Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 7

[tarheelhockey]

So we have two Mighty Ducks captains who were born one year apart, retired the same season, shook hands in a Stanley Cup Final as arguably their teams’ top skaters, and even go surfing together. My first instinct is that Scott Niedermayer is better than Paul Kariya, but I wanted to test that.

Niedermayer was, of course, a 1st ballot HOFer in 2013. I’m not saying he was the top of his class (Chelios), but he was at the very center of that weekend’s program - just to give you an idea of how far the media was running with the pro-Niedermayer narrative back then. Meanwhile, Paul Kariya waited another four years to get inducted.

On the surface, that’s pretty damning since they didn’t even take four HOFers in 2013 when Niedermayer was selected and Kariya was not, but an optimistic reading may be that the advance knowledge of Teemu Selanne’s inevitable induction in 2017 made it a little easier to not vote for Kariya a handful of years. After all, they took Housley in 2015, didn’t take a full set of four in 2016, and then added Kariya in 2017. Another reading may be that the injury-ridden and Cup-less Bure and Lindros had to wait too (5 extra years each), so Kariya would as well.

Also, to a large extent the HHOF is just an unreliable witness. For all those years they skipped Kariya, they also skipped Makarov. While inducting guys like Housley and Ciccarelli and Anderson and Duff.

It’s pretty clear that HHOF enshrinement has always meant something other than a ranking.

 

[Professor What]

Also, to a large extent the HHOF is just an unreliable witness. For all those years they skipped Kariya, they also skipped Makarov. While inducting guys like Housley and Ciccarelli and Anderson and Duff.

It’s pretty clear that HHOF enshrinement has always meant something other than a ranking.

And it seems to be getting worse recently, which would affect my view of when Kariya and Niedermeyer got in. To support your point on the ranking aspect, I'd mention the induction of Yakushev. I suspect I'm not alone in feeling that his induction was well-deserved and overdue, but still wondering why he was chosen ahead of other Eastern Bloc players. Meanwhile, some of the others could have gotten in rather than some of the questionable at best inductions we've seen.

 

[The Macho King]

A certain Tampa Bay Lightning Captain is becoming an egregious oversight by now, not to mention a certain Tampa Bay Lightning defenseman. Not trying to homer but yikers.

To @quoipourquoi I think Niedermayer quite comfortably over Kariya (and I'm hardly a Nieds fan). Five AS at a shallow position, injury issues, no defensive game to speak of - I think Niedermayer's longevity as a contributing player, playoffs, and solid two-way play should give him a pretty significant edge here.

Not a voter, but he may even be close to the top of this round IMO.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A certain Tampa Bay Lightning Captain is becoming an egregious oversight by now

I'll say it again -- Rob Zamuner belongs in the top 200, dammit!

 

[ted2019]

A certain Tampa Bay Lightning Captain is becoming an egregious oversight by now, not to mention a certain Tampa Bay Lightning defenseman. Not trying to homer but yikers.

To @quoipourquoi I think Niedermayer quite comfortably over Kariya (and I'm hardly a Nieds fan). Five AS at a shallow position, injury issues, no defensive game to speak of - I think Niedermayer's longevity as a contributing player, playoffs, and solid two-way play should give him a pretty significant edge here.

Not a voter, but he may even be close to the top of this round IMO.

That captain for me is around #150 on my original list. The one I'm looking at is from Boston and I had him around #120.

 

[seventieslord]

And it seems to be getting worse recently, which would affect my view of when Kariya and Niedermeyer got in. To support your point on the ranking aspect, I'd mention the induction of Yakushev. I suspect I'm not alone in feeling that his induction was well-deserved and overdue, but still wondering why he was chosen ahead of other Eastern Bloc players. Meanwhile, some of the others could have gotten in rather than some of the questionable at best inductions we've seen.

The Hall has actually gone in two directions since the lockout. they've inducted players that waited too long, really should have been in on the first vote, and for whom the chatter in places like this was becoming deafening:

Mark Howe
Pavel Bure
Adam Oates
Doug Gilmour
Eric Lindros
Sergei Makarov
Paul Kariya

(all of whom are either already on our top-130 or about to be voted in)

They've also inducted just as many questionable players in that time:

Cam Neely
Dick Duff
Glenn Anderson
Dino Ciccarelli
Dave Andreychuk
Phil Housley
Kevin Lowe

(who appeared on a total of 10 ballots in round one of this project and therefore have zero hope of even coming up for discussion)

So on one hand, they should be credited for finally getting it right with the top seven, but on the other hand, they got it wrong with the bottom seven and can never undo that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

A certain Tampa Bay Lightning Captain is becoming an egregious oversight by now, not to mention a certain Tampa Bay Lightning defenseman. Not trying to homer but yikers.

I think the gap between, say, #101 and #200 might be smaller than the gap between #70 and #100. I just think greatness kind of fans out tremendously, particularly after those unanimously selected 66 players from the previous project.

Stamkos might look good here, but maybe so would a few players who we won’t even get to in this project. I would stress that we focus on who we have available, do our best to compare them only to who we have available.


I do think you’re kinda wrong about Kariya’s record as well.

Fair point on the All-Star selections on LW, but had he been competing against a field of Centers, is he not potentially the equivalent of a 3x 1st Team there? He finished ahead of every skater in Hart voting in 1997, and outscored the 1st Team Center in both 1999 and 2000.

I wouldn’t say he had no defensive game. He was a capable penalty killer, and after the Mighty Ducks’ PK unit sunk to 2nd worst in 1998, giving Kariya 3 minutes per-game SH in 1999 got them back to mid-range.

They didn’t ask much from him 5-on-5, I grant you, but he also didn’t give up that much either, having the 4th highest plus-minus among forwards between 1997-2000 (under LeClair/Lindros and Modano). The Mighty Ducks top-line wasn’t one that merely traded goals back-and-forth with the opposition, but rather one that won its matchup while losing games from what happened in the other 40 minutes.

And while he received way too many concussions, he was usually playing. 10 of his 15 seasons saw him record 74-82 games (or the equivalent for the 1995 lockout season), including a streak of 301-consecutive games after the lockout.

His career ended up being abbreviated by force - but had he played in any other era, doctors either would not have stopped him (meaning he would get to continue playing past 35) or the league would have had stricter punishment for head hunting (meaning he would get to continue playing past 35).

 

[The Macho King]

He wasn't beating out Yzerman in 2000 for 1st team C or Yashin in 99 (Yashin finished 2nd in Hart voting). In fact, Kariya finished behind 3 Cs in Hart voting.

