The history of the Art Ross Trophy and whether it shapes our views of players

Victorias · Jul 18, 2023

Before the Art Ross Trophy was first given out for 1947-48, did people add goals and assists together? It’s clear to me that assists were not given out as frequently in the Pre-War and early Post-War era. So, did people consider goals and assists equally valuable because they occurred approximately 1:1 (or less)?

Accordingly, the early Ross winners often had roughly equal numbers of goals and assists, or even more goals than assists. On the other hand, the recent ones almost all have significantly more assists. Has this increased weighting of assists, due to more assists being awarded, shaped our views of who the best players are? Are playmakers relatively overrated now or were they underrated before? A player with the profile of Ovechkin, for example, probably would have won more Ross’s in the 50’s and a player of Howe’s profile might have won fewer in the 2020’s.

In football (soccer) they were not added together until recently (to create a new stat called goal contributions). This stat still favors goal scorers because assists are awarded far less frequently. In basketball, assists and, say, number of field goals, were never added together.

Does the hockey way (still) make sense?

jigglysquishy · Jul 18, 2023

We have reference to leading in points being recognized into the 1900s. I believe our pre merger project had quotes about Russell Bowie leading in points by contemporary sources. We have scoring race data into the 1890s.

The rate of assists per goal has changed over the years. But assists have been rightfully been identified as points since the 1910s.

Assists were awarded starting in the 1912-1913 PCHA season and were always awarded as points.

Michael Farkas · Jul 18, 2023

This is true in scouting even today, if you have the choice - you want a balanced, dual-threat attacker over a single threat. Now, of course, if you're talking about Alexander Ovechkin or someone like this where their one attack is absurdly good...well, yeah, you want that...a guy that can just throw the puck in the net whenever he feels like it. But since he's a once-in-a-X player, you're not likely to find that. So, the preference is dual threat.

A surface level example perhaps, but look at the 1945 NHL season (if you must)...Maurice Richard 50 goals in 50 games. Fabled mark. Elmer Lach - his center - won the MVP easily that year.

And yes, points were counted prior to 1948. See the attached newspaper clipping.

Victorias · Jul 18, 2023

Michael Farkas said:
This is true in scouting even today, if you have the choice - you want a balanced, dual-threat attacker over a single threat. Now, of course, if you're talking about Alexander Ovechkin or someone like this where their one attack is absurdly good...well, yeah, you want that...a guy that can just throw the puck in the net whenever he feels like it. But since he's a once-in-a-X player, you're not likely to find that. So, the preference is dual threat.

A surface level example perhaps, but look at the 1945 NHL season (if you must)...Maurice Richard 50 goals in 50 games. Fabled mark. Elmer Lach - his center - won the MVP easily that year.

And yes, points were counted prior to 1948. See the attached newspaper clipping.

Yes, a balanced player is certainly better but the increase of the assist ratio since the founding of the Art Ross favors playmakers.

For example, in 2006-07 Crosby won the Art Ross with 36 G and 84 A. If assists were given less frequently - as they were until ~1970? - Lecavalier likely wins as he had 52 G and 56 A.

Does this “accounting” change Crosby and Lecavalier’s legacies? And is it still right to add assists and goals together and count them as equal when assists have gone up so much?

jigglysquishy · Jul 18, 2023

I find the goalz goalz goalz crowd to be primarily made up of guys who didn't play. That's not to disparage because everyone has a right to like hockey. But man, it's weird seeing this huge divorce between fan culture and locker room culture.

The three things that made me most loved by teammates

* A beautiful pass to set up a teammate for a goal.

* Hauling ass to save someone on a back check

* When it was my week to bring beer

Just valuing the last guy to touch the puck ignores like 75% of hockey.

Victorias · Jul 18, 2023

jigglysquishy said:
I find the goalz goalz goalz crowd to be primarily made up of guys who didn't play. That's not to disparage because everyone has a right to like hockey. But man, it's weird seeing this huge divorce between fan culture and locker room culture.

The three things that made me most loved by teammates

* A beautiful pass to set up a teammate for a goal.

* Hauling ass to save someone on a back check

* When it was my week to bring beer

Just valuing the last guy to touch the puck ignores like 75% of hockey.

Not sure if you are directing this to me, but I am a playmaker myself so I’m not in that camp.

