Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 11

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
REPOST FROM HOH TOP GOALIES PROJECT

Frank Brimsek in the playoffs


The Bruins ended a 10 year Cupless Drought in Brimsek's rookie year and won 2 Cups in his first 3 seasons in the league before the team was destroyed by World War 2

The Bruins of the 1930s were a team that tended to underachieve in the playoffs. The franchise won its first Cup in 1929, then wouldn't win another for a decade. The Bruins finished 1st overall in the regular season 4 of 9 years between 1929-30 and 1937-38, and yet failed to win a single Cup during this time.

Frank Brimsek was a rookie in 1938-39 and he backstopped the Bruins to their first Cup in a decade that spring. They would win against in 1941.

Was replacing Tiny Thompson with Frank Brimsek a reason for the Bruins' new postseason success? Brimsek was certainly a difference maker in 1941 as he won his second Cup:

As goes Brimsek so goes the Bruins was the watchword and little Frank came thru (sic)...When you start adding up the credits for the Stanley Cup this year the cool goalie is the answer...

Watching the whole series - from Toronto thru Detroit - there is only one logical hero and that is Brimsek... You can name more of them and the one on the tip of your tongue is Milt Schmidt...That great center was tremendous and so was Jack Crawford."
"Brimsek Logical Hero of Stanley Cup Hockey Series"
Lewiston Evening Journal, April 14, 1941

Late the following season (1941-42), Milt Schmidt and his linemates become the first NHL stars to leave the NHL to join the war effort. The Bruins would never really recover. Brimsek himself would join the war effort for 1943-44 and 1943-45

Brimsek played very well in 1946, his first playoffs after the war, but was let down by the Bruin Defense

Which brings us back to the series again. If there has ever been any better goaltending exhibited in a Stanley Cup final than that offered by Bill Durnan and Frankie Brimsek, no one can recall it. These two are high on the list of all-time great netminders. They are largely responsible for the low scores and the tenseness of the games.
Montreal Gazette, April 9, 1946

Canadiens Defeat Bruins, 6-3, to take Stanley Cup

Staying at the torrent pace they set all winter, Montreal Canadiens put on a three-goal splurge against Boston Bruins Tuesday night to break a 3-3 stalemate and win 6-3, capturing the Stanley Cup, emblematic of world hockey supremacy. It was the fifth game of the cup final and Canadiens won by four games to one.

Boston Defense Falters

Both teams staged furious hockey in the first two periods but in the last frame the Boston defense broke down under the pressure, paving the way for Canadiens' scoring spree.

After taking the National Hockey League championship during three consecutive seasons the smooth-working Canadiens captured their second Stanley Cup in the same number of years. They waltzed through the semifinal series in easy fashion to beat Chicago Black Hawks in four straight games and took four games from Bruins and dropped one to take the cup.

Montreal's Bill Durnan and Boston's Frankie Brimsek, who staged a terrific goaltending duel throughout the series, again turned in outstanding exhibitions of puck stopping Tuesday night. Brimsek deserved no part of the Boston defeat, which was mainly due to a weak defence that left him time and time again without protection.
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, April 10, 1946

Conclusion

Frank Brimsek was a strong playoff performer from his rookie season in 1939 until 1946. He won 2 Cups in his first 3 seasons in the league, after the Bruins had just gone through a 10 year Cup drought. World War 2 destroyed the Bruins, however. In Brimsek's first year back from the War (1946), he was stellar in the playoffs, but his defense let him down.

The question then remains, how much should Brimsek be faulted for the three straight first round losses in 1947, 1948, and 1949 to close out his career?
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Brimsek was also apparently a good puckhandler:

Gerry Cosby said:
When Brimsek was in his prime I think he was the best stand-up goalie I've ever seen - when he was hot, he was hot! Any goaltender who can come up with five shutouts in a row has to be fantastic. The thing that I remember most about Brimsek was how well he could handle the puck with his stick.

