their data becomes and the more it weighs into the final result.

First, Harry Watson scored 84 points in 46 SOHA games for 1.82 PPG. He had 47 in 27 playoff games (including Allan Cup) for 1.74 PPG.

Here are some comparables:

Bert McCaffrey

McCaffrey joined the NHL rather late, and by the time he left, he was among the NHL's oldest players. He was decent enough that he was taken in AAA10. He had a pedestrian 73 points in 260 games, but this was at the ages of 31 to 37, and through the NHL's inagural dead puck era. During the range of his career, Cook and Denneny badly outscored him past age 31, and he tied Frank Fredrickson. His PPG average at the same ages in the same period was similar to Punch Broadbent and Ty Arbour, a very good western player who came over post-merger and didn't have quite the success that Art Gagne did. McCaffrey also had 3 points in 8 playoff games. In the SOHA, McCaffrey played 61 regular season games and 23 playoff games, averaging 1.31 and 1.08 PPG. Conclusion: Watson outscored McCaffrey by 39% and 61% in the OHA, and likely would have done the same in the NHL had he played at those ages.

Shorty Green

Green was not an excellent player, but he had flashes of greatness, particularly in 1925. He has likely found his niche as a 4th line MLD player. In the SOHA he played 16 and 14 games, averaging 2.00 and 2.07 PPG from age 27 to 30. Conclusion: Watson scored at 91% and 84% of Green's rate in the SOHA. Green is, however, the smallest sample size here.

Ernie Parkes

Parkes was an average PCHA player who put up 30 points in 83 games over 3 seasons, and 0 in 17 games at age 27 in the NHL. In the SOHA he had 2.09 and 0.92 PPG in 53 and 12 games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 87% and 189% of Parkes' rate in the SOHA.

Carson Cooper

Carson Cooper's value is well-known. He's an MLD first line winger who was 2nd and 3rd in the NHL in goals. He averaged 2.33 and 1.50 PPG in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 78% and 116% of Cooper's rate in the SOHA.

Billy Burch

Burch is a 2nd-4th-line ATD player who won a Hart trophy. He scored 1.95 and 1.50 PPG in the SOHA over 19 and 2 games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 93% and 116% of Burch's rates in the SOHA.

Hap Day

Day is in the ATD because of his time as a defenseman. But he was a very good NHL forward for a few years, too. He had 54 points in 106 games from age 23-25 and 0 points in 2 playoff games. I assume he was a forward in his SOHA days, because he scored 1.45 and 0.87 PPG in 22 and 8 games in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 126% and 198% of Day's rate in the SOHA.

Normie Himes

Himes is an average to good 2nd line MLD center. He was a one-man show for the NY Americans from age 23-31 in the NHL, scoring 219 points in 402 games. He scored 0.92 and 1.00 PPG in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 198% and 174% of Himes' rates in the SOHA.

Bill Carson

Carson was a very good NHL player for a very short time. In 4 seasons, three of them very low-scoring, he had 78 points in 159 games. He was top-10 in goals twice and then top-10 in assists another year. He had 1.69 and 2.06 PPG in 70 and 16 SOHA games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 108% and 84% of Cooper's rate in the SOHA.

Watson played from age 18 through 27 in the SOHA. (he played very sporadically for 7 more years) We have no comparables from ages 18-21 but we have a minimum of three at each age from 23 through 32, so let's go with those as his ten-year period.

I made a chart with each of these 8 comparables, and the number of adjusted points they scored at each age according to hockey-reference.com. I then multiplied these numbers by Watson's factor (1.16 if he scored at 116% of that player's rate, for example). Then I multiplied those numbers by the total number of SOHA games of that player, so that a guy who played 55 SOHA games would be much more "certain" than a guy who played 16. here are the adjusted point totals I came up with for Watson after shifting by just one year so that his whole career can be stated in NHL terms:

age 23 (19) - 1918: 54
age 24 (20) - 1919: 62
age 25 (21) - 1920: 34
age 26 (22) - 1921: 101
age 27 (23) - 1922: 71
age 28 (24) - 1923: 85
age 29 (25) - 1924: 77
age 30 (26) - 1925: 98
age 31 (27) - 1926: 76
age 32 (28) - 1927: 61

This translates into point totals of about 32, 16, 19, 45, 32, 32, 17, 41, 20, and 14.

Based on these totals it is plausible that perhaps he could have led the NHL in points once and been the top-5 as many as five times; however, due to the timeshifting I did, this is far from certain.