I’m simply asking whether (and which) players would be regarded differently if goals and assists were still 1:1.

tabness · Jul 18, 2023

Assist to goals ratios climbed significantly in the 1940s as expected due to the various rule and playstyle changes. By the 1960s there were 1.65ish assists per goal barely under today where you have a little more than 1.7 assists per goal. That being said, there were some times you could get more than two assists on a goal pre original six (think the score records show the max given was 4 assists to a goal one time). Also, I think as late as 1992-1993, it was technically possible to get an assist on a goal when you didn't even touch a puck, though virtually every assist given at that time was based on touching the puck of course.

In terms of how players would be regarded it would very likely be quite different given how heavily stats influence people's perceptions of players and all that if assists weren't combined with goals to create a points stat, or there was only one assist given, or assists were given at the discretion of the scorekeeper, or whatever. However, just like with basketball where there are derived stats that try to showcase offensive contribution by combing points and assists and so on, I'm sure similar things would have happened in hockey. We have a ton of derived/advanced/fancy stats for all sorts of things now anyway which are used in discussions around player "rankings" and whatever.

The Panther · Jul 18, 2023

Gordie Howe was sort of an odd example to bring up since he led the NHL in goals 5 times (and was Top-Two 10 times). And was #1 all time in goals by 1963.

I think there have been enough deep dives into the goals vs. assists thing on this forum, as I recall, to more-or-less conclude that the current and traditional formula of 1 goal and up-to-2 assists being equally awarded as points is valid. Studies have been done on here showing how removing 2nd-assists, etc., would change scoring leaders and whatnot, and . . . it doesn't change very much.

I've suggested before that there could be a more "accurate" way of awarding assists, such as (for example) the following: (a) 1st assists (if applicable) are always awarded; (b) 2nd assists are only automatically awarded if (i) the puck-touch occurred in the offensive half of the ice; or (ii) the off-ice officials judge the puck-touch (pass) to have been instrumental in creating the goal. That is, a 5-foot pass in one's own zone to a teammate (who then makes a pass to a teammate who scores) would no longer be awarded as as assist.

But I think the NHL has enough complicated rules now. We just don't need more. Leave it.

JackSlater · Jul 18, 2023

Victorias said:
I’m simply asking whether (and which) players would be regarded differently if goals and assists were still 1:1.

Are you asking whether changing point totals and award winners would change how players are regarded? I would have to think so.

Victorias · Jul 18, 2023

tabness said:
Assist to goals ratios climbed significantly in the 1940s as expected due to the various rule and playstyle changes. By the 1960s there were 1.65ish assists per goal barely under today where you have a little more than 1.7 assists per goal. That being said, there were some times you could get more than two assists on a goal pre original six (think the score records show the max given was 4 assists to a goal one time). Also, I think as late as 1992-1993, it was technically possible to get an assist on a goal when you didn't even touch a puck, though virtually every assist given at that time was based on touching the puck of course.

In terms of how players would be regarded it would very likely be quite different given how heavily stats influence people's perceptions of players and all that if assists weren't combined with goals to create a points stat, or there was only one assist given, or assists were given at the discretion of the scorekeeper, or whatever. However, just like with basketball where there are derived stats that try to showcase offensive contribution by combing points and assists and so on, I'm sure similar things would have happened in hockey. We have a ton of derived/advanced/fancy stats for all sorts of things now anyway which are used in discussions around player "rankings" and whatever.

Yeah, there would be (and are) derived stats. But people don’t treat finishes in those as religiously.

The Panther said:
I think there have been enough deep dives into the goals vs. assists thing on this forum, as I recall, to more-or-less conclude that the current and traditional formula of 1 goal and up-to-2 assists being equally awarded as points is valid. Studies have been done on here showing how removing 2nd-assists, etc., would change scoring leaders and whatnot, and . . . it doesn't change very much.

I've suggested before that there could be a more "accurate" way of awarding assists, such as (for example) the following: (a) 1st assists (if applicable) are always awarded; (b) 2nd assists are only automatically awarded if (i) the puck-touch occurred in the offensive half of the ice; or (ii) the off-ice officials judge the puck-touch (pass) to have been instrumental in creating the goal. That is, a 5-foot pass in one's own zone to a teammate (who then makes a pass to a teammate who scores) would no longer be awarded as as assist.

But I think the NHL has enough complicated rules now. We just don't need more. Leave it.