Note - this isn't to say that Kariya should/shouldn't go this round - I'm comparing him specifically to Nieds, who I think has a bit of separation ahead of him.

 

[Professor What]

The Hall has actually gone in two directions since the lockout. they've inducted players that waited too long, really should have been in on the first vote, and for whom the chatter in places like this was becoming deafening:

Mark Howe
Pavel Bure
Adam Oates
Doug Gilmour
Eric Lindros
Sergei Makarov
Paul Kariya

(all of whom are either already on our top-130 or about to be voted in)

They've also inducted just as many questionable players in that time:

Cam Neely
Dick Duff
Glenn Anderson
Dino Ciccarelli
Dave Andreychuk
Phil Housley
Kevin Lowe

(who appeared on a total of 10 ballots in round one of this project and therefore have zero hope of even coming up for discussion)

So on one hand, they should be credited for finally getting it right with the top seven, but on the other hand, they got it wrong with the bottom seven and can never undo that.

Right. Which makes me ask both why the chatter should have had to become deafening for some and why others were even on the radar. Both points make me very resistant to considering induction dates in a project like this. The committee feels a bit disconnected from reality in recent years, so one guy getting in a few years before another just doesn't seem very relevant to me.

Edit: All of the stuff we're discussing also makes me feel that the HOH HOF project is still a useful future project around here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think the gap between, say, #101 and #200 might be smaller than the gap between #70 and #100. I just think greatness kind of fans out tremendously, particularly after those unanimously selected 66 players from the previous project.

I like the idea that the all-time greatness "tiers" create not a ladder, but a pyramid. Each step down gives us an exponentially larger number of valid candidates.

It feels to me like we're now in a tier of the pyramid that is heavily populated by guys who either had a full career with a modestly high peak, or a somewhat more impressive peak in a shortened career, or pre-modern players. Whereas we still had modern high-peak/long-career guys like Thornton and Fedorov as late as the ~90 range, here we are at #130 and nobody fits that description.

I guess at some point we'll run out of guys who had a significantly high peak at all, and that's when we'll know we've moved down another tier.

 

[quoipourquoi]

He wasn't beating out Yzerman in 2000 for 1st team C or Yashin in 99 (Yashin finished 2nd in Hart voting). In fact, Kariya finished behind 3 Cs in Hart voting.

Note - this isn't to say that Kariya should/shouldn't go this round - I'm comparing him specifically to Nieds, who I think has a bit of separation ahead of him.

Yashin wasn’t 1st Team Center in 1999 (Forsberg), so I could see Kariya still going ahead of Yashin in All-Star voting while maybe being less “valuable”. Then again, the inverse could have been pulled on Kariya in 1997 where he could be more “valuable” than Mario Lemieux while not being better.

You’re almost certainly right about how it would play out in 2000 if put to a vote. The Mighty Ducks missing the playoffs was awards poison, so even though Kariya was 4th in scoring and a +22 on a team that was only +1 at even-strength, that’s a losing battle. I don’t know that he’s actually worse, but he wouldn’t be getting credit when he was already getting left off 14% of the ballots at LW and finishing a touch below Shanahan (who had 41 goals and 78 points to Yzerman’s 35 goals and 79 points).

But between those three years and his 1996 (when Kariya was 7th in scoring behind three Penguins, two Avs, and a Lindros), I do think he can be both a player in a shallow pool for positional awards and a player with roughly the same number of All-Star selections that would be expected based on his performance.

2003 (13th in scoring) is the only one of the five that just doesn’t strike me as worth the attention such an accolade receives.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It feels to me like we're now in a tier of the pyramid that is heavily populated by guys who either had a full career with a modestly high peak, or a somewhat more impressive peak in a shortened career, or pre-modern players. Whereas we still had modern high-peak/long-career guys like Thornton and Fedorov as late as the ~90 range, here we are at #130 and nobody fits that description.

Yeah, I think Luongo was the last one like that on my radar. Based on how he played with the Blues, I think Kariya would have been another had CTE not been under the microscope in the Summer of 2010 after Bob Probert’s death. I’m open to being corrected on this one, but I think that was why Kariya was forced to stop in August 2010 rather than when he received the concussion in December 2009 (and was allowed to continue playing).

Knowing that even Stan Mikita had CTE while playing almost until his 40th birthday is what has me questioning at what point would other players had been told to stop if there was even application throughout history, and whether Kariya’s lack of longevity is a product of his era or something that should be held against him.

 

[Professor What]

Yeah, I think Luongo was the last one like that on my radar. Based on how he played with the Blues, I think Kariya would have been another had CTE not been under the microscope in the Summer of 2010 after Bob Probert’s death. I’m open to being corrected on this one, but I think that was why Kariya was forced to stop in August 2010 rather than when he received the concussion in December 2009 (and was allowed to continue playing).

Knowing that even Stan Mikita had CTE while playing almost until his 40th birthday is what has me questioning at what point would other players had been told to stop if there was even application throughout history, and whether Kariya’s lack of longevity is a product of his era or something that should be held against him.

Personally, I don't find any discrepancy between saying that it's a good thing that we've learned more about head injuries and thereby doctors knowing better when to tell a player that it's time to hang up his skates (the product of the era part) and still valuing a guy being able to play for a long time (lack of longevity being held against a player). Quite frankly, I think it's a good thing Kariya didn't play any longer than he did, as I'd hate to imagine that something worse might have happened to him, but even if there was a legitimate reason for him to quit playing when he did, I also can't hold his longevity in the same esteem that I hold Selanne's. I've always been of the opinion that injuries are a part of sports. Every reasonable caution that can be taken to avoid them should be taken (head injuries being one of the best examples of that), but at the end of the day, the star player going down isn't an "excuse" for lack of a better term for not winning a championship. By the same token, even if it's the right thing for a player to retire because of injury, when we're comparing him to other players that lasted longer, I don't see how it's right for the longevity factor to play the same role as if he just quit early.

