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

[ted2019]

My list is basically done. I have.
1. Hugh Lehman
2. Rod Langway
3. John Bucyk
4. Adam Oates
5. Gilbert Perreault
6. Tiny Thompson
7. Paul Kariya
8. Guy Lapointe
9. Marcel Pronovost
10. George Hainsworth

 

[DN28]

There were only 8 total teams between the NHA and PCHA. If we rank Lindsay behind Vezina, Benedict, LeSueur, Lehman, and Holmes, then he's no better than the 6th guy out of 8. I don't think he's better than Hec Fowler (but I would listen to an argument otherwise) which would make him no better than 7th out of 8.

He would be in a conversation with Paddy Moran, Sammy Hebert, Billy Nicholson for which guys belong on the wrong side of the cutoff line in a theoretical consolidated league. Which is replacement level, by definition.

Unless we're seriously arguing that Lindsay or Fowler was on Lehman's level, I don't think it's at all unfair to say Lehman defaulted to being the best PCHA goalie until 1916, and after that it was a two-horse race between himself and Holmes.

I would never characterize as a "replacement level goalie" a guy who was PCHA all-star in 1913 over Lehman and NHA all-star in 1916 over Vezina and Benedict...

Anyway, @Sanf's post was clear. The average goaltending quality of Western leagues was just as good, or even better, than that of Eastern leagues. At least up to 1921, 1922 or so...

Lehman wasn't defaulted to anything. He was the best goalie of one part of Canada for a long time because of how he played. What does it likely mean? Lehman could have been the best goalie in hockey in some seasons, and at worst the 4th best goalie in hockey for a stretch of approximately 15 years. That's easily best prime among this vote's candidates which is why he should go on our list now in my opinion.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I would never characterize as a "replacement level goalie" a guy who was PCHA all-star in 1913 over Lehman and NHA all-star in 1916 over Vezina and Benedict...

Anyway, @Sanf's post was clear. The average goaltending quality of Western leagues was just as good, or even better, than that of Eastern leagues. At least up to 1921, 1922 or so...

Lehman wasn't defaulted to anything. He was the best goalie of one part of Canada for a long time because of how he played. What does it likely mean? Lehman could have been the best goalie in hockey in some seasons, and at worst the 4th best goalie in hockey for a stretch of approximately 15 years. That's easily best prime among this vote's candidates which is why he should go on our list now in my opinion.

I will never understand this notion. Ever.

Vezina and Benedict are both top 12 goalies all time for most people. We're talking easy top 100 players all time. They ruled the East for years. There is no combination out West that can match that. And I have yet to see any group of goalies in the West that can bridge the gap collectively against Vezina/Benedict who were the 2 best goalies, in the world, for the bulk of the 1910's and early/mid 20's. Lehman and Holmes cannot compete.

You also had Paddy Moran, HOF'er in the east for years. Percy LeSuer, HOF'er, in the east for years. By the early 20's you also had John Ross Roach in the east.

I think the NHA and PCHA were very evenly matched for most of their existence but goal tending peak/depth is not an area of equal talent or all time resume.

What am I missing?

 

[DN28]

I will never understand this notion. Ever.

Vezina and Benedict are both top 12 goalies all time for most people. We're talking easy top 100 players all time. They ruled the East for years. There is no combination out West that can match that. And I have yet to see any group of goalies in the West that can bridge the gap collectively against Vezina/Benedict who were the 2 best goalies, in the world, for the bulk of the 1910's and early/mid 20's. Lehman and Holmes cannot compete.

You also had Paddy Moran, HOF'er in the east for years. Percy LeSuer, HOF'er, in the east for years. By the early 20's you also had John Ross Roach in the east.

I think the NHA and PCHA were very evenly matched for most of their existence but goal tending peak/depth is not an area of equal talent or all time resume.

What am I missing?

You're missing earlier post where I quoted Sanf's overview of decreasing quality of NHA in approximately 1914 to 1921.

Moran and LeSueur are examples in favor of my point. These goalies were well past their expiry date, yet they kept playing despite reportedly poor results up to 1915-1917. The same applies for Billy Nicholson - somewhat successful and overall very good goalie in early to mid 1900s, who then played in NHA in 1917 or 1916 or so...

Roach arrived in 1921 or 1922 or so - the last few years of Lehman's extended prime.

Average goalie quality in the East was just not good at all during World War 1 - that's the point in this discussion. Instead of focusing again and again how Lehman had it "easier", we should be focusing on the fact that Vezina and Benedict had it arguably even more easier...

Vezina and Benedict are top 12 goalies all time and top 100 players because this forum said so. But why are they both considered better than Lehman? You can evoke that McLean's poll from 1925 where Vezina won, fair enough. I do have Vezina clearly above all the other early goaltenders.. But why is for example Benedict considered better than Lehman?