After the NHL's first ten seasons, Watson may have had 268 points in about 263 games. (I used 263 games as this is the most anyone played during that time, and this period represents his ten-year prime and only some of other players' primes)

263 points would have seen him 2nd all-time behind Cy Denneny's 327 points by the end of the 1927 season. His 1.02 PPG average would have been well behind what Malone, Lalonde, and Denneny put up, a bit behind Dye and defenseman Harry Cameron, and slightly ahead of Jack Darragh (weaker HHOFer), Frank Nighbor (very valuable player who was aging and fading offensively), Corb Denneny (strong Odie Cleghorn-like non-HHOF offensive player), and Reg Noble (although this includes three seasons as a defenseman; Noble performed at a Babe Dye clip when he was a forward) - Each one of those players comes with a bit of a disclaimer, but it is still very good company to be in.

A few more caveats:

1. I made the assumption that a 23-32-year old Watson was about as good as an 18-27-year old Watson. Maybe he wasn't.
2. Watson missed a year for the war. This was not accounted for.
3. We know much more about how all those other guys played and this ncreases their value relative to Watson, of whom we know very little. (I bet a google news search would help this)
4. This was complete conjecture based on statistics but based on solid logic. However, Watson never played against the best, and these guys did, so anyone who did close to what he may have done without a "what if" attached, should be valued higher than Watson.

Conclusion: Harry Watson appears to have the talent to play a top line role in the MLD. His playoff numbers were very close to his regular season numbers, and maintained over a large period of time as well. Without more information as to how he played, it would be tough selling him as a 3rd/4th line ATD player, but if he was a tough player or defensive star, I see no reason why he couldn't play in the bottom six there. After all, the guy was named a HHOFer, and unlike some earlier amateurs, his pro contemporaries were of outstanding stature. It is fair to speculate that he was directly compared to them when the HHOF was voting on him just 30 years after he last played.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I still don’t think that holds water. Not unless you can show that other goalies were all getting “lit up†by one or two teams, so their voting wasn’t affected as greatly.

Well, that WAS the case for Worters. Leafs x3, Habs x2, Maroons x1.

Worters didn't have the shutouts, but he also didn't get rolled for 4 or 5 goals often and not many voters got to see it. They probably saw him let in 1-2 goals every single time he played their team, which one can imagine being a subjectively impressive performance even in a loss.

And to state the obvious, if a team “lights up†another team and it’s going to cause the reporters to not think much of that team defensively, it would probably not think much of their defensive defensemen, either, but clearly the voters did.

Depends how it happens. If the Habs were playing an extraordinarily conservative game while tied or leading, and then opening up when trailing, it could very well be that a guy like Mantha continued to play well but got less support than normal from his backcheckers. If the other team took the opportunity to pour 5 goals into the net, the overall impression would be a lot more negative on Hainsworth (we see this ALL THE TIME with goalies in the current NHL) than it would on Mantha.

Because he was considered more valuable and crucial to the team having the low GAA that it did.

Why?

And of course, you forgot Hart winning defenseman Herb Gardiner here.

He was there, but didn't get Hart votes that year.

Well to be honest you’re making it look like you don’t think Hainsworth was getting a fair shake in voting, the evidence being that his GAA was so low. We’re trying to show you that there is more to judging his performance than that. Turco/Turek is a great comparison. No, they aren’t on Hainsworth’s level, but then, if they won three Jennings, then maybe they would be? (I’m only about 25% joking here)

I'm just asking WHY he didn't get votes. It strikes me as something that needs to be explained, much like a player setting scoring records and still being a 2AS. Hainsworth was statistically incredible that season -- how did Worters beat him out? It's a question we ought to try and answer before we rank either of them.

(If Turek had won 3 consecutive Jennings, I would think his reputation would be very different. One time can be considered a fluke... 3 times in a row is a pattern. Imagine a player winning the Art Ross or Rocket Richard 3 times in a row. He'd be getting some pretty serious looks for the AS team I'm sure. )

Another thought, possibly a clue as to how that season shook out for the Habs. Before January 10, Hainsworth got hit for 3+ goals six times in 19 games. After that, it happened once in 25 games. That seems... weird. And unlikely to be random.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I'm just asking WHY he didn't get votes. It strikes me as something that needs to be explained, much like a player setting scoring records and still being a 2AS. Hainsworth was statistically incredible that season -- how did Worters beat him out? It's a question we ought to try and answer before we rank either of them.

Wouldn't the team results before and after Worters got traded in 1928 be the obvious reason why Worters would have received strong Hart and All-Star support in 1928-29?

'27-28 Pittsburgh with Worters: 19-17-8, 4th in GA with 76
'28-29 Pittsburgh w/o Worters: 9-27-8, 9th in GA with 80

'27-28 New York w/o Worters: 11-27-6, 9th in GA with 128
'28-29 New York with Worters: 19-13-12, 3rd in GA with 53

'27-28 Montreal with Hainsworth: 26-11-7, 1st in GA with 48
'28-29 Montreal with Hainsworth: 22-7-15, 1st in GA with 43

I doubt the difference in team success was entirely because of Worters (although at the same time this is evidence that he was an impactful goalie), but it's not unusual at all for narratives to develop around newly acquired players on surprising teams that lead to lots of votes come awards time.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, that WAS the case for Worters. Leafs x3, Habs x2, Maroons x1.

