Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[quoipourquoi]

Right, it's not like he did badly. A 0.01 difference is just not a meaningful improvement.

No, probably not, but with the teams shooting on the Canadiens averaging 3.49 GPG cumulatively in the season and the team shooting on the Canadiens in the playoffs averaging 3.66 in the season, it is still an improvement. My point is that it shouldn't be measured against the average GAA of the four playoff goalies like it was in your chart. That number is largely comprised of McCool absolutely knocking it out of the park.

 

[BM67]

No, probably not, but with the teams shooting on the Canadiens averaging 3.49 GPG cumulatively in the season and the team shooting on the Canadiens in the playoffs averaging 3.66 in the season, it is still an improvement. My point is that it shouldn't be measured against the average GAA of the four playoff goalies like it was in your chart. That number is largely comprised of McCool absolutely knocking it out of the park.

Durnan: 2.42 RS, 2.41 P Dif -0.01 (6 GP)
Lumley: 3.22 RS, 2.14 P Dif -1.08 (14 GP)
McCool: 3.22 RS, 2.23 P Dif -0.99 (13 GP)
Bibeault: 4.55 RS, 3.02 P Dif -1.53 (7 GP)

How is that mostly McCool, when Lumley's GAA dropped by more, and over more games?

Interesting that the only HHoF goalie the Durnan beat in a playoff round is Brimsek. Durnan beat Brimsek twice, playing behind the best team in the league both times. He never beat Broda, Lumley or Rayner.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Change of Pace Goals

Full marks to Durnan for playing well in losses during the '45 and '47 playoffs.

But then there's 1949, Game 7, score tied halfway through the game:



Another paper indicates that this shot came from about 40 feet out.

Tough to assign legendary status to a goaltending performance that includes a shorthanded Game 7 winning goal scored on a looping backhand from beyond the faceoff circles by an offensively challenged defenseman.

Seems similar to countless change of pace or longshot goals allowed by goalies during the history of playoff goals. Tony Esposito and Ed Giacomin were particularly adept. Cam Connor OT winner, almost totally fanned forehand.

1950 and 1953 SC game 7, OT winners were weak or fluke deflections. Bob Baun's broken ankle goal was nothing special.1971 Jacques Lemaire vs Tony Esposito, game 7, Nick Lidstrom on Dan Cloutier. Then of course Patrick Roy and the Statue of Liberty Goal.Not in OT but Roy still has legendary status, #1 in this effort.

You are basically just churning instances and numbers to support an anti Bill Durnan position.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Now...........

Durnan: 2.42 RS, 2.41 P Dif -0.01 (6 GP)
Lumley: 3.22 RS, 2.14 P Dif -1.08 (14 GP)
McCool: 3.22 RS, 2.23 P Dif -0.99 (13 GP)
Bibeault: 4.55 RS, 3.02 P Dif -1.53 (7 GP)

How is that mostly McCool, when Lumley's GAA dropped by more, and over more games?

Interesting that the only HHoF goalie the Durnan beat in a playoff round is Brimsek. Durnan beat Brimsek twice, playing behind the best team in the league both times. He never beat Broda, Lumley or Rayner.

Now we are getting somewhere. Have to look beyond the AST or Star "Wow" factor of analysis.

Evaluate complete rosters and composition from top to bottom,instead of counting team AST nominations, honours and related fluff.

Start by challenging the assumption that the regular season first place team is not necessarily the best suited to play one or two seven game series where the schedule and travel factors are balanced.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Seems similar to countless change of pace or longshot goals allowed by goalies during the history of playoff goals. Tony Esposito and Ed Giacomin were particularly adept. Cam Connor OT winner, almost totally fanned forehand.

And it's appropriate to note those goals where applicable, yes?

Roy might have been #1 overall, but the weakness of his 2002 playoff was noted and not handwaved away.

You are basically just churning instances and numbers to support an anti Bill Durnan position.

What makes you think I have an anti-Durnan position? The events are what they are. You're welcome to argue that he had a flawless 1949 playoff, but it needs to be acknowledged that he flubbed an easy save to break a 7th-game tie.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, probably not, but with the teams shooting on the Canadiens averaging 3.49 GPG cumulatively in the season and the team shooting on the Canadiens in the playoffs averaging 3.66 in the season, it is still an improvement. My point is that it shouldn't be measured against the average GAA of the four playoff goalies like it was in your chart. That number is largely comprised of McCool absolutely knocking it out of the park.

Great point. I wish this had all come up before the vote so we could do it for both goalies' careers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frank Brimsek

What makes you think I have an anti-Durnan position? The events are what they are. You're welcome to argue that he had a flawless 1949 playoff, but it needs to be acknowledged that he flubbed an easy save to break a 7th-game tie.

No questioning that events are what they are or were but you are looking only at Bill Durnan events. Why not look at Frank Brimsek events - 1939.? Why did the Bruins almost blow a 3-0 game lead? Why did the Bruins lose in 1940 to the Rangers? 1942 to Detroit.?

 

[tarheelhockey]

No questioning that events are what they are or were but you are looking only at Bill Durnan events. Why not look at Frank Brimsek events - 1939.? Why did the Bruins almost blow a 3-0 game lead? Why did the Bruins lose in 1940 to the Rangers? 1942 to Detroit.?

I'd love to look at those things, and probably would have earlier if this had all come up.

But the specific claim I researched was yours: "Durnan's playoff performance over his first three losing playoff years was batter globally than then his regular season. You have not produced an iota of evidence to contradict this."

You basically threw down the gauntlet for someone to do the research, so I did.

1945, Durnan appears to have been solid enough not to deserve special blame for the loss.

1947, he was actually quite good and his team let him down. Goalies can't skate down the ice and put pucks in the net themselves, and I'm not a fan of faulting goalies for series losses where they played well.

1949, a Durnan gaffe turned the crucial game against his team. The Habs had just scored to tie, Durnan flubs a softie and then a rebound goal a few minutes later puts them away. That is a matter of fact, and not a product of biased research.


Do you want to do this for Brimsek as well? If so, you have the resources at hand. I'll even split the seasons with you to make it easier, if you'd like.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Durnan: 2.42 RS, 2.41 P Dif -0.01 (6 GP)
Lumley: 3.22 RS, 2.14 P Dif -1.08 (14 GP)
McCool: 3.22 RS, 2.23 P Dif -0.99 (13 GP)
Bibeault: 4.55 RS, 3.02 P Dif -1.53 (7 GP)

How is that mostly McCool, when Lumley's GAA dropped by more, and over more games?

Interesting that the only HHoF goalie the Durnan beat in a playoff round is Brimsek. Durnan beat Brimsek twice, playing behind the best team in the league both times. He never beat Broda, Lumley or Rayner.

Because the teams shooting on McCool averaged 4.46, while the teams shooting on Lumley averaged 3.62. Are you really more impressed by Lumley?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Jeez, think that might be a straw man? We're talking about the top-10 goalies of all time here -- none are even close to being bad.


As to GAA vs Sv%, let's look at a hypothetical game, a tie between Brimsek and Durnan, reported in different ways.

1) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2

Ok, we know that neither goalie managed to win (or lose) and that in GAA terms they were both above-average. Now how are we going to rank their performances? The only possible conclusion from this data is that they were perfectly equal -- not only is that nearly impossible, it's logically dubious to draw such a conclusion from this data. Chances are one of them was better than the other, but GAA isn't going to reveal anything helpful.

2) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2
Brimsek 14/16 Durnan 34/36

Well, this fills in the picture quite a bit, doesn't it? Just based on the shot counts, we can make a reasonable inference that the Habs were badly outplayed but that Durnan kept them in the game. It's not 100% rock solid, since there's no accounting for the actual scoring chances and no way to know how Brimsek may have intangibly affected the game. But it's probably an 80/20 likelihood that Durnan was the much better goalie here.

3) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2
Brimsek 14/16 Durnan 34/36

"Bill Durnan held the Habs in the game until the final minute of regulation, when a long soft shot from center ice trickled between Brimsek's skates to tie the game. Boston outshot their opponents 8-0 in overtime, but Durnan's outstanding goalkeeping preserved the tie."

Unless the writer above is an absolute liar, Durnan definitely played the better game, and we can rank them with total confidence.


Extrapolate these examples across careers. If all you use is GAA, you have a good idea who got the best game outcomes but absolutely no idea whose performances were the best. If you add Sv%, you get a reasonably sound idea of who had the best games -- not flawless, but good enough for thumbnail judgments. Confirmation comes from direct accounts of gameplay (or even better, archival video) which, more often than not, simply reinforces the message we got from Sv%.

The exception to that last line would be cases like Elliott last season, where nobody who actually followed the NHL seems to think that Sv% was reflective of the goalie's individual performance. I think Mike is onto something in challenging conventional wisdom about the past ~15 years of Sv% records, and I'm looking forward to seeing what fruit that conversation will bear.

This is a great hypothetical....for your argument.

Lets change some factors.

Bruins win 6-2. Does that tell us soemthing? I think so.

How about in the 2-2 game, Durnan allows the goal from center ice with a minute left. Now what? Was Durnan clearly the better goalie because of the shot differencial? Not any more. (Did they play OT in the 40s? I dont think so)

 

[MXD]

I don't wish to pressure anybody, but will the Round 2 results/Round 3 players be posted tonight?

 

[vecens24]

Just voted, hopefully I got it in in time.

Crazy busy weekend, sorry guys.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Post #4

I'd love to look at those things, and probably would have earlier if this had all come up.

But the specific claim I researched was yours: "Durnan's playoff performance over his first three losing playoff years was batter globally than then his regular season. You have not produced an iota of evidence to contradict this."

You basically threw down the gauntlet for someone to do the research, so I did.

1945, Durnan appears to have been solid enough not to deserve special blame for the loss.

1947, he was actually quite good and his team let him down. Goalies can't skate down the ice and put pucks in the net themselves, and I'm not a fan of faulting goalies for series losses where they played well.

1949, a Durnan gaffe turned the crucial game against his team. The Habs had just scored to tie, Durnan flubs a softie and then a rebound goal a few minutes later puts them away. That is a matter of fact, and not a product of biased research.


Do you want to do this for Brimsek as well? If so, you have the resources at hand. I'll even split the seasons with you to make it easier, if you'd like.

I dropped the gauntlet? See your post #4 in this thread. No supporting data, just a general statement that started the ball rolling.

So you had nothing from the start. Why bother now after the voting?

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is a great hypothetical....for your argument.

Lets change some factors.

Bruins win 6-2. Does that tell us soemthing? I think so.

It tells us that Durnan allowed more goals. Ok. What more can we soundly infer from that?

We could guess that Brimsek played better, but it's far from a rock solid conclusion.

How about in the 2-2 game, Durnan allows the goal from center ice with a minute left. Now what? Was Durnan clearly the better goalie because of the shot differencial? Not any more.

Exactly. Are you drawing a different conclusion than I did about the need for a narrative record?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I dropped the gauntlet?

Yes, you asked for evidence that Durnan's playoff failures were his fault. I showed that one of them certainly was.

So are you disputing that evidence, or what?

See your post #4 in this thread. No supporting data, just a general statement that started the ball rolling.

So you had nothing from the start. Why bother now after the voting?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. What does a "first thoughts" post have to do with anything?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It tells us that Durnan allowed more goals. Ok. What more can we soundly infer from that?

We could guess that Brimsek played better, but it's far from a rock solid conclusion.



Exactly. Are you drawing a different conclusion than I did about the need for a narrative record?

You're right.

We need more than just numbers and even what we see ourselves.

To do the job right we need a narrative on every game every goalie played.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You're right.

We need more than just numbers and even what we see ourselves.

To do the job right we need a narrative on every game every goalie played.

Are you deliberately missing the point?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quaint

Yes, you asked for evidence that Durnan's playoff failures were his fault. I showed that one of them certainly was.

So are you disputing that evidence, or what?



I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. What does a "first thoughts" post have to do with anything?

Just find your definition of evidence quaint. Reality check. Durnan takes an injured team, 3rd place finish 10 pts behind the Red Wings to game 7 in Detroit.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1949.html

Link to Canadiens roster above.

The following stars are injured - Lach played only 1 game. Dmen Bouchard and Reardon are coming back from injury or playing hurt. Without a center, Maurice Richard is shutdown by the opposition.

Yet Durnan gets the blame due to your superficial research and spin.

First thoughts are supposed to have some grounding in facts and research. As evidenced above, this is not the case.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just find your definition of evidence quaint.

Here is what you said just a few words upthread.

"Still a bottom line issue. The goals that are allowed. Regardless of whether reflected by SV% or GAA the type and quality of goals allowed is the real issue. If a goalie has stretches of bad games or gives up bad goals this has to be recognized and weighed against his contemporaries."

Those are YOUR words. Not mine.

As it turns out, the "type and quality of goals allowed" was indeed a real issue for Durnan in respect to how the Habs' 1949 season ended. That is a fact, no spin necessary.

Yet Durnan gets the blame due to your superficial research and spin.

For one thing, he deserves the blame on that goal.

Also, I find it a little irritating that you're accusing me of orchestrating bias against Durnan. I have already supported your side of the argument in regard to his 1947 playoff, and even backed off of my very light criticism of his 1945.

So I report that, on a factual basis, he lets in one bad goal in 1949, and you think it's ok to slag the research I put into it -- research that you indicated a need to see -- and now it's ok to attack not the substance of the debate by my personal integrity? Seriously?

If you want to present research to provide even more depth to the subject, feel free. You may recall that in my prior post I offered to share the workload with you. But coming after me personally because you made some unfounded comments and got called on the carpet -- I'm not ok with that, at all.

First thoughts are supposed to have some grounding in facts and research. As evidenced above, this is not the case.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? The full text of the post you're referring to:

"My reflex reaction is that Benedict, Broda and Parent are the weakest candidates here.

Agreed that Brodeur, Sawchuk, Dryden are a notch above the pack.

In my mind that leaves Brimsek, Durnan and Tretiak to fight over the 4th spot."


In what way did that post signal anything other than my initial reaction to seeing the list? What does it have to do with anything we're talking about here?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Spin

Here is what you said just a few words upthread.

"Still a bottom line issue. The goals that are allowed. Regardless of whether reflected by SV% or GAA the type and quality of goals allowed is the real issue. If a goalie has stretches of bad games or gives up bad goals this has to be recognized and weighed against his contemporaries."

Those are YOUR words. Not mine.

As it turns out, the "type and quality of goals allowed" was indeed a real issue for Durnan in respect to how the Habs' 1949 season ended. That is a fact, no spin necessary.




For one thing, he deserves the blame on that goal.

Also, I find it a little irritating that you're accusing me of orchestrating bias against Durnan. I have already supported your side of the argument in regard to his 1947 playoff, and even backed off of my very light criticism of his 1945.

So I report that, on a factual basis, he lets in one bad goal in 1949, and you think it's ok to slag the research I put into it -- research that you indicated a need to see -- and now it's ok to attack not the substance of the debate by my personal integrity? Seriously?

If you want to present research to provide even more depth to the subject, feel free. You may recall that in my prior post I offered to share the workload with you. But coming after me personally because you made some unfounded comments and got called on the carpet -- I'm not ok with that, at all.




What in the holy hell are you talking about? The full text of the post you're referring to:

"My reflex reaction is that Benedict, Broda and Parent are the weakest candidates here.

Agreed that Brodeur, Sawchuk, Dryden are a notch above the pack.

In my mind that leaves Brimsek, Durnan and Tretiak to fight over the 4th spot."


In what way did that post signal anything other than my initial reaction to seeing the list? What does it have to do with anything we're talking about here?

Overlooking the free pass that Brimsek gets for 1942 - Kraut line goes to war, Clapper hurt, etc. If missing teammates or injuries are a factor for one they are a factor for all. This is not happening here if the complete Durnan / Brimsek debate is looked at throughtout this trade.

I am a bottom line type. First bolded quote that you attribute to me. Trust the difference between the plural and singular to be clear. I am referring to goals and games. You focus on a goal and a game.

You admit to a reflex reaction. Which confirms my assessment. In other words not supported by anything tangible.

Why should I accept a vapid research showdown? The voting is done. If both miss the top 8 then the issue of further research may be looked at but. If one gets in then nothing will change.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Overlooking the free pass that Brimsek gets for 1942 - Kraut line goes to war, Clapper hurt, etc. If missing teammates or injuries are a factor for one they are a factor for all. This is not happening here if the complete Durnan / Brimsek debate is looked at throughtout this trade.

This all goes back to a comment you made about Durnan's losing playoffs. There was no need to research Brimsek in the context of verifying Durnan's three performances.

Nothing is stopping you from pointing out where Brimsek let in bad goals to cost his teams playoff rounds. If you know of them, or can find them through research, please share. And I don't mean giving us a hockey-reference link to rosters and game scores, I mean actual research to show where Brimsek failed his team. Do you really think that the twenty-something voters in this project are going to give him a free pass for anything that you can present with solid sources?

And if you do believe that, why? What does anyone here have to gain from bashing Durnan and promoting Brimsek? These guys have both been dead for decades, it's not like they have a bunch of living fans left.

I am a bottom line type. First bolded quote that you attribute to me. Trust the difference between the plural and singular to be clear. I am referring to goals and games. You focus on a goal and a game.

The more you dodge the relevance of that Game 7 goal, the more I suspect that you just didn't know about it when you brought up 1949. It's a black mark on his record, plain and simple, and it doesn't fit the picture you've been painting that he never let the team down in the crucial moment.

You admit to a reflex reaction. Which confirms my assessment. In other words not supported by anything tangible.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means, "I looked at this list and here are my opening thoughts". It's really simple and has nothing to do with how much I can associate those thoughts with tangible evidence.

Why should I accept a vapid research showdown? The voting is done. If both miss the top 8 then the issue of further research may be looked at but. If one gets in then nothing will change.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but the top-60 project is not a contest. We are not here to have "showdowns" and boost our favorite players out of bias. Perhaps the ATD is a better outlet if you have an interest in that sort of thing.

You have been complaining extensively about the "superficial" research that you believe has been done here on Brimsek and Durnan. Here is your opportunity to step up and provide some source material for your strong opinions on the matter, thus changing the situation which gives you such deep displeasure.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Not Done

Why should I accept a vapid research showdown? The voting is done. If both miss the top 8 then the issue of further research may be looked at but. If one gets in then nothing will change.

I'm pretty sure we are able to change our votes as long as the results for the round haven't been announced yet, which they haven't as of right now...I know that's how it's been in other projects on this board, so there's still a chance to make a difference if you think there's a good point to be made or research to be done.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well, neither of them made the cut after all.

Let's kick off the next round with a nice complete analysis of Brimsek's playoff failures.

 

[seventieslord]

Voters received this PM:

We are now accepting votes for the HOH Goalies Project and they are due by this Sunday.

Please read the lengthy discussion thread before voting:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1275911

Vote by sending me a list of 8 of the 9 candidates, ranked 1-8

Rules are that voting runs through Sunday Nov 4th not by this Sunday but through this Sunday.

Please clarify as voters should enjoty the benefit of a full debate and not rush their votes.

I don't see the problem here. Discussion continues as people begin to submit their votes. that's how it always goes.

Ranking goalies on GAA is no more useful than ranking them by height. There is no causative connection between the performance and the number, especially when we get down to a difference of 0.01.

Especially when, as you showed, the league average dropped by much more than that.

I generally put a lot of stock in save% but it has lost some value as coaching and systems have begun to "create" great goaltending seasons out of the clear blue.

This is unfortunately true. The degree to which this is true is up for debate, but the effect is quite obviously there. Thankfully we have some more advanced stats to help us along (shot quality for example) but coaching has made goalie evaluation more difficult.

Bill Watters used to repeat this mantra almost daily on Leafs Lunch: "show me a good goalie, and I'll show you a good coach!"

Billy Smith and Chico Resch, on the other hand, seem to really be comparable with the only thing decidedly separating them (and it's no small feat) is that Billy Smith was a money goalie of all-time proportions...

Unless Smith was actually getting the tough starts and Resch the easy ones.

I think this should and will come under a good deal of scrutiny when we start talking about modern goalies that are below this "Elite HHOF" level we are currently at.

I'll be interested to see that. Considering that GAA is just save percentage Times 1/SAPG.

Overlooking the nature of voters. Voters were watching before and after the Red Line was introduced. Did they adjust their perception, criteria and appreciation of goalies accordingly?

This may sound crazy, but I'm thinking they attempted to vote for who they thought was the best at stopping the puck both before and after the red line was introduced.

Whether they always got it right is of course a better question.

And I don't mean giving us a hockey-reference link to rosters and game scores, I mean actual research

Zing

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Closed as we move to Vote 3.