Most people agree with the notion that elite talent was roughly equal between East and West before consolidation, yet somehow almost everyone automatically ranks Vezina and Benedict significantly above Lehman and Holmes? Why? East Coast bias?

 

[ImporterExporter]

You're missing earlier post where I quoted Sanf's overview of decreasing quality of NHA in approximately 1914 to 1921.

Moran and LeSueur are examples in favor of my point. These goalies were well past their expiry date, yet they kept playing despite reportedly poor results up to 1915-1917. The same applies for Billy Nicholson - somewhat successful and overall very good goalie in early to mid 1900s, who then played in NHA in 1917 or 1916 or so...

Roach arrived in 1921 or 1922 or so - the last few years of Lehman's extended prime.

Average goalie quality in the East was just not good at all during World War 1 - that's the point in this discussion. Instead of focusing again and again how Lehman had it "easier", we should be focusing on the fact that Vezina and Benedict had it arguably even more easier...

Vezina and Benedict are top 12 goalies all time and top 100 players because this forum said so. But why are they both considered better than Lehman? You can evoke that McLean's poll from 1925 where Vezina won, fair enough. I do have Vezina clearly above all the other early goaltenders.. But why is for example Benedict considered better than Lehman?

Most people agree with the notion that elite talent was roughly equal between East and West before consolidation, yet somehow almost everyone automatically ranks Vezina and Benedict significantly above Lehman and Holmes? Why? East Coast bias?

Biases existed everywhere in that era. Style points meant a lot. Being visually pleasing was a much bigger piece of the pie as it pertained to perception than it is today, and I think it diminishes the statistical angle of this debate and obscures what people were saying in other cities, both in the West and East. So much is focused on AS nods as if they are in the same ballpark as those being put forth by groups of writers/coaches/gm's etc, in later eras. AS votes in 1913 to 1920 something are not as valuable as AS votes in a consolidated, 06 era NHL. This doesn't get enough attention.

All I will say is there is so much information out there this discussion will have in the near future. Wish it were ready for public consumption but I'm not going to put out a incomplete bio.

Lehman deserves to go now. I think he's worthy and come around on him a lot in recent years and have found some very flattering things written that I don't see around these parts. With that being said, I do not think he was universally considered the best G in the West. Not with what I've found at this juncture and there is still multiple years to go over.

Just consider, for starters:

From 1915-16 through 1921-22 Holmes gave up 380 goals in 132 PCHA regular season games. That's a 2.88 GAA

Lehman, over that same time period gave up 453 goals in 130 games for 3.48 GAA.

Edit 2:14 pm: (this does not include 1917-18 as Holmes went back to NHL for a year)

Now consider who Lehman had in front of him those years, compare that to the rest of the league. Then go game by game, get a decent idea of shot volume (this is possible in many games and in later years you can find some shot totals, broken down by period even) and conclude that Lehman wasn't facing some sort of massive amount of volume relative to Holmes or any other goalie.

This isn't Vezina (who did face insane volume) vs Benedict (who benefited greatly from Pete Green and Frank Nighbor) where you can point and say, yeah Benedict has better numbers, but part of that has to do with shot volume and defensive system in front of him. We can pretty clearly see Benedict simply didn't have the defensive troubles that Vezina did for many years. This is not the case in the west.

So the question becomes. How does the overwhelming best G (Lehman), routinely put up inferior numbers, on the strongest team, on paper, Vancouver? In some cases significantly worse numbers. At some point, you have to take a step back and say, let's dig deeper.

But as I said. I have no issue if Lehman were to go now. His resume is good enough at this juncture, IMHO.

 

[Sanf]

Biases existed everywhere in that era. Style points meant a lot. Being visually pleasing was a much bigger piece of the pie as it pertained to perception than it is today, and I think it diminishes the statistical angle of this debate and obscures what people were saying in other cities, both in the West and East. So much is focused on AS nods as if they are in the same ballpark as those being put forth by groups of writers/coaches/gm's etc, in later eras. AS votes in 1913 to 1920 something are not as valuable as AS votes in a consolidated, 06 era NHL. This doesn't get enough attention.

All I will say is there is so much information out there this discussion will have in the near future. Wish it were ready for public consumption but I'm not going to put out a incomplete bio.

Lehman deserves to go now. I think he's worthy and come around on him a lot in recent years and have found some very flattering things written that I don't see around these parts. With that being said, I do not think he was universally considered the best G in the West. Not with what I've found at this juncture and there is still multiple years to go over.