Worters didn't have the shutouts, but he also didn't get rolled for 4 or 5 goals often and not many voters got to see it. They probably saw him let in 1-2 goals every single time he played their team, which one can imagine being a subjectively impressive performance even in a loss.

Depends how it happens. If the Habs were playing an extraordinarily conservative game while tied or leading, and then opening up when trailing, it could very well be that a guy like Mantha continued to play well but got less support than normal from his backcheckers. If the other team took the opportunity to pour 5 goals into the net, the overall impression would be a lot more negative on Hainsworth (we see this ALL THE TIME with goalies in the current NHL) than it would on Mantha.

This all sounds very weak.

You say you're not campaigning, but this all has the feel of "how did Hainsworth not get the recognition, since he was obviously better by looking at GAA?"

Why?

Why do I say that? Because Hart voting says that. Why did they vote that way? We will never truly know, but I think it's a pretty clear indicator he was seen as a bigger reason for the team's excellent defensive record than Hainsworth was.

He was there, but didn't get Hart votes that year.

Are we talking about one season in particular, or the 3-year period where he was winning the Jennings?

I'm just asking WHY he didn't get votes. It strikes me as something that needs to be explained, much like a player setting scoring records and still being a 2AS. Hainsworth was statistically incredible that season -- how did Worters beat him out? It's a question we ought to try and answer before we rank either of them.

Why can't it just be as simple as, the people who saw them both play thought Worters was better? And we should value their opinions highly.

(If Turek had won 3 consecutive Jennings, I would think his reputation would be very different. One time can be considered a fluke... 3 times in a row is a pattern. Imagine a player winning the Art Ross or Rocket Richard 3 times in a row. He'd be getting some pretty serious looks for the AS team I'm sure. )

No, not necessarily. Not just by being on a team that allowed the fewest goals.

Another thought, possibly a clue as to how that season shook out for the Habs. Before January 10, Hainsworth got hit for 3+ goals six times in 19 games. After that, it happened once in 25 games. That seems... weird. And unlikely to be random.

Actually, I'm sure someone with a better statistical background can show you that something like this can easily be random.

 

[plusandminus]

1. I made the assumption that a 23-32-year old Watson was about as good as an 18-27-year old Watson. Maybe he wasn't.

I'm writing out of context in a thread and about a subject I know little about.
But since WW2, the "peak" age for scoring seem to have been around 25-27, and teenegers produces considerably less points than later in their careers. (I write about it in the recent "improving adjusted stats" thread by CzechYourMath.) So, if the 1920s scoring followed the same pattern, it looks as if 23-32 may have been a singificantly more favourable age than 18-27.
Well, you know your context far better than me, and this may not even be topic here.


Interesting post by ContrarianGoaltender about winning with and without (which has been my key focus during the last two months). One should just remember to do the same math for some other goalies too, if possible, to get something to compare with. (I'm speaking generally, rather than about the whole season comparison here.)

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Another thought, possibly a clue as to how that season shook out for the Habs. Before January 10, Hainsworth got hit for 3+ goals six times in 19 games. After that, it happened once in 25 games. That seems... weird. And unlikely to be random.

Actually, I'm sure someone with a better statistical background can show you that something like this can easily be random.

It does seem unlikely to be random. Suppose that Hainsworth's first nineteen games represents his "true" level of ability for the season; that is, the probability that he gives up 3 or more goals in a game is 6/19, or 31.5%.

The probability that in his next 25 games, this happens one time or fewer is:

C(25,0)*(6/19)^(0)*(13/19)^(25) + C(25,1)*(6/19)^(1)*(13/19)^(24) = 0.1%

On the other hand, suppose that Hainsworth's last 25 games represents his "true" level of ability. Similar analysis says that the chances that he gives up 3 or more goals six or more times in his first 19 games is 0.01%.

...

Of course, this assumes a bunch of things such as independence between games (clearly false) and also that his "true" level of ability is either A or B, and not a combination of A and B. Nevertheless...

 

[tarheelhockey]

This all sounds very weak.

Maybe it is. I haven't yet gotten my hands dirty looking at first-hand accounts. Just spitballing possibilities, so I'll at least know what I'm looking for.

You say you're not campaigning, but this all has the feel of "how did Hainsworth not get the recognition, since he was obviously better by looking at GAA?"

I haven't said he was better based on stats. But his stats were definitely better. So the natural question is, why did the guy with better stats not get the awards recognition? Basically the same question being asked about the 1989 Hart a couple of threads over.

Why do I say that? Because Hart voting says that. Why did they vote that way? We will never truly know, but I think it's a pretty clear indicator he was seen as a bigger reason for the team's excellent defensive record than Hainsworth was.

Well I think it's a question worth researching if we're going to be engaged in a big rankings project. Awards voting is not gospel, any more than stats are. If there is material out there explaining why certain players were esteemed over others, I would MUCH rather have access to it than not.

Are we talking about one season in particular, or the 3-year period where he was winning the Jennings?

I was asking about 1929 specifically. The other years are definitely worth talking about, perhaps they even MUST be talked about to get to the bottom of things, but 1929 is the year I find really puzzling given the scale of Hainsworth's numbers and their legacy all these years later.

Why can't it just be as simple as, the people who saw them both play thought Worters was better? And we should value their opinions highly.

Honestly, that doesn't sound like a very thorough method. This is a big project, I'd like the rankings to go a little deeper.

Actually, I'm sure someone with a better statistical background can show you that something like this can easily be random.

As I said, random chance producing that strong a pattern is unlikely.

 

[seventieslord]

It does seem unlikely to be random. Suppose that Hainsworth's first nineteen games represents his "true" level of ability for the season; that is, the probability that he gives up 3 or more goals in a game is 6/19, or 31.5%.

The probability that in his next 25 games, this happens one time or fewer is:

C(25,0)*(6/19)^(0)*(13/19)^(25) + C(25,1)*(6/19)^(1)*(13/19)^(24) = 0.1%

On the other hand, suppose that Hainsworth's last 25 games represents his "true" level of ability. Similar analysis says that the chances that he gives up 3 or more goals six or more times in his first 19 games is 0.01%.

...

Of course, this assumes a bunch of things such as independence between games (clearly false) and also that his "true" level of ability is either A or B, and not a combination of A and B. Nevertheless...

and what if his true ability is that it is going to happen 7 times in 44 games. is it that random that they were distributed the way they were?

regardless of that, isn't it always the late season games that seem to influence voting the most?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

and what if his true ability is that it is going to happen 7 times in 44 games. is it that random that they were distributed the way they were?

That's what I meant when I said "and also that his "true" level of ability is either A or B, and not a combination of A and B".

 

[seventieslord]

Maybe it is. I haven't yet gotten my hands dirty looking at first-hand accounts. Just spitballing possibilities, so I'll at least know what I'm looking for.



I haven't said he was better based on stats. But his stats were definitely better. So the natural question is, why did the guy with better stats not get the awards recognition? Basically the same question being asked about the 1989 Hart a couple of threads over.

Right, the goalie with the best GAA is not the best goalie anymore than the forward with the most points automatically is.

Well I think it's a question worth researching if we're going to be engaged in a big rankings project. Awards voting is not gospel, any more than stats are. If there is material out there explaining why certain players were esteemed over others, I would MUCH rather have access to it than not.

Honestly, that doesn't sound like a very thorough method. This is a big project, I'd like the rankings to go a little deeper.

Good luck to you, but I don't know what you expect to find. The hart voting does provide a really good "aggregation" of what the people who saw them play thought, as does the all-star voting that began a few years later. You can probably expect it to carry a lot of weight in our rankings for goalies we haven't seen and whose strongest statistical cases are GAA-based.

 

[seventieslord]

That's what I meant when I said "and also that his "true" level of ability is either A or B, and not a combination of A and B".

sorry, yeah, i guess you did throw that caveat in there, so never mind.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Montreal's Team GAA (relevant to both Vezina and Hainsworth)

Georges Vezina plays every game
1922-23: 2nd of 4 with 2.46
1923-24: 1st of 4 with 1.97
1924-25: 1st of 6 with 1.81

Vezina (age 39) was forced to retire due to TB and died not long after. he only played 1 period in 1925-26

Herb Rheame plays 31 games, Frenchy Leroux plays 5
1925-26: 6th of 7 with 2.96

After 1925-26, Vezina handpicked Hainsworth to be his successor. The WHL also folded and Herb Gardiner moved from out west to the Canadiens.

Hainsworth plays every game
1926-27: 1st of 10 with 1.47*
1927-28: 1st of 10 with 1.05
1928-29: 1st of 10 with 0.92

After 1928-29, the NHL allowed the forward pass in all three zones and Hainsworth's numbers fell back to Earth (though they were still pretty good).

*Clint Benedict (1.42) and Lorne Chabot (1.46) actually had slightly better GAA than Hainsworth, but their backups blew their chances for the Vezina Trophy. Hainsworth played ever game.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm just going off memory, but wasn't it Lalonde who picked Hainsworth?

It would be an awfully strange thing for Vezina to do, worrying about who the next habs goalie would be while dying of Tuberculosis.