So, I don't really know if I stated that very well. I don't really find it the easiest thing to express clearly. But to try to put it simply, I don't see why a lack of longevity compared to peers couldn't be both a product of the era and a negative to an overall "greatness" rating, especially if the value of life over sport is kept in a proper context and we can celebrate the fact that a man's quality of life is better than what it might have been while also recognizing that others were more physically capable of handling the grind.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Personally, I don't find any discrepancy between saying that it's a good thing that we've learned more about head injuries and thereby doctors knowing better when to tell a player that it's time to hang up his skates (the product of the era part) and still valuing a guy being able to play for a long time (lack of longevity being held against a player). Quite frankly, I think it's a good thing Kariya didn't play any longer than he did, as I'd hate to imagine that something worse might have happened to him, but even if there was a legitimate reason for him to quit playing when he did, I also can't hold his longevity in the same esteem that I hold Selanne's. I've always been of the opinion that injuries are a part of sports. Every reasonable caution that can be taken to avoid them should be taken (head injuries being one of the best examples of that), but at the end of the day, the star player going down isn't an "excuse" for lack of a better term for not winning a championship. By the same token, even if it's the right thing for a player to retire because of injury, when we're comparing him to other players that lasted longer, I don't see how it's right for the longevity factor to play the same role as if he just quit early.

So, I don't really know if I stated that very well. I don't really find it the easiest thing to express clearly. But to try to put it simply, I don't see why a lack of longevity compared to peers couldn't be both a product of the era and a negative to an overall "greatness" rating, especially if the value of life over sport is kept in a proper context and we can celebrate the fact that a man's quality of life is better than what it might have been while also recognizing that others were more physically capable of handling the grind.

Yeah, to me, I’m glad they stopped him.

But there’s the cynical side that says if not for Fleming, Probert, and Boogaard all being national news stories, does it happen? Does he get stopped from returning in August 2010 and again in June 2011?

So there should be some middle ground. He’s not Selanne in terms of longevity, but he’s also not Lindros going out as a healthy scratch or Bure and Forsberg not being able to physically go at all - three players Kariya already outscored by 100-200 points in his career.

So I’m thinking, would we have felt substantially different about Kariya relative to his contemporaries had he ran up his career point leads even higher - something he physically could have done without changing anything about his actual health but instead if he just had medical clearance to do so?

Like, does Kariya suddenly become a fringe top-100 player if he is still himself but cleared for 2010-11 through 2013-14 and just compiles numbers? If so, then I think we should maybe consider him here.

 

[Professor What]

Yeah, to me, I’m glad they stopped him.

But there’s the cynical side that says if not for Fleming, Probert, and Boogaard all being national news stories, does it happen? Does he get stopped from returning in August 2010 and again in June 2011?

So there should be some middle ground. He’s not Selanne in terms of longevity, but he’s also not Lindros going out as a healthy scratch or Bure and Forsberg not being able to physically go at all - three players Kariya already outscored by 100-200 points in his career.

So I’m thinking, would we have felt substantially different about Kariya relative to his contemporaries had he ran up his career point leads even higher - something he physically could have done without changing anything about his actual health but instead if he just had medical clearance to do so?

Like, does Kariya suddenly become a fringe top-100 player if he is still himself but cleared for 2010-11 through 2013-14 and just compiles numbers? If so, then I think we should maybe consider him here.

I can see that argument. But I'm not sure that Kariya makes the discussion as clear as it would be if we had someone like Bure in his shoes. I say that because Kariya did make it to age 35. That certainly isn't the resume of elite longevity, but it's not exactly terrible either. I'm also not sure that he would have been able to play or compile numbers much longer because of the nature of his injuries. He didn't have the physical side that Lindros had due to size, so I'm not sure that even in the world of hockey that unfortunately basked in ignorance pre all the media attention Kariya would have been able to continue through another concussion. But say it had been Bure that was forced out because of that at age 31. His longevity is already more questionable for obvious reasons, but the question is would it be cast differently, and is it fair if it would be? I don't know the answer to that, and I think it makes for an interesting discussion. I'm glad it's an debate playing here rather than on the ice though.

 

[ted2019]

Bentley > Kariya ?

 

[ResilientBeast]

So looking at our three goaltending options

Hainsworth and Thompson were contemporaries and that makes it somewhat easy to talk about them relative to one another. I think as some other posters mentioned that Lehman is a cut above, I had him in my top 120 from both projects.

From our research thread

In the WCHL, Hainsworth lost out on "All Stars" selected by their referee (name escapes me) to Red McCusker (23-24), Hap Holmes (24-25),

1925-26 Hainsworth WHL all star team.

Newspaper All Star Teams

1926-27
Hainsworth 1st team

1927-28
Hainsworth 2nd team

1928-29
Hainsworth 2nd with 2 votes
Thompson 3rd with 1 vote

1929-30
Thompson 1st place

In this period Worters (already voted in received Hart votes neither of these goalies did)

Actual NHL All Star Voting

1930-31

#:	Player:	Team:	1st team:	2nd team:
1	Charlie Gardiner	Chicago Blackhawks	16	13
2	Tiny Thompson	Boston Bruins	10	9
3	Roy Worters	New York Americans	9	9
4	George Hainsworth	Montreal Canadiens	1	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1931-32

#:	Player:	Team:	1st team:	2nd team:
1	Charlie Gardiner	Chicago Black Hawks	21	5
2	Roy Worters	New York Americans	3	11
3	Tiny Thompson	Boston Bruins	3	0
4	George Hainsworth	Montreal Canadiens	2	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1932-33
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: John Roach, Det 20; Charlie Gardiner, Chi 9; Tiny Thompson, Bos 1; Roy Worters, NYA 1; Lorne Chabot, Tor 1
SECOND TEAM: Charlie Gardiner, Chi 14; John Roach, NYR 6; Roy Worters, NYA 5; Tiny Thompson, Bos 3; Lorne Chabot, Tor 2; Dave Kerr, Mtl M 2

1933-34
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Charlie Gardiner, Chi 28; Tiny Thompson, Bos 2; George Hainsworth, Toronto 2; Roy Worters, NYA 2; Dave Kerr, Mtl M 1
SECOND TEAM: Roy Worters, NYA 11; Wilf Cude, Det 7; Tiny Thompson, Bos 5; Charlie Gardiner, Chi 5; Andy Aitkenhead, NYR, 3; George Hainsworth, Toronto 2; Lorne Chabot, Mtl 1; Bill Beveridge, Ott 1

1934-35
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Lorne Chabot, Chi 8; Tiny Thompson, Bos 8; Roy Worters, NYA 7; Alex Connell, Mtl M, 5; George Hainsworth, Tor 3; Dave Kerr, NYR 1; Wilf Cude, Mtl 1
SECOND TEAM: Alex Connell, Mtl M, 7; Lorne Chabot, Chi 7; George Hainsworth, Tor 6; Tiny Thompson, Bos 5; Roy Worters, NYA 3;

1935-36
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Tiny Thompson, Bos 30; Wilf Cude, Mtl 1
SECOND TEAM: Wilf Cude, Mtl 15; Mike Karakas, Chi 10; George Hainsworth, Tor 3; Roy Worters, NYA 2; Normie Smith, Det 1

I'm not sure how to fudge together the first team and second team votes into a traditional all star listing.