I don’t think you understood my point re: Howe. I’m saying he was more of a 1:1 goals to assists type of guy (had more goals than assist in winning Ross as well) and that type of player doesn’t seem to win the Ross anymore (because the assist ratio has gone up and that favors playmakers).

In may not matter in aggregate but I think there are definitely some years in which the greater assist to goal ratio has helped playmakers and hurt goalscorers in the Ross race.

The Panther · Jul 18, 2023

Victorias said:
I don’t think you understood my point re: Howe. I’m saying he was more of a 1:1 goals to assists type of guy (had more goals than assist in winning Ross as well) and that type of player doesn’t seem to win the Ross anymore (because the assist ratio has gone up and that favors playmakers).

In may not matter in aggregate but I think there are definitely some years in which the greater assist to goal ratio has helped playmakers and hurt goalscorers in the Ross race.

I don't think the changes would affect Howe much at all.

As noted above, the assists to goals average ratio (1.7) today is virtually identical to the early 1960s, and Howe won an Art Ross in 1963, with his first 100-point season being post-expansion in 1969.

Then, in four of his five previous Art Ross wins (all in the fifties), he also led the League in goals. So, nothing would have changed -- if he'd gotten fewer assists, so would have everyone else. And since he led the League in goals, he'd also have won those Rosses.

Michael Farkas · Jul 18, 2023

Victorias said:
Yes, a balanced player is certainly better but the increase of the assist ratio since the founding of the Art Ross favors playmakers.

For example, in 2006-07 Crosby won the Art Ross with 36 G and 84 A. If assists were given less frequently - as they were until ~1970? - Lecavalier likely wins as he had 52 G and 56 A.

Does this “accounting” change Crosby and Lecavalier’s legacies? And is it still right to add assists and goals together and count them as equal when assists have gone up so much?

Assists have gone up earnestly too, though. Liberalized passing (1929): assists per goal went almost 50% in two seasons. Addition of the red line altered neutral zone usage. Various changes to the definition of assist over the years (deflected pass, rebounds, dump/chase, etc.) need to be considered.

Playmakers traditionally overlap with players that have the puck on their stick the most, have to manage the most ice, and are generally more essential to the operation of team tactics. So, is there really a reason to try to penalize their value because someone doesn't think that zone exit passes are essential to the process (as an example)?

Or because the player on the power play that carries it across three lines, gains the zone, and then supports the play [somewhere] for a set play that may or may not earn them even a secondary assist is a lesser player or needs an asterisk?

This is why proper talent evaluation is crucial.

Lecavalier vs Crosby. Lecavalier had the benefit of a HOF-level playmaking winger - Martin St. Louis - who set himself in the way that the best Soviets did. Head up, off-wing, principled passer. Vincent Lecavalier, very skilled player, but was rushed into a bad situation. It hurt the balance of his game, more limiting...less staying power. Lecavalier lacked adaptation. Once there was a better shot available, he was relegated. St. Louis -> teenage Stamkos. Lecavalier was relegated to second-tier playmaking winger Alex Tanguay as he would gradually fade away.

Sidney Crosby with a cast of characters. Veteran (38 year old) Mark Recchi is a really good mentor. Then his rotating cast of character linemates: Ryan Malone, Erik Christensen, Colby Armstrong all with various degrees of staying power in the league at large...but none of which had much puck carrying ability. Not enough to regularly cross two lines.

So, much like the Hasek thread, the simplest answer is almost always the wrong one. Or, it's right for the wrong reasons. The game is too fluid and complex and nuanced for that.

That said, that doesn't mean that every assist should be counted as 3x a goal or whatever. Some assists are absolute rubbish just like some goals are unearned. But it's not enough to say that because there can be a second assist on a goal that all assist-getters are intrinsically less valuable.

Victorias · Jul 19, 2023

So…I wasn’t suggesting Vinny was a better player than Sid that year. I was simply saying that it seemed to be one example in which the AR would have gone to a different player under the older, tighter assist standard. Obviously an intelligent observer will do an in depth analysis but a casual won’t.

But maybe I’ve overestimated the increase in the assist ratio, or maybe it’s more so that it’s gone up “earnestly”. It’s just strange to see the early winners with roughly equal G:A (or more G) and almost always way more A now. So it seems odd to compare a Gordie Howe Art Ross to a McDavid Art Ross because they weren’t really measuring the same thing.