That would need more substantiation, but it's a start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle McMahon

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
So... I started out this morning getting ready to do my dive into Seibert's award consideration. I have some left-over year-over-year data on Pilote from the Park-Pilote comparison, and maybe I can unlimber it later-- in juxtaposition to Seibert. I did not expect my inquiries to take me where I landed... but I found myself in a strange place.

I think I cracked the code re: Charlie Conacher's lack of Hart consideration.

I didn't think I'd spend too much time talking about Conacher this time. I felt I'd unloaded everything I had. Thought to myself "if we don't see his greatness relative to the other options by now, I'm not that optimistic that we'll ever see it."

There are two elements involved in my discoveries: 1) in C. Conacher's Prime, the top 4 vote-getters were always from different teams, and 2) unless you're a top-20 all-time talent (e.g.: Morenz, Shore), you better not miss a game.

The first one is interesting. It's as though the voters had a sort process- A) determine the most valuable player on each team, and then B) compare them with the most valuables from every other team. It seems that early in C. Conacher's Prime, voters concluded that Clancy was the most valuable player in Toronto. As we know, that guy doesn't miss games. Any chance for Hart consideration for Conacher ends right there.

The second one is nearly as significant, although (as I said about Shore, Morenz), it does seem to allow for the occasional exception. If you ain't those two guys and are looking to finish in the top-4 in Hart voting, you'd best not miss more than one game.

24 player-seasons are involved in the Hart-quartet (top-4). They span from 30-31 to 35-36. Set aside as hors catégorie the 30-31 Morenz season, with that 145.7 VsX that's essentially a peak-Lemieux imitation. Then add Shore's Hart in 35-36 where he missed an apparently forgivable three games, and you're left with 22 player-seasons. In 31-32, Hooley Smith, polling 3rd, missed five games. [Singularly rare- but voters must've judged he was the most valuable Maroon.] In 35-36, Charlie Conacher himself, polling 4th, missed four games. in 33-34, King Clancy, polling 3rd, missed an uncharacteristically high two games. [But (c.f.: Hooley Smith)], he was likely pegged the most valuable Leaf. You see, that year, C. Conacher missed SIX games... so never mind that (in the modern era) he would have been the Ross/Richard winner. Why would he deserve to be a Hart finalist when he missed more than 15% of his team's games?!

We are now down to 19 player-seasons. Of those left, four involved players that missed one game. the remaining fifteen were perfect-attendance campaigns.

1933-34 provides an extreme example of the importance attached to playing every game. The Hart winner that year was Joliat, whose notable visible merit over several forwards that year was that he played every game. He wasn't even a First-Team All-Star, and he pulled down that trophy.

I have no doubt that there's more to discover concerning this ongoing story. That said, I believe that the details mentioned above are a better explanation as to why Charlie Conacher didn't receive more Hart consideration than much of the earlier evanescent suppositional ephemera previously attached to the topic.
 
Last edited:

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
- Totally unrelated to this round, but that's probably a decent place to ask : Why did Gardiner won the Vezina in 33-34? Wilf Cude had the better GAA. He played only 30 games, but ... that's a sizeable proportion of the season, no?
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,561
10,108
Melonville
Malkin will be ahead one day, but I also don’t know that today is necessarily that day. Minus-19 right now on a better than average defensive team is alarming.
That's a snap shot in time. He's usually at the same number, only on the plus side. I like what he did acheive, I like his talent, and at the risk of being a trophy counter, his hardware looks good on his resume. It's actually cool to have him and Forsberg being voted on at the same time.
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
- Totally unrelated to this round, but that's probably a decent place to ask : Why did Gardiner won the Vezina in 33-34? Wilf Cude had the better GAA. He played only 30 games, but ... that's a sizeable proportion of the season, no?