Thompson's first NHL season was at age 25
Hainsworth's first NHL season was at age 31

I didn't realize that Hainsworth wasn't the WCHL All-Star G the entire time during his tenure there, I think looking at it this way Thompson should be ahead of Hainsworth. But I don't expect either of them to even be close to making it this vote.

 

[Professor What]

So looking at our three goaltending options

Hainsworth and Thompson were contemporaries and that makes it somewhat easy to talk about them relative to one another. I think as some other posters mentioned that Lehman is a cut above, I had him in my top 120 from both projects.

From our research thread

In the WCHL, Hainsworth lost out on "All Stars" selected by their referee (name escapes me) to Red McCusker (23-24), Hap Holmes (24-25),

1925-26 Hainsworth WHL all star team.

Newspaper All Star Teams

1926-27
Hainsworth 1st team

1927-28
Hainsworth 2nd team

1928-29
Hainsworth 2nd with 2 votes
Thompson 3rd with 1 vote

1929-30
Thompson 1st place

In this period Worters (already voted in received Hart votes neither of these goalies did)

Actual NHL All Star Voting

1930-31

#:	Player:	Team:	1st team:	2nd team:
1	Charlie Gardiner	Chicago Blackhawks	16	13
2	Tiny Thompson	Boston Bruins	10	9
3	Roy Worters	New York Americans	9	9
4	George Hainsworth	Montreal Canadiens	1	4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1931-32

#:	Player:	Team:	1st team:	2nd team:
1	Charlie Gardiner	Chicago Black Hawks	21	5
2	Roy Worters	New York Americans	3	11
3	Tiny Thompson	Boston Bruins	3	0
4	George Hainsworth	Montreal Canadiens	2	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1932-33
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: John Roach, Det 20; Charlie Gardiner, Chi 9; Tiny Thompson, Bos 1; Roy Worters, NYA 1; Lorne Chabot, Tor 1
SECOND TEAM: Charlie Gardiner, Chi 14; John Roach, NYR 6; Roy Worters, NYA 5; Tiny Thompson, Bos 3; Lorne Chabot, Tor 2; Dave Kerr, Mtl M 2

1933-34
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Charlie Gardiner, Chi 28; Tiny Thompson, Bos 2; George Hainsworth, Toronto 2; Roy Worters, NYA 2; Dave Kerr, Mtl M 1
SECOND TEAM: Roy Worters, NYA 11; Wilf Cude, Det 7; Tiny Thompson, Bos 5; Charlie Gardiner, Chi 5; Andy Aitkenhead, NYR, 3; George Hainsworth, Toronto 2; Lorne Chabot, Mtl 1; Bill Beveridge, Ott 1

1934-35
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Lorne Chabot, Chi 8; Tiny Thompson, Bos 8; Roy Worters, NYA 7; Alex Connell, Mtl M, 5; George Hainsworth, Tor 3; Dave Kerr, NYR 1; Wilf Cude, Mtl 1
SECOND TEAM: Alex Connell, Mtl M, 7; Lorne Chabot, Chi 7; George Hainsworth, Tor 6; Tiny Thompson, Bos 5; Roy Worters, NYA 3;

1935-36
GOALTENDER: FIRST TEAM: Tiny Thompson, Bos 30; Wilf Cude, Mtl 1
SECOND TEAM: Wilf Cude, Mtl 15; Mike Karakas, Chi 10; George Hainsworth, Tor 3; Roy Worters, NYA 2; Normie Smith, Det 1

I'm not sure how to fudge together the first team and second team votes into a traditional all star listing.

Thompson's first NHL season was at age 25
Hainsworth's first NHL season was at age 31

I didn't realize that Hainsworth wasn't the WCHL All-Star G the entire time during his tenure there, I think looking at it this way Thompson should be ahead of Hainsworth. But I don't expect either of them to even be close to making it this vote.

My suggestion for combining those would be to treat it like a trophy vote with a point system. That should theoretically give us some idea of how the voters thought as a group. So, if we gave two points for a first place vote and one for a second place vote, we'd get this:

1930-31: 1) Charlie Gardiner 45, 2) Tiny Thompson 29, 3) Roy Worters 27, 4) George Hainsworth 6
1931-32: 1) Charlie Gardiner 47, 2) Roy Worters 17, 3) George Hainsworth, 4) Tiny Thompson 6
1932-33: 1) John Ross Roach 46, 2) Charlie Gardiner 32, 3) Roy Worters 7, 4) Tiny Thompson 5, 5) Lorne Chabot 4, 6) Dave Kerr 2
1933-34: 1) Charlie Gardiner 61, 2) Roy Worters 15, 3) Tiny Thompson 9, 4) Wilf Cude 7, 5) George Hainsworth 6, 6) Andy Aitkenhead 3, 7) Dave Kerr 2, T-8) Lorne Chabot 1, T-8) Bill Beveridge 1
1934-35: 1) Lorne Chabot 23, 2) Tiny Thompson 21, T-3) Roy Worters 17, T-3) Alec Connell 17, 5) George Hainsworth 12, 6) Dave Kerr 2. 7) Wilf Cude 1
1935-36: 1) Tiny Thompson 60, 2) Wilf Cude 17, 3) Mike Karakas 10, 4) George Hainsworth 3, 5) Roy Worters 2, 6) Normie Smith 1

For those six years, that gives us these voting records:
Andy Aitkenhead: 6
Beveridge: 8
Chabot: 1,5,8
Connell: 3
Cude: 2,4,7
Gardiner: 1,1,1,2
Hainsworth: 3,4,4,5,5
Karakas: 3
Kerr: 6,6,7
Roach: 1
Smith: 6
Thompson: 1,2,2,3,4,4
Worters: 2,3,3,3,5

Using that method, Gardiner still looks like a clear first over that period, despite his death before the last two seasons. Thompson looks like a pretty clear second for this period, and I'd say that Hainsworth is fourth after Worters.

 

[ResilientBeast]

My suggestion for combining those would be to treat it like a trophy vote with a point system. That should theoretically give us some idea of how the voters thought as a group. So, if we gave two points for a first place vote and one for a second place vote, we'd get this:

1930-31: 1) Charlie Gardiner 45, 2) Tiny Thompson 29, 3) Roy Worters 27, 4) George Hainsworth 6
1931-32: 1) Charlie Gardiner 47, 2) Roy Worters 17, 3) George Hainsworth, 4) Tiny Thompson 6
1932-33: 1) John Ross Roach 46, 2) Charlie Gardiner 32, 3) Roy Worters 7, 4) Tiny Thompson 5, 5) Lorne Chabot 4, 6) Dave Kerr 2
1933-34: 1) Charlie Gardiner 61, 2) Roy Worters 15, 3) Tiny Thompson 9, 4) Wilf Cude 7, 5) George Hainsworth 6, 6) Andy Aitkenhead 3, 7) Dave Kerr 2, T-8) Lorne Chabot 1, T-8) Bill Beveridge 1
1934-35: 1) Lorne Chabot 23, 2) Tiny Thompson 21, T-3) Roy Worters 17, T-3) Alec Connell 17, 5) George Hainsworth 12, 6) Dave Kerr 2. 7) Wilf Cude 1
1935-36: 1) Tiny Thompson 60, 2) Wilf Cude 17, 3) Mike Karakas 10, 4) George Hainsworth 3, 5) Roy Worters 2, 6) Normie Smith 1

For those six years, that gives us these voting records:
Andy Aitkenhead: 6
Beveridge: 8
Chabot: 1,5,8
Connell: 3
Cude: 2,4,7
Gardiner: 1,1,1,2
Hainsworth: 3,4,4,5,5
Karakas: 3
Kerr: 6,6,7
Roach: 1
Smith: 6
Thompson: 1,2,2,3,4,4
Worters: 2,3,3,3,5

Using that method, Gardiner still looks like a clear first over that period, despite his death before the last two seasons. Thompson looks like a pretty clear second for this period, and I'd say that Hainsworth is fourth after Worters.

That list doesn't account for those unofficial ones. So treating the WHL one as a second place finish as the WHL had a significant amount of talent their records are....

Hainsworth: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Thompson: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4

Even giving significant credence to newspaper unofficial ballots doesn't seem to close the gap enough for Hainsworth

Worters Hart record manages to pull him ahead of those two IMO

 

[ResilientBeast]

Lehman is the undisputed greatest goalie in PCHA history, outside of Holmes no really notable competition. The PCHA attracted better skaters than goaltenders through it's history.

In the PCHA Lehman played in the "Stanley Cup Challenge Finals" 4 times, '15, '18, '21, '22 losing in all but 1915.

I linked my bio earlier, the following are quotes from the game summaries from whatever paper I could find information usually the Globe and Mail or the Edmonton Bulletin.

Based on newspaper accounts Lehman's worst series might be the one he actually did win in 1915.

Stanley Cup Series By Series Recap

Stanley Cup Series 1915

Game 1
Nothing on Lehman's performance

Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin 03-25-1915

The Ottawa Players electrified the fans with their burst of speed in the first period and when they secured the two goals and had Lehman Vancouver's goaltender dancing in all directions there was not much enthusiasm displayed by the Vancouver fans.

Game 3
Nothing on Lehman's performance

Stanley Cup Series 1918

Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin 03-22-1918

It was Vancouver's worst exhibition of the season according to President Patrick, who was at a loss to account for the indifferent form displayed by his champions. In his opinion only Mackay and perhaps Lehman performed up to mark. "Cyclone" Taylor was more or less a disappointment.

Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-27-1918

Two of the Westerners' counters were practically gifts, Taylor taking (???) when he crammed in the goal mouth. Mackay was conspicuous bit he was watched closely by Skinner and at times showed his displeasure at the latter's persistent attention by much slashing. Lehman's work in goal boarded on the marvelous. He had three times the work that Holmes was called upon to do and he undoubtedly saved the visitors from much worse beating.

Game 4
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1918

The first period was decidedly plain, but in the second there were general slashing bees and many penalties imposed. The last chatper was almost a burlesque, the plus at one time playing two men short and it was while they were not at full strength that Vancouver ran up several goals. Holmes had a bad night, letting some easy shots get away from him, while Lehman was almost unbeatable.

Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-01-1918

The last five minutes of the game was the most exciting of the contest. Vancouver threw every man with the exception of the goal-keeper into the attack and had the Torontos back up into their own nets. Mummery several times relieved the tension by lifting the puck the length of the ice. On two occasions the Blues came in on Lehman, but he came out and met the rushes. His great work has been an outstanding feature of the play and he never showed up to better advantage than he did tonight. But for him and Mackay the series would hardly have gone into an extra game.

The Toronto Daily Star

Outside of Denenny's great work the outstanding feature was the marvelous work of Harry Holmes and Hugh Lehman, the rival goalkeepers. No better exhibition of goal-guarding has ever been seen in Toronto than this pair gave Saturday night. They were both wizards. It was positively uncanny the way in which this pair came out and out guessed players who had penetrated the defences.

Stanley Cup Series 1921

Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-22-1921

In the first stage of the game the Ottawas seemed to excel in stick handling but were not so speedy on the ice as theur opponenets. In the last period, however the easterners appeared to grow faster on their skates and made long rushes down the ice. Gerard, Nighbor and Denenny were particularly brilliant. In the last period Ottawas introduced some very clever combination play and only the great defensive tactics of Vancouver and the invincibility of Goalie Lehman kept them from scoring.

Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-25-1921

They went through the PCHA champion defence like sunlight through glass. "Eagle Eye" Lehman saved his team from being hopelessly outdistanced by a remarkable exhibition, practically playing the whole Ottawa team single handed.

Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1921

Lehman's long forward passing from the Vancouver goal bothered the easterners as it did in the first of the series.
...
Desireau on the Vancouver right wing was playing pretty well at large, allowing his opponent Denenny to run wild. As a result it was from the left that most of the shots poured in on Lehman. The Ottawa checked splendidly throughout the period. Darragh carrying the puck part the way and shot from the blue line.

Lehman cleared but the speedy runner gathered in the rebound and snapped it in. The time was 8:08 . One of the features of the is period was the offensive rushes or Eddie Gerard.

Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-05-1921

Lehman was leaving goal continually in the the period checking Ottawa men who broke through. Denneny was on the stars of the team. Rushing dangerously and shooting close in on Lehman constantly...
....
Once Lehman skated out to the blue line after a close puck, and sent in a long shot which got through as far as Benedict.