Michael Farkas · Jul 19, 2023

No, I didn't take it as VL4 was better. I don't think anyone would stake such a bizarre claim anyhow. But the notion that there's more of X may be reflected in game tactics and structure. Or simply better scorekeeping. Or................there's probably a small percentage of assists that shouldn't count. And really all of those are better served as "and/or".

To take it another direction: There's more saves now. 98% of unscreened/not deflected shots are stopped. The public has never valued save pct. more, I'd say (though, partially because it wasn't publicly available before 1982). No matter how you slice that statement or the ones about assists, it's not going to be as simple as most people want it to be.

For the purposes of this forum and this discussion, it's not a commodity that we're trading on.

MadLuke · Jul 19, 2023

Everything that is tracked, made public and talked about will shape people view.

At some point people talked and hockey card showed a goaltender amount of shutout in a year, in a world that GAA is shown next to it, what does shutout reveal to us ?

At the same amount of gameplay and same GAA was it better for a goaltender to have more or less shutout ? (thus more or less high scoring games come necessarily with it), yet something that strange can affect people perception.

The really trivial and strange game winning goal stats could influence people, +/- can, so certainly to your point how points are accorded and who won the Art Ross certainly do (and much more than all my examples)

If someone that achieved to generated a penalty by its work got + average power play percentage of points for it and the other way around when they took a penalty, if blocking the goaltender view on a goal gave an assist or doing all the work from your own zone-gaining the other zone entry generating a goal, it would change the legacy of some.

Victorias said:
I was simply saying that it seemed to be one example in which the AR would have gone to a different player under the older,

Not a bad example and it was just to have one and it is speculative, maybe Lecavalier had 89 primary points, Crosby 85, Heatley 85, Thornton 77 would it have been their points total that year (could have easily been a simple rule being different in the rule book) it would have changed their legacy.

But maybe, that like in soccer, if assist would have stayed more 1:1 that stats would be less used by people with people winning a lot not having much more points than those you do not as much.

Baseball is a sport that show how much what get tracked can affect people legacy (and that it can change, during our life time the batting average stats value on player value did change quite a bit).

Michael Farkas · Jul 19, 2023

I'd also posit (for the hell of it) that if for 113 years we didn't track secondary assists and then someone went back and added secondary assists (as an "advanced" stat), it would probably be considered the most captivating, breathtaking revolution that's ever happened...

It's like when Corsi was made public. It was new, the label "advanced" was thrown on it, there was a perceived greater level of detail. There wasn't nearly enough consideration for what this was really measuring, who was it was biased for/against, etc. Thankfully now, it's mostly been chewed up and spit out...but that was a rough two years...

But imagine the added level of detail of the "advanced" stat, "secondary assist" or assist-assists...? It would make sliced bread look like a pile of puke...

MadLuke · Jul 19, 2023

Maybe less than for Corsi, but there also an often possible phenomenom, the moment you start to measure something and talk about it, it actually affects the real world with a loop, having people tracking inflation can create a bigger response to it than otherwise, it can be hard to passively measure something over time.

How much people get paid for example is probably affected by their points totals, if you do not count secondary assist, maybe it have a small effect of what player do on the ice, what type of player get drafted, who get idealized by kid and mimicked as a play style.

Some Ds have more secondary assist than primary (Lidstrom-Murphy-Chelios-Potivin-Stevens) or about the same (Bourque-Robinson-MacInnis) or more primary than secondary (Coffey) it could have changed their relative legacy.

Dingo · Jul 19, 2023

I go back and forth on this issue of goals and assists.

I also want to factor in Selke level play when considering the best forwards out there, but i also like simplicity.

Where I am at right now is that it is ok the way it is. Good checkers and possession players, and guys who force turnovers with hits SHOULD pick up more secondary assists. Playmaking will come through in first assists, and p, if you are a sniper, these guys are going to be looking for you more than anyone else, so you will get more chances, more goals and more rebound assists.

I dont think it’s a perfect system, and maybe I’m rationalizing, but I think it works pretty nicely.

I also far prefer even strength stats to powerplay points, but, there are guys like Crosby, Malkin, Drai and MacD, who dont have great wingers because they are split up at even strength, BUT, because they have two very strong lines, get more powerplay opportunities and hen play together. As opposed to a star like Ovechkin who has a great centre to play with all the time, but teams like that can often turn into one line teams. Not sure that Washington is actually a good example of a one line team……

anyways, I feel like if you have made the top 3 in points more than once, the first time probably wasnt a fluke. I think they system is acceptable.

Michael Farkas · Jul 19, 2023

Dingo said:
Where I am at right now is that it is ok the way it is. Good checkers and possession players, and guys who force turnovers with hits SHOULD pick up more secondary assists. Playmaking will come through in first assists, and p, if you are a sniper, these guys are going to be looking for you more than anyone else, so you will get more chances, more goals and more rebound assists.

As someone that has gone down the road of "adjusted goals against" for goalies (assigning goals a value on timeliness and quality...for instance, an unstoppable goal with 8 seconds left in the 3rd period of an 8-1 game would be worth considerably less than, say, giving up a goal from center ice in overtime) and adjusted plus/minus and adjusted points for skaters (assigning extra weight to "finishing" passes, adding assists for screens/meaningful picks, etc.)...it's a lot. But it could provide some more meaningful insight. @tarheelhockey renaissance man that he is, has gone down this road on the Carolina message board in some degree as I recall...

Since I'm having philosophical time today having just listened to almost half of an audiobook this morning, why are bad rebounds or missed shots given the same credit as other primary assists? Should they be? A routine shot from the boards that a goofball like Carter Hutton can't handle for no reason at all that someone else has to clean up, that's as worthwhile as a cross net-line pass? But that listless wrister is a "primary" point. It's not to go down a rabbit hole, it's just that stuff that sticks as "sacred" sometimes isn't any more valuable or telling or useful than anything else...

And maybe someone did a study on it and said, "It actually all washes out...so that's why we attack secondary assists. There's almost no bad primary assists generated from shots, there's very few secondary assists that meaningfully contribute to goals." ...maybe. I haven't seen it. I have my doubts. But maybe...

For some reason, GAA for goalies isn't even spoken out anymore it seems like. But saves are worthless and they're the expected result. But folks love that save percentage. Goals against are, ya know, a pretty big deal. In fact, it was our first "per 60" stat! So, how does GAA make a comeback? One way might be, look at how people are starting to form opinions on goalies and their HOF eligibility...Henrik Lundqvist - the first purely post-lockout goalie to go. "Just" one Vezina, no GAA leads, no save pct. leads, Hell, he never finished top 3 in either category (GASP!). But he was reliable and consistently elite for a very long period of time. I say that to say this, someone out there put up a stat about a goalie's game to game goals against over the course of a playoff (because I said, if you look game to game, Tim Thomas's 2011 was probably as unpredictable as his bowel movements, where as Jonathan Quick's far better performance in 2012 is something you can set your watch to)...I don't recall the exact details, but it effectively measured how likely it is that you totally yacked up a game. It might have been Doc, it might have been quoipourquoi, I can't exactly remember. I wonder if people fiddle around with that, maybe they come to some different conclusions and maybe a form of GAA creeps back into the picture. I don't know...I'm just talking about goalie stuff in the Art Ross philosophical stat thread like a jerk...

tarheelhockey · Jul 19, 2023

Michael Farkas said:
As someone that has gone down the road of "adjusted goals against" for goalies (assigning goals a value on timeliness and quality...for instance, an unstoppable goal with 8 seconds left in the 3rd period of an 8-1 game would be worth considerably less than, say, giving up a goal from center ice in overtime) and adjusted plus/minus and adjusted points for skaters (assigning extra weight to "finishing" passes, adding assists for screens/meaningful picks, etc.)...it's a lot. But it could provide some more meaningful insight. @tarheelhockey renaissance man that he is, has gone down this road on the Carolina message board in some degree as I recall...

It really is a lot of work, the sort of thing that can't realistically be done leaguewide unless someone's getting paid or financially independent.

Part of my method on the Carolina board was to crowd-source opinions as a quality control mechanism. You can imagine how frequently there was fundamental disagreement about what was meaningful in the outcome of a play. If a forward is standing in the offensive position he's supposed to be in, not doing anything in particular, but influencing a defenseman to shade in his direction so that he can't quite reach that centering pass, did the forward contribute to the goal by just standing there? Is that materially different than if he were slightly off to the side and not drawing the defenseman out of position? Are we really giving him the same +1 as the guy who made that crazy dangle to split the D? If not, how are we breaking out credit?

Inherently, there's just no way to get it "right", so I learned to ignore the granular results and look for broad-based patterns. The patterns are really quite useful. Some guys actually contribute quite a lot by doing really simple/mindless stuff, while others are very loud about a modest contribution.