Gardiner was ill all season (not sure when the voting took place for the Vezina, I believe he was alive when it was awarded, but could be wrong). Either way I think he is the exception that proves the rule, he won this because of the unique circumstances surrounding his season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,133
6,428
Why would he be up this early? Basically an average to above average player after his age 26 season. He'll be lucky to make a voting, let alone the list.
Take away his SINGLE best season and he isn't even HHOF inducted, or marginally so.
 

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Just for the record: absolutely no-one is claiming a top 50 list should include a player named Federov.
;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Enough about a have-not...re: Milt Schmidt being listed at defense on Hockey-Reference...

They get the majority of their position data from Dan Diamond.

Mr. Diamond says that he really only is aware of 15 games that Schmidt played at defense to start the 1949-50 season. So probably not a necessary distinction...

See attached newspaper clip...(The Globe and Mail, Nov. 19, 1949)

Schmidt.png
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Schmidt in those 15 games...
at Det - 0 pts, 2-1 loss
vs NYR - 0 pts, 2-2 tie
vs Chi - 1 A, 7-4 win (with 1:58 left in a 6-4 game)
at Mtl - 0 pts, 2-1 win
vs Mtl - 0 pts, 0-0 tie
at NYR - 0 pts, 5-2 loss
at Tor - 0 pts, 8-1 loss
at Chi - 3 power play assists, 10-4 loss
at Det - 0 pts, 5-3 loss
at Mtl - 0 pts, 3-3 tie
vs Chi - 0 pts, 3-1 loss
vs Det - 0 pts, 7-5 loss
vs Tor - 2 A (1 on PP), 4-2 win
at NYR - 0 pts, 2-1 loss
at Chi - 1 A, 8-3 loss

Schmidt picked up 7 assists in these 15 games at defense. Meaning, that 19 goals, 15 assists and 34 points in the remaining 53 that year.

The Bruins gave up 56 goals in these 15 games (3.73 per game), meaning they gave up 3.13 per game in the remaining 55.

Schmidt was the only Bruin to receive Hart votes this season (1-1-1, 5th place).
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Enough about a have-not...re: Milt Schmidt being listed at defense on Hockey-Reference...

They get the majority of their position data from Dan Diamond.

Mr. Diamond says that he really only is aware of 15 games that Schmidt played at defense to start the 1949-50 season. So probably not a necessary distinction...

See attached newspaper clip...(The Globe and Mail, Nov. 19, 1949)

Schmidt.png

Great find.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Sent, you don't explain anything...you just complain when one of your pet guys (who almost all have a common thread...which you make it an odd point to chastise C1958 for...) isn't up. It's not effective...quite the opposite actually...

I don't think how I see the game matches many here either...but I want to have that conversation anyway...
 

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,561
10,108
Melonville
Sent, you don't explain anything...you just complain when one of your pet guys (who almost all have a common thread...which you make it an odd point to chastise C1958 for...) isn't up. It's not effective...quite the opposite actually...

I don't think how I see the game matches many here either...but I want to have that conversation anyway...
I like a assortment of perspectives, or we run the risk of the same era/player type always progressing.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,609
28,846
This is only one of the reasons I stopped participating in this project. My vision of the Top 100 is very different from the people here.
And? The list isn't supposed to reflect your personal list. Otherwise we'd just use your personal list.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
I learned an important lesson, particularly as it applies to hockey...education is brought through conversation, not dissemination...

That's why I talk here. Do I trust my eyes a ton? Of course. But even with that said, I want to hear and understand other perspectives...

On a simpler note, coaching is just legalized plagiarism anyway haha...this year, I owe Anatoli Tarasov a moscow mule if I ever see him, I have lifted a lot of his game plan for my guys...
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
You got your entire team in the top ten, boss :)

To be honest, the best argument to keep these four guys out of the Top-10 was mostly "They were Montréal Canadiens". ... And that went pretty much as well it expected.
(I suppose there was a bit more substance to the arguments made relative to Richard)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->