Stanley Cup Series 1922

Game 1
The Globe 03-18-1922

Great Duel between Lehman and Roach

Particular interest centred in the play of the rival goalkeepers John Ross Roach, the greatest net guardians in the East and Hugh Lehman who has been a star for the last 20 years. And it could not be said that youth was served to the detriment of Lehman, this time the veteran played equally as well as the St Patrick's Wizard, which in itself is praise enough. Neither is to play for the sh0ts that got past.
....
Lehman however, saved the day and he amazed the spectators by skating over to the rail several times to retrieve the puck. He is remarkably active on his skates

The Toronto Daily Star

Great is Lehman

The big surprise of the evening was not so much St Patrick's defeat as it was the appearance of a goalkeeper who out worked the famous little St Pats cage custodian. Public opinion as to the relative strength of the club was about equally divided before the game. But most fans were willing to Admit that John Ross Roach was the best little Jack in the box in pro hocky
....
But to get back to a goalkeepers Johnny Roach put up a sterling performance last night and no one will try and take any of the credit from him but the fact remains that Hugh Lehman, the ex-Berlin veteran proved himself to be one of the greatest goalkeepers that ever donned a pad. Lehman has been in the game a long time and has been for years considered the one of the best three goalkeepers in Canada, but it was figured that if he slipped back the width of a whisper that Roach would out star him.

But Lehman hasn't slipped and last night's performance made them all sit on and take notice. He is the liveliest goalkeeper I have seen in many a moon. He thinks nothing at all of going over into the corner to get the puck and pass it out to his forwards. He was out of his net three or four times last night, and away out at that.
....
But Lehman had Babe's (Dye) curves figured out, and he beat him time and time again

Game 2
Toronto Daily Star 03-29-1922

In the first part of the third period Lehman scored one for the Irish and knotted the contest up. Cameron shot and Lehman stopped it. The puck nestled around his feet and he fell on the nestled around his feet and he fell on it to stop Denneney from getting it. Denney took a half nelson on Grandad Lehman and gave him a roll and when the referee untangled them the disc was over the line (Seriously that sounds like a clear goalie interference, modern NHL would probs rule it good though)
...
Roach in goal was a tower of strength for the winners. He looked just as good as Lehman at all times

Game 5
The Globe 03-29-1922

"Old Eagle Eye" was not as good as usual, and when his mistakes gave the locals two goals in the first period, all the fight and sash was taken from the Millionaires...

 

[Professor What]

Lehman is the undisputed greatest goalie in PCHA history, outside of Holmes no really notable competition. The PCHA attracted better skaters than goaltenders through it's history.

In the PCHA Lehman played in the "Stanley Cup Challenge Finals" 4 times, '15, '18, '21, '22 losing in all but 1915.

I linked my bio earlier, the following are quotes from the game summaries from whatever paper I could find information usually the Globe and Mail or the Edmonton Bulletin.

Based on newspaper accounts Lehman's worst series might be the one he actually did win in 1915.

Stanley Cup Series By Series Recap

Stanley Cup Series 1915

Game 1
Nothing on Lehman's performance

Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin 03-25-1915

The Ottawa Players electrified the fans with their burst of speed in the first period and when they secured the two goals and had Lehman Vancouver's goaltender dancing in all directions there was not much enthusiasm displayed by the Vancouver fans.

Game 3
Nothing on Lehman's performance

Stanley Cup Series 1918

Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin 03-22-1918

It was Vancouver's worst exhibition of the season according to President Patrick, who was at a loss to account for the indifferent form displayed by his champions. In his opinion only Mackay and perhaps Lehman performed up to mark. "Cyclone" Taylor was more or less a disappointment.

Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-27-1918

Two of the Westerners' counters were practically gifts, Taylor taking (???) when he crammed in the goal mouth. Mackay was conspicuous bit he was watched closely by Skinner and at times showed his displeasure at the latter's persistent attention by much slashing. Lehman's work in goal boarded on the marvelous. He had three times the work that Holmes was called upon to do and he undoubtedly saved the visitors from much worse beating.

Game 4
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1918

The first period was decidedly plain, but in the second there were general slashing bees and many penalties imposed. The last chatper was almost a burlesque, the plus at one time playing two men short and it was while they were not at full strength that Vancouver ran up several goals. Holmes had a bad night, letting some easy shots get away from him, while Lehman was almost unbeatable.

Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-01-1918

The last five minutes of the game was the most exciting of the contest. Vancouver threw every man with the exception of the goal-keeper into the attack and had the Torontos back up into their own nets. Mummery several times relieved the tension by lifting the puck the length of the ice. On two occasions the Blues came in on Lehman, but he came out and met the rushes. His great work has been an outstanding feature of the play and he never showed up to better advantage than he did tonight. But for him and Mackay the series would hardly have gone into an extra game.

The Toronto Daily Star

Outside of Denenny's great work the outstanding feature was the marvelous work of Harry Holmes and Hugh Lehman, the rival goalkeepers. No better exhibition of goal-guarding has ever been seen in Toronto than this pair gave Saturday night. They were both wizards. It was positively uncanny the way in which this pair came out and out guessed players who had penetrated the defences.

Stanley Cup Series 1921

Game 1
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-22-1921

In the first stage of the game the Ottawas seemed to excel in stick handling but were not so speedy on the ice as theur opponenets. In the last period, however the easterners appeared to grow faster on their skates and made long rushes down the ice. Gerard, Nighbor and Denenny were particularly brilliant. In the last period Ottawas introduced some very clever combination play and only the great defensive tactics of Vancouver and the invincibility of Goalie Lehman kept them from scoring.

Game 2
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-25-1921

They went through the PCHA champion defence like sunlight through glass. "Eagle Eye" Lehman saved his team from being hopelessly outdistanced by a remarkable exhibition, practically playing the whole Ottawa team single handed.

Game 3
Edmonton Bulletin, 03-29-1921

Lehman's long forward passing from the Vancouver goal bothered the easterners as it did in the first of the series.
...
Desireau on the Vancouver right wing was playing pretty well at large, allowing his opponent Denenny to run wild. As a result it was from the left that most of the shots poured in on Lehman. The Ottawa checked splendidly throughout the period. Darragh carrying the puck part the way and shot from the blue line.

Lehman cleared but the speedy runner gathered in the rebound and snapped it in. The time was 8:08 . One of the features of the is period was the offensive rushes or Eddie Gerard.

Game 5
Edmonton Bulletin, 04-05-1921

Lehman was leaving goal continually in the the period checking Ottawa men who broke through. Denneny was on the stars of the team. Rushing dangerously and shooting close in on Lehman constantly...
....
Once Lehman skated out to the blue line after a close puck, and sent in a long shot which got through as far as Benedict.

Stanley Cup Series 1922

Game 1
The Globe 03-18-1922

Great Duel between Lehman and Roach

Particular interest centred in the play of the rival goalkeepers John Ross Roach, the greatest net guardians in the East and Hugh Lehman who has been a star for the last 20 years. And it could not be said that youth was served to the detriment of Lehman, this time the veteran played equally as well as the St Patrick's Wizard, which in itself is praise enough. Neither is to play for the sh0ts that got past.
....
Lehman however, saved the day and he amazed the spectators by skating over to the rail several times to retrieve the puck. He is remarkably active on his skates

The Toronto Daily Star

Great is Lehman

The big surprise of the evening was not so much St Patrick's defeat as it was the appearance of a goalkeeper who out worked the famous little St Pats cage custodian. Public opinion as to the relative strength of the club was about equally divided before the game. But most fans were willing to Admit that John Ross Roach was the best little Jack in the box in pro hocky
....
But to get back to a goalkeepers Johnny Roach put up a sterling performance last night and no one will try and take any of the credit from him but the fact remains that Hugh Lehman, the ex-Berlin veteran proved himself to be one of the greatest goalkeepers that ever donned a pad. Lehman has been in the game a long time and has been for years considered the one of the best three goalkeepers in Canada, but it was figured that if he slipped back the width of a whisper that Roach would out star him.

But Lehman hasn't slipped and last night's performance made them all sit on and take notice. He is the liveliest goalkeeper I have seen in many a moon. He thinks nothing at all of going over into the corner to get the puck and pass it out to his forwards. He was out of his net three or four times last night, and away out at that.
....
But Lehman had Babe's (Dye) curves figured out, and he beat him time and time again

Game 2
Toronto Daily Star 03-29-1922

In the first part of the third period Lehman scored one for the Irish and knotted the contest up. Cameron shot and Lehman stopped it. The puck nestled around his feet and he fell on the nestled around his feet and he fell on it to stop Denneney from getting it. Denney took a half nelson on Grandad Lehman and gave him a roll and when the referee untangled them the disc was over the line (Seriously that sounds like a clear goalie interference, modern NHL would probs rule it good though)
...
Roach in goal was a tower of strength for the winners. He looked just as good as Lehman at all times

Game 5
The Globe 03-29-1922

"Old Eagle Eye" was not as good as usual, and when his mistakes gave the locals two goals in the first period, all the fight and sash was taken from the Millionaires...

Lehman and Thompson look pretty similar to me in the respect that they had some pretty solid playoff performances in which they were let down by the performances of the rest of their teams. I'd agree with your assessment that those quotes do seem to suggest that Lehman was strong in those losing efforts. Thompson meanwhile had four playoffs with a sub-2.00 GAA that fell short of a Stanley Cup. In 1933, he had the lowest GAA in the playoffs, but the Bruins fell in the semi-finals, their only series that year. Boston only managed seven goals over the course of the series, and the last game was the famous 6OT 1-0 battle between Thompson and Chabot. That anyone had to lose that game was a crying shame. Two years later, the Bruins again lost to the Maple Leafs, three games to one on this occasion, with Thompson posting a 1.53 GAA. The problem was that the Bruins only managed two goals in the entire series. In the 1938 matchup against Toronto, the Bruins fell in a three game sweep. Thompson allowed just five goals, but the Bruins scored only three, leaving him out to dry. What I find particularly ironic there is that the Bruins went 5-1 against Toronto in the regular season that year, scoring 18 goals. It was definitely night and day for the Boston offense, while the defense and goaltending were pretty consistent with the playoff matchup allowing just 10 goals in those six games.

I'd really caution people to be careful about looking at either one of these guys and brushing off postseason performance because of only winning one Cup each. I don't think either of them have their postseason acumen accurately reflecting in wins and losses. I can't say I knew that much about Lehman, but the combination of this voting group and the ATD have had me digging into Thompson recently. I think I tend to agree based on what I'm learning that Lehman is the top goalie available in this round, but I think Thompson looks like a strong candidate here too.

 

[MXD]

I feel like there's a lot of Tiny Thompson's former teammates who should have made it to the ballot before he did.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lehman is the undisputed greatest goalie in PCHA history, outside of Holmes no really notable competition. The PCHA attracted better skaters than goaltenders through it's history.

This is the sticky part about judging Lehman. There were only 3-4 teams in the PCHA, so being the best goalie meant being the best of 3-4 guys who were willing to go west for a contract. Not exactly a formula for finding the best goalie in the land.

Lehman's competition, by year:

goes pro in the Ontario league
1909 - Jack Mercer, Chuck Tyner
1910 - Jack Cross, Jack Mercer, Chuck Tyner
1911 - Jack Cross, Billy Hague, Joe Jones
heads west to PCHA
1912 - Bert Lindsay, Allen Parr
1913 - Bert Lindsay, Allen Parr
1914 - Bert Lindsay, Allen Parr
1915 - Bert Lindsay, Mike Mitchell
1916 - Hap Holmes, Fred McCullough, Tom Murray
1917 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes, Tom Murray
1918 - Hec Fowler, Tom Murray
1919 - Hap Holmes, Tom Murray
1920 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1921 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1922 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1923 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1924 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
PCHA becomes WCHL
1925 - George Hainsworth, Hap Holmes, Red McCusker, Charlie Reid, Herb Stuart, Hal Winkler
WCHL becomes WHL
1926 - George Hainsworth, Hap Holmes, Red McCusker, Herb Stuart, Hal Winkler
WHL/NHL consolidation
1927 - Clint Benedict, Lorne Chabot, Alec Connell, Jake Forbes, George Hainsworth, Hap Holmes, John Ross Roach, Doc Stewart, Hal Winkler, Roy Worters

So pre-1925, all we can really gather from his league play is that we're pretty sure he was better than Hap Holmes, along with Hec Fowler and a handful of other guys who are rarely remembered even on the History board.

Even his Stanley Cup play doesn't give us as much info as you'd expect for 8 appearances. The first two, he got hammered while playing for Galt and Berlin against Ottawa and Montreal, which tells us nothing. Repeatedly, he ends up matched with Hap Holmes, which gives us nothing we didn't already know. We do eventually get a couple of glimpses of him against Benedict, Roach, and Vezina. But even those are just a handful games at a time of highly irregular play, separated by a year or more. It's a suggestion and not a lot more. At the end of the day, the best proof we have of his quality of play is that people thought he was good compared to the field... but only at the very end did he actually play against the field.

Don't get me wrong, I personally think he's validated enough to be considered the 3rd best of his era, after Vezina and Benedict. But I don't think it would be crazy for someone to look at this profile and say it looks a lot like a guy playing in 1950s Europe or something. It's a little easier with Lehman because we have Holmes as a crossover peer comparison, but that's pretty much the only thing standing between us and "because the newspaper guys said so".

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is the sticky part about judging Lehman. There were only 3-4 teams in the PCHA, so being the best goalie meant being the best of 3-4 guys who were willing to go west for a contract. Not exactly a formula for finding the best goalie in the land.

Lehman's competition, by year:

goes pro in the Ontario league
1909 - Jack Mercer, Chuck Tyner
1910 - Jack Cross, Jack Mercer, Chuck Tyner
1911 - Jack Cross, Billy Hague, Joe Jones
heads west to PCHA
1912 - Bert Lindsay, Allen Parr
1913 - Bert Lindsay, Allen Parr
1914 - Bert Lindsay, Allen Parr
1915 - Bert Lindsay, Mike Mitchell
1916 - Hap Holmes, Fred McCullough, Tom Murray
1917 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes, Tom Murray
1918 - Hec Fowler, Tom Murray
1919 - Hap Holmes, Tom Murray
1920 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1921 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1922 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1923 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
1924 - Hec Fowler, Hap Holmes
PCHA becomes WCHL
1925 - George Hainsworth, Hap Holmes, Red McCusker, Charlie Reid, Herb Stuart, Hal Winkler
WCHL becomes WHL
1926 - George Hainsworth, Hap Holmes, Red McCusker, Herb Stuart, Hal Winkler
WHL/NHL consolidation
1927 - Clint Benedict, Lorne Chabot, Alec Connell, Jake Forbes, George Hainsworth, Hap Holmes, John Ross Roach, Doc Stewart, Hal Winkler, Roy Worters

So pre-1925, all we can really gather from his league play is that we're pretty sure he was better than Hap Holmes, along with Hec Fowler and a handful of other guys who are rarely remembered even on the History board.

Even his Stanley Cup play doesn't give us as much info as you'd expect for 8 appearances. The first two, he got hammered while playing for Galt and Berlin against Ottawa and Montreal, which tells us nothing. Repeatedly, he ends up matched with Hap Holmes, which gives us nothing we didn't already know. We do eventually get a couple of glimpses of him against Benedict, Roach, and Vezina. But even those are just a handful games at a time of highly irregular play, separated by a year or more. It's a suggestion and not a lot more. At the end of the day, the best proof we have of his quality of play is that people thought he was good compared to the field... but only at the very end did he actually play against the field.

Don't get me wrong, I personally think he's validated enough to be considered the 3rd best of his era, after Vezina and Benedict. But I don't think it would be crazy for someone to look at this profile and say it looks a lot like a guy playing in 1950s Europe or something. It's a little easier with Lehman because we have Holmes as a crossover peer comparison, but that's pretty much the only thing standing between us and "because the newspaper guys said so".

Yeah it's not a super impressive list of peers

Some interesting data points

Hec Fowler - PCHA from 1916-17 to 1923-24 where he joins the Boston Bruins for 7 games in 1924-25

The Bruins roster doesn't look good, their regular starter Charles Stewart (who) had a GAA of 3.08

GAA in the NHL 6.16,
He also played some games in the WCHL with Edmonton
GAA in the WCHL 3.63

Bert Lindsay - PCHA from 1911-12 to 1914-15 where he joins the Wanderers in the NHA

Last PCHA GAA - 6.60
1st Wanderers year GAA - 4.78
2nd Wanderers year GAA - 6.48

Hap Holmes
1914-15 with the Blueshirts GAA: 4.18
1915-16 with Seattle GAA: 3.67
1916-17 with Seattle GAA: 3.28
1917-18 with Toronto GAA: 4.73
1918-19 with Toronto (2 games) GAA: 4.50
1918-19 with Seattle GAA: 2.25

There are still pretty significant rules differences at this time between the two leagues, so I'm not surprised by the fluctuations. But perhaps Fowler and Lindsay were good enough but the western teams didn't want to spend money to poach goalies from out east beside Holmes. I've read a lot of newspaper clippings about the bidding war on skaters but never on goalies outside of Holmes who gets passed back and forth.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah it's not a super impressive list of peers

Some interesting data points

Hec Fowler - PCHA from 1916-17 to 1923-24 where he joins the Boston Bruins for 7 games in 1924-25

The Bruins roster doesn't look good, their regular starter Charles Stewart (who) had a GAA of 3.08

GAA in the NHL 6.16,
He also played some games in the WCHL with Edmonton
GAA in the WCHL 3.63

Bert Lindsay - PCHA from 1911-12 to 1914-15 where he joins the Wanderers in the NHA

Last PCHA GAA - 6.60
1st Wanderers year GAA - 4.78
2nd Wanderers year GAA - 6.48

Hap Holmes
1914-15 with the Blueshirts GAA: 4.18
1915-16 with Seattle GAA: 3.67
1916-17 with Seattle GAA: 3.28
1917-18 with Toronto GAA: 4.73
1918-19 with Toronto (2 games) GAA: 4.50
1918-19 with Seattle GAA: 2.25

There are still pretty significant rules differences at this time between the two leagues, so I'm not surprised by the fluctuations. But perhaps Fowler and Lindsay were good enough but the western teams didn't want to spend money to poach goalies from out east beside Holmes. I've read a lot of newspaper clippings about the bidding war on skaters but never on goalies outside of Holmes who gets passed back and forth.

My impression of Fowler is that if the leagues had been consolidated, he would have been something like the 5th-7th best goalie in the consolidated league. He was good enough to keep getting jobs, which is a good sign for a goalie, but I don’t know of him ever being a star anywhere. Being better than him just means being a star goalie, but doesn’t really set the bar for our purposes.

I have always perceived Lindsay as being a replacement level guy. That may be colored by his getting torched in the first NHL game, which was the only thing I knew about him for a while. But I’m not aware of his ever being highly regarded at the top level. He was just there.

Parr? Murray? I got nothing.

It really comes down to how you rate Holmes based on his performances in various situations, and then which of Holmes and Lehman you like better based on their head-to-heads.