My #1 takeaway out of the whole project -- it's really, really hard for a winger to be so terrible defensively that it actually makes a difference over the course of the season. Defense from wingers matters a lot more on the positive side of the ledger, where the standouts can tilt the ice quite a bit. And if they can help anchor a good PK it can have macro-scale impacts on your season outcomes. But counterintuitively, shitty defensive wingers are rarely an issue as long as they're having an offensive impact.

Victorias · Jul 19, 2023

Michael Farkas said:
As someone that has gone down the road of "adjusted goals against" for goalies (assigning goals a value on timeliness and quality...for instance, an unstoppable goal with 8 seconds left in the 3rd period of an 8-1 game would be worth considerably less than, say, giving up a goal from center ice in overtime) and adjusted plus/minus and adjusted points for skaters (assigning extra weight to "finishing" passes, adding assists for screens/meaningful picks, etc.)...it's a lot. But it could provide some more meaningful insight. @tarheelhockey renaissance man that he is, has gone down this road on the Carolina message board in some degree as I recall...

Since I'm having philosophical time today having just listened to almost half of an audiobook this morning, why are bad rebounds or missed shots given the same credit as other primary assists? Should they be? A routine shot from the boards that a goofball like Carter Hutton can't handle for no reason at all that someone else has to clean up, that's as worthwhile as a cross net-line pass? But that listless wrister is a "primary" point. It's not to go down a rabbit hole, it's just that stuff that sticks as "sacred" sometimes isn't any more valuable or telling or useful than anything else...

And maybe someone did a study on it and said, "It actually all washes out...so that's why we attack secondary assists. There's almost no bad primary assists generated from shots, there's very few secondary assists that meaningfully contribute to goals." ...maybe. I haven't seen it. I have my doubts. But maybe...

For some reason, GAA for goalies isn't even spoken out anymore it seems like. But saves are worthless and they're the expected result. But folks love that save percentage. Goals against are, ya know, a pretty big deal. In fact, it was our first "per 60" stat! So, how does GAA make a comeback? One way might be, look at how people are starting to form opinions on goalies and their HOF eligibility...Henrik Lundqvist - the first purely post-lockout goalie to go. "Just" one Vezina, no GAA leads, no save pct. leads, Hell, he never finished top 3 in either category (GASP!). But he was reliable and consistently elite for a very long period of time. I say that to say this, someone out there put up a stat about a goalie's game to game goals against over the course of a playoff (because I said, if you look game to game, Tim Thomas's 2011 was probably as unpredictable as his bowel movements, where as Jonathan Quick's far better performance in 2012 is something you can set your watch to)...I don't recall the exact details, but it effectively measured how likely it is that you totally yacked up a game. It might have been Doc, it might have been quoipourquoi, I can't exactly remember. I wonder if people fiddle around with that, maybe they come to some different conclusions and maybe a form of GAA creeps back into the picture. I don't know...I'm just talking about goalie stuff in the Art Ross philosophical stat thread like a jerk...

Yes, I think with a large enough sample size every player benefits or suffers from puck luck to the same extent.

You’re trying your best to drag in me back in with this goalie stuff

It’s probably best to have a separate goalie stats thread but if you want to change this to an all encompassing stats thread I’m fine with it. Re: King, he has by far the highest GSAx of the cap era, so he’s not some old school type inductee like Vernon. He was a Vezina finalist a bunch of times and had 183 reg season gsaa so he didn’t need the super high save percentage peak (though he has the highest GSAx peak too). In other words, someone like me (who has a pretty obviously different view of goalie stats) says he’s 100% first ballot and one of the best ever regardless of his game to game or shot to shot stability. A guy we probably disagree on is Thomas (whom I actually watched regularly). I don’t necessarily agree that giving up “bad” goals should be emphasized when you make unlikely saves too. He was a smaller, athletic, super unconventional, aggressive goalie and his style is reflected in the variability of his GA. Very different to Tuukka Rask but every Bruins fan will take Tim 100/100

MadLuke · Jul 19, 2023

Michael Farkas said:
"Just" one Vezina, no GAA leads, no save pct. leads, Hell, he never finished top 3 in either category (GASP!). But he was reliable and consistently elite for a very long period of time.

To speak to this
When we look at pair of season instead of one by one, he was often top 3 (to the round up of the last number at least):