Just consider, for starters:

From 1915-16 through 1921-22 Holmes gave up 380 goals in 132 PCHA regular season games. That's a 2.88 GAA

Lehman, over that same time period gave up 453 goals in 130 games for 3.48 GAA.

Now consider who Lehman had in front of him those years, compare that to the rest of the league. Then go game by game, get a decent idea of shot volume (this is possible in many games and in later years you can find some shot totals, broken down by period even) and conclude that Lehman wasn't facing some sort of massive amount of volume relative to Holmes or any other goalie.

This isn't Vezina (who did face insane volume) vs Benedict (who benefited greatly from Pete Green and Frank Nighbor) where you can point and say, yeah Benedict has better numbers, but part of that has to do with shot volume and defensive system in front of him. We can pretty clearly see Benedict simply didn't have the defensive troubles that Vezina did for many years. This is not the case in the west.

So the question becomes. How does the overwhelming best G (Lehman), routinely put up inferior numbers, on the strongest team, on paper, Vancouver? In some cases significantly worse numbers. At some point, you have to take a step back and say, let's dig deeper.

But as I said. I have no issue if Lehman were to go now. His resume is good enough at this juncture, IMHO.

There is lot of here in which I can agree. Newspaper bias absolutely existed strongly even back then. And thats why I do my best to avoid hometown supporterpaper comments. For example if I would bring stuff that was said in Victoria Daily Times about Bert Lidnsay he would look like a god level goalie . But that would be dishonest. Though I´m not entirely sure who is making a case via Vancouver papers for Lehman here.

I´m absolute critic of the All-Star nods use as such (Though I did use it in Lindsay´s case in the Ferguson selection, but I have posted the context in HFboards at some point). That´s why I did take deep dive to research those to understand who even was the selector/source of those All-Stars and what was the context. It will never be as good as later selections. But at the end it is the opinion of hockey reporter/hockey influencer and the more of those you can find you can get even somesort of feeling of how things were viewed. And at the end I can absolutely guarantee that my view on Lehman is not solely based on various All-Star selections.

For the style point thing I´m most looking forward to seeing evidence. Are you meaning technical aspects or being flashy? I feel we are going to have debate of this subject later on.

 

[ImporterExporter]

There is lot of here in which I can agree. Newspaper bias absolutely existed strongly even back then. And thats why I do my best to avoid hometown supporterpaper comments. For example if I would bring stuff that was said in Victoria Daily Times about Bert Lidnsay he would look like a god level goalie . But that would be dishonest. Though I´m not entirely sure who is making a case via Vancouver papers for Lehman here.

I´m absolute critic of the All-Star nods use as such (Though I did use it in Lindsay´s case in the Ferguson selection, but I have posted the context in HFboards at some point). That´s why I did take deep dive to research those to understand who even was the selector/source of those All-Stars and what was the context. It will never be as good as later selections. But at the end it is the opinion of hockey reporter/hockey influencer and the more of those you can find you can get even somesort of feeling of how things were viewed. And at the end I can absolutely guarantee that my view on Lehman is not solely based on various All-Star selections.

For the style point thing I´m most looking forward to seeing evidence. Are you meaning technical aspects or being flashy? I feel we are going to have debate of this subject later on.

Absolutely. There will always be a bit of a slant, to one degree or another when you're reading exploits on a player. I do find this era to be particularly thorough, for obvious reasons. You can really get a sense of the game flow and what was going on and while there are absolutely biases, I do think impartiality is pretty strong. You see a lot of praise for players, or critical remarks in both hometown and other city papers.

Flash is a big arrow in the direction of Lehman. He made goal tending look spectacular. Holmes was much more stoic and relaxed.

The comparison I made to another voting member was imagine watching Hasek and Broduer. I don't think those 2 are miles apart (I have them 2 and 4 all time) but they had drastically different styles and if you polled fans who was the more appealing goalie to watch, I think Hasek would dominate. IMO, this plays a part in the reputation of Lehman.

Why did Lehman get first team honors in 1015-16 despite finishing 3rd out of 4 in GAA (3.8), giving up a full goal more per game than the leader, Tom Murray (2.8) of Portland, a team that wasn't close to Vancouver in terms of talent. The only way you could conclude he was worthy of this, in a traditional AS panel, is if you could prove he faced far more shots than both Murray and Holmes, especially Murray. The Rosebuds literally won the PCHA going 13-5, went to the SCF and yet Lehman, on a team with a half dozen HOF'ers, finished 9-9 and he gets 1st team status? Doesn't add up.

This does not mean Lehman wasn't the best goalie in the west be it yearly or over a career arc, or even in the conversation for best in the world at times, just that a much more nuanced view should happen before we cement a legacy. IMO.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would never characterize as a "replacement level goalie" a guy who was PCHA all-star in 1913 over Lehman and NHA all-star in 1916 over Vezina and Benedict...

To be clear about what this means, though, there was no such thing as the 1913 or 1916 PCHA All Star team. For 1913, people are typically pointing to the retro AS teams listed in Trail or Total Hockey, and in later years the selections of one person -- Mickey Ion. Occasionally we get to see a team picked by a pundit like Elmer Ferguson, but those are rare and inconsistent.

And, in the specific case of the time and place we're talking about, we have to be realistic about the extreme limitations on the talent pool:

- This was the peak of Allen Cup competition, a time when serious talent was still in the amateur realm. We can reasonably assume that the biggest stars were playing pro, but we can't make that assumption about depth talent beyond, say, the top 10 or so at each position. This limitation on the talent pool had a very real impact on competition for pro roster spots, and in turn a very real impact on competition in pro games.

- This was the era of WWI, when established players left the game entirely and we can only speculate how many pro-level talents never even got started.

- As discussed in another thread, this was a period when substantial leagues only existed in urban areas. 1913 was the first year that Calgary had an indoor hockey rink. To the extent that the game was even played outside of a few hub cities, those games and players were virtually unscouted. Again, this is a major talent pool difference compared to even 10 years later.

For the reasons noted above, is not by any means given that the 3 goaltenders who were signed to play in the PCHA were actually representative of the same kind of talent we would see 10-20 years in the future. Being the best of those 3 is far from an empty accomplishment, but it also doesn't carry the same kind of clout as rising to the top of a fully-integrated, professionalized pipeline like what we'd see from the mid-1920s forward.

So yes, I do tend to think of a guy like Lindsay as being a pretty marginal bar of competition if we are talking about top-200 players of all time. Sure he was a good goalie, he was a pro after all, but holding him up as stiff competition for awards feels like doing the same for... I dunno, Marty Turco or somebody.

Lehman wasn't defaulted to anything. He was the best goalie of one part of Canada for a long time because of how he played. What does it likely mean? Lehman could have been the best goalie in hockey in some seasons, and at worst the 4th best goalie in hockey for a stretch of approximately 15 years. That's easily best prime among this vote's candidates which is why he should go on our list now in my opinion.

To be clear, I think everyone in this debate is actually pretty on board with Lehman going on the list right now. I'm just saying that it's not crazy for someone to look a bit skeptically at "probably the 3rd or 4th best goalie of the WWI era".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bentley > Kariya ?

Easily.

Similar offensive prime, better longevity, and better two-way game for Bentley.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Dead, but not lacking for good content - thanks, @ResilientBeast

So for the newcomers, we’ve touched on Bucyk, Hainsworth, Lehman, and Thompson. Any strong opinions on Modano and Pronovost at this point?

Modano is interesting. I think he's probably similar value to Datsyuk IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A few more tidbits on Lehman:

@ResilientBeast posted more contemporary opinions on him than I ever could have. So I'll just post two quickies:

1) The 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list

Here's a copy to the original article: All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

Note that the voters were basically a who's who of hockey insiders at the time.

Georges Vezina was 1st Team. Percy LeSueur was 2nd Team. Hugh Lehman and Clint Benedict were tied for 3rd team.

Two things should be noted about the article:

a) The final vote count clearly put "old-timers" like LeSueur on the same footing as "modern" players. We had this discussion when Russell Bowie finished 2nd to Nighbor, ahead of Lalonde. In fact, there were some voters who filled out separate ballots for the two different generations and had them both counted.

b) The only major criticism of the final list by contemporary press came from western papers complaining that it was biased against western players. Among goalies, this would only affect Lehman.

2) His legacy - by the 1930s, for Charlie Gardiner to be "the best ever," Lehman was 1 the 2 commonly thought of then-GOAT goalies

When researching Charlie Gardiner about 10 years ago, I was taken by the fact that when writers were discussing whether Gardiner was "the greatest goalie of all-time," he was generally compared to two men - Georges Vezina and Hugh Lehman.

Here's one example:

Wes Champ - President of the Regina vics after returning from watching 2 games of the Stanley Cup playoff series:

"Charlie Gardiner is the greatest goalkeeper hockey fans ever saw.
...
Gardiner is even better than Hughie Lehman, known as "Eagle Eye' was in his prime, and the way he comes out of his goal - sometimes as much as 15 feet - just breaks the hearts of opposing sharpshooters."

Sure, some of this could be Western Bias. Clint Benedict and Georges Vezina would be easy to compare for fans of Eastern hockey, but Lehman would have been the choice of Western fans.

____________________________________

Anyway, Lehman is an easy #1 for me this round. Probably should have gone close to Clint Benedict. DEFINITELY should have gone in the realm of Tony Esposito and Roