Round 2, Vote 9 (HOH Top Goaltenders)
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
That undoubtedly plays a role. Here's what I'm seeing as possible interpretations:
1) We've judged a lot of goalies on their ability to outperform backups -- some more harshly than others. Well, Connell flat-out destroyed his backup here. Killed him. Not even remotely close. And while Beveridge was a lower-end goalie that year, he was only a couple of years from taking the reins in Ottawa to begin a career that would land him at #11 on the all-time GP list. So it's easier for me to look at those numbers and see below-average defense, with Connell peforming well to post numbers close to his opponents' average and his performance quality being validated by his backup.
2) More simply, Connell wasn't even close to league average. End of story.
Not sure which one is closer to the "real" Connell.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,812
- 16,549
If Beveridge was that much below the league average, he would probably never have played any other games. He's pretty much in Bucinzki territory with such numbers.
The worst is, Wilf Cude possibly posted numbers that were even worst than Beveridge (pretty unlikely that he was worst than Connell, unless the Quakers routinely gave up 80 shots per game -- which wouldn't be that surprising, but I remember seeing a few quotes to the effect that Cude was just plain bad that season), so having a SV% average that high, with one starter that was THAT low, means that guys like Hainsworth and Gardiner possibly posted SV% in the .950 (if Senators forward were league-average in shooting percentage. Which they probably weren't).
IMO, opponents averages are odd. Gap between Connell and Beveridge isn't. Keep in mind that the Sens defense..heck... the Sens as a whole were just a terrible team at that point.
Other possibility : The Senators were experts at shooting pucks in the opposing goalie chest, hence why those terrible shooting percentages. However, the Sens outscored two teams that year.
As far as bad backup goes, I remember the gap between Roy Worters and his backup during that span (backups being Benny Grant -- arguably a lesser player than Beveridge, according to GP at least -- and borderline Top-100 candidate Jake Forbes) being much narrower, if not inexistant.
Last edited:
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
It's easy enough to tell from young Beveridge's eye-test reviews that he was not a terrible goalie.
Calgary Daily Herald 11/10/1928 said:
Border Cities Star 1/10/1930 said:
New York Times 1/27/1930 said:
New York Times 2/9/1931 said:
Beveridge was no superstar, but he wasn't a bum either. Highly regarded young goalie who went on to a strong NHL career after a little more seasoning.
No time to go through the entire 1930-31 season's worth of summaries, but the reporters seem unanimous on two things:
1) Ottawa played a wide-open game that left their goalies hanging out to dry almost constantly.
2) Connell was very, very good.
I think it's worth taking a closer look at this guy, just to be sure our standard set of criteria aren't causing us to take our eye off the ball.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Post Forward Pass Era
1930-31 was the season after Ottawa traded/sold King Clancy to Toronto:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1930.html
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1931.html
The team did not have the horses offensively or defensively. Connell was their only viable player.
That said there is a bigger issue - the changes to the game in the years right after the forward pass and how this impacted the performance of the goalies. John Ross Roach facing 62 shots in a game, 31 in a period raises questions about the offensive and defensive strategies as teams and players adapted to the new rules and their demands and opportunities.
1930-31 was the season after Ottawa traded/sold King Clancy to Toronto:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1930.html
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTS/1931.html
The team did not have the horses offensively or defensively. Connell was their only viable player.
That said there is a bigger issue - the changes to the game in the years right after the forward pass and how this impacted the performance of the goalies. John Ross Roach facing 62 shots in a game, 31 in a period raises questions about the offensive and defensive strategies as teams and players adapted to the new rules and their demands and opportunities.
not untrue
opponents at or above .500
osgood: 7 of 19
vernon: 16 of 30
record vs those teams
osgood: 4-3
vernon: 10-4-1, plus a no decision vs STL (osgood was pulled after 8 minutes, having allowed 3g on 4 shots.)
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Percy LeSueur
Henrik Lundqvist
Roberto Luongo
John Vanbiesbrouck
(Alpha order)
I'm pretty much locked in to that top-4 at this point. All of them are from eras that we have underrepresented, and it's just too much of a stretch for me to rank them behind second- or third-tier goalies from other generations. As for the rest...
Gerry Cheevers - I'd like to see someone make a comprehensive argument for him soon.
Alec Connell - as mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'm probably going to warm up to Connell next round. It's good to see the research being done on his career.
Mike Liut - Much as I'd like to give some due to 80s goalies, I can't shake the feeling that Liut just really wasn't that great.
Al Rollins - I suspect he'll be in my top-4 next round.
Tim Thomas - He might not make my top 40. Top 50 is a possibility though. Simply running out of better options.
Rogie Vachon - I feel like he should go soon. Either this round or next.
The rest are pretty much off my radar at this point.
Henrik Lundqvist
Roberto Luongo
John Vanbiesbrouck
(Alpha order)
I'm pretty much locked in to that top-4 at this point. All of them are from eras that we have underrepresented, and it's just too much of a stretch for me to rank them behind second- or third-tier goalies from other generations. As for the rest...
Gerry Cheevers - I'd like to see someone make a comprehensive argument for him soon.
Alec Connell - as mentioned a couple of posts ago, I'm probably going to warm up to Connell next round. It's good to see the research being done on his career.
Mike Liut - Much as I'd like to give some due to 80s goalies, I can't shake the feeling that Liut just really wasn't that great.
Al Rollins - I suspect he'll be in my top-4 next round.
Tim Thomas - He might not make my top 40. Top 50 is a possibility though. Simply running out of better options.
Rogie Vachon - I feel like he should go soon. Either this round or next.
The rest are pretty much off my radar at this point.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
What's the case for Al Rollins over Tim Thomas? Right now, I just see Rollins as basically Thomas without the Conn Smythe, which of course means that Thomas goes first. And I'm really not that high on Thomas, not yet.
As for Cheevers... well he did get into the HHOF a couple of years before Giacomin, though maybe that says more about Giacomin than Cheevers
Seriously though, for anyone using the HHOF as a criteria, think of this: The HHOF inducts 4 players per year no matter what the talent pool is. So when the talent pool basically doubled when Europeans entered the NHL, it became that much more difficult for players to make the Hall. Sure, Tretiak is in the Hall without ever having played in North America, but he's the exception to the rule.Agree with your top 4. I really do think Connell and Vachon should go next round, not this round, but they should go in the top 40.
Last edited:
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
I would be interested in hearing some last minute thoughts on Rollins vs. Connell vs. Kiprusoff
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
To me, Rollins boils down to a question of "value" (vs teammates) vs. "excellence" (vs his peers), Kiprusoff boils down to a workhorse, single great season, and cumulative SV% in the "SV% era" argument. Connell is almost lost in the murky depths of history, but I still think there's enough success, performance data, and perhaps even patterns of "consistency" and "adaptability" for me to consider him above both of those guys.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I have Rollins behind the other two. EB's profile does a great job of showing how great Rollins was when he was on, but I just can't get over how short his career was. And how few great seasons he had - What did Rollins do outside of 1951, 1953, and 1954?
And for voters who voted Lumley because they were impressed that he was traded for Gus Mortson, Cal Gardner and Ray Hannigan, and Al Rollins... well, I think the opposite of that is that Rollins should go that far below Lumley.
I think there's a legit argument for Kiprusoff over Thomas, though. Kipper was basically the best goalie in the league in both 2003-04 and 2005-06, but he didn't win the Vezina in 2004 because he didn't get a chance to be Calgary's starter until the second half of the season. And if there's ever a goalie who was hurt by the 2005 lockout, it was the guy who was the best in the second half of 2004 and all of 2006.
If you like Thomas's 2-3 peak years and don't care that he has little else, then maybe you'll like Rollins. I don't see Rollins with anything close to Thomas's playoff record though.
Before Vachon dies he deserves to be in Hall of fame.Hiss GAA average was below 3 he had nearly 50 so has a ring.And at 76 canada cup his gaa average was 1.33.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
If his short career and few great seasons are your main issue with Rollins, that should answer your question about Rollins vs. Thomas.
I've stood up for Thomas and explained the reasons for his late entry, but there's still the plain and simple fact that he wasn't close to an NHL-quality goaltender until almost age 30, which is the same age that Rollins was spitefully buried in the minors by a Blackhawks organization that seemed to enjoy making examples of people.
Rollins was a good goalie in a 6-team league, but had a short career because he was essentially whacked by the NHL mafia.
vs.
Thomas spent half his career outside a 30-team league; to be fair he was held back for a couple of years by organizational politics. His career appears to have ended when he abruptly walked out on his team for reasons that could charitably be described as "personal".
At the end of the day, Rollins had more GP than Thomas and he was playing a 70-game schedule. And Rollins had 3 great seasons by your definition; I assume you'd agree Thomas only had 2? Thomas is probably the one goalie that has even worse longevity than Rollins.
In terms of awards, yes, Thomas has a Smythe. Rollins won a Hart and finished 2nd to Gordie Howe. I know which one I value more when judging a goalie's place in the hierarchy, especially when the guy with the Hart only played 13 career postseason games and still picked up almost half the Ws in a Cup win. Thomas has a one Vezina/1AS advantage on Rollins, which he won over Steve Mason. Rollins thrice finished behind some combination of Sawchuk/Plante/Hall/Lumley/Rayner, during an era in which the top spot was essentially unavailable to a goalie on a bad team.
And bear in mind that all of the above occurred with Rollins playing on the worst team in the league and Thomas playing on a Stanley Cup contender.
The main thing Thomas has going for him right now is the fact that he's somewhere around #4 or #5 among post-1990 goalies, whereas Rollins would be the #6 goalie of the Original Six.
I don't think it's completely open-and-shut in favor of Rollins, as they are both very close to tied in my mind, but I can't see anything other than generational depth that would make an absolutely conclusive point in Thomas' favor.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I think Rollins' Hart in 1954 was a "makeup" award, similar to how Ted Kennedy's Hart in 1955 was a "career achievement award." IMO, it seems like the writers got tired of giving awards to Detroit players for a time.
I think Rollins' 1952-53 was a legitimately great season. In his first season in Chicago, he led them to a surprise playoff berth and finished 2nd in Hart voting to Gordie Howe's record breaking season. IMO, writers probably used the 1954 Hart to reward Rollins for his previous season. I know the players voted in a newspaper poll for the "best" player of 1953-54 (rather than most valuable) and Red Kelly won in a landslide.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
I got to see Vachon play in the Boston Garden around 1975. He beat the Bruins 4-1. Amazing glove hand. Though Espo and Orr were spectacular, Vacon stole the show.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,812
- 16,549
The problem with Rollins is that I'm not quite sure he had a good enough career to be +-70 spots over Gerry McNeil...
Not only he appears to be inferior to Tim Thomas, but also to Tim Kerr.
And there seems to be absolutely no basis for Rollins' Hart in 53-54, other than having a great 52-53 season.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,812
- 16,549
Connell looks pretty good by the vs. backup metric (and the vs. replacement metric). Like, better than Roy Worters. Most consistent performer amongst those three players, with only one year appearing to be below-average. And even then, considering how much he totally destroyed his backup, pretty unlikely that he was actually below-average... I guess his main flaw was the lack of voting support -- but then again, some votes might be wrong (see, for starters, Al Rollins...)
Rollins? Short career that MIGHT be magnified by playing (mostly) for a bad team. I think he needs to go below Kerr and Thomas.
Kipper? Workhorse. I'm a bit concerned that his skills already started to dwindle away, which would mean that he had a pretty short career.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,812
- 16,549
I agree with all this, other than calling Dave Kerr "Tim Kerr."
...meh. Borderline epic typo.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I don't think McNeil would drop that far, based on the names we've already encountered and the fact that the Osgood/Cechmanek/Theodore level is surely not very far away.
TheDevilMadeMe said:
I think the point about mid-season splits is interesting, but I'm inclined to agree with C1958 that almost every response in that thread is a case of backward-working logic. There's, what, one post that talks about what Rollins DID do to deserve the Hart? The idea that he was snubbed for the All Star Team is not only left unexplored, but actually used against him under the assumption that the writers are smart enough to get All Star votes right but are just a bunch of saps when voting for the Hart.
Again, I'm not crazy about Rollins much more than Thomas or Connell, BUT... I think we've seen a pattern emerging in this project where the exact same points that are used to elevate one goalie are used to degrade another. In the case of Rollins vs Thomas we can look at team effects, backup comparisons and awards and there's just no way you can make an argument for Thomas. Yet now backup effects are being handwaved, awards minimized and team effects used to boost the goalie on a better team, none of which have been the standard for the previous 32 goalies. I find that kind of concerning.
I mean, how does Worters' record on a terrible team not mirror Rollins'? How does Brimsek get longevity credit for going to war but Rollins gets a longevity penalty for having his career tanked by his manager? Why should one count as a positive and the other as a negative? I don't get this line of thinking at all.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The most significant way that it doesn't is that he was considered the league's best goalie by the league's GMs over an extended period.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Cechmanek and McNeil were on 0 lists and Theodore was only on 2. Osgood was on quite a few lists, though.
Your point that it was the exact same writers who voted for the All Star Teams and the Hart, so why should we assume that they were only right when voting for the All Star Teams is a good one. On the other hand, it's crystal clear that Rollins wouldn't have come anywhere near the Hart if modern standards were in place - his team was last in the league by a wide margin, and his GAA was worst in the league by a wide margin, after having respectable numbers in both the season before when he was 2nd in Hart voting. We also have additional evidence in the form of newspaper reports at the time that criticized the increasing sentimentality of the Hart and that were shocked because "everyone thought Kelly was going to win." Even one of the advocates for Rollins said other players were "more valuable in the strict sense" but Rollins should win the "Hart" because of his "heart."
The player's poll is interesting. They liked Kelly the best, Lumley the second best (more supporting evidence that Lumley deserved at least one of his 1st Team AS nods). But Rollins did receive votes from the players for best in the league during his Hart year.
Even so, you're still left with 3 great seasons for Rollins (1951, 1953, 1954) and not much filler, right? Unfortunately, we don't have full voting results for 1952, so it's possible Rollins was highly regarded.
I guess you could say that just being a starter in a 6 team league is proof of something, though.
70s mentioned Worters' far superior voting record, but he also has a significant advantage over Rollins in terms of longevity.
It's possible Rollins' career was tanked by a manager, but I'm not entirely convinced. If he was truly NHL worthy, I'd like to see him dominate the minors and being a 2nd Team All Star twice in the minor league WCHL is nice, but meh. I'm honestly more impressed by Tim Thomas winning the Finnish equivalents of the Hart and Lindsay Trophies during the 2005 lockout.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Looking at the voting results thread, and the early 50s are the only period where we don't have full All-Star results, which is unfortunate. Rollins was 4th in All Star voting in 1957 behind Hall, Plante, and Sawchuk, which is pretty impressive, even if he was pretty far behind them. That's certainly better than any of the "filler" Thomas seasons. No idea how I missed that when I was posting the All-Star results earlier.
That was his last year in the NHL too, which supports the idea that Chicago basically screwed him by sending him to the minors to make room for Glenn Hall. I'd still like to see him do better than being a 2nd Team All Star in the WCHL the following season, though.
That was his last year in the NHL too, which supports the idea that Chicago basically screwed him by sending him to the minors to make room for Glenn Hall. I'd still like to see him do better than being a 2nd Team All Star in the WCHL the following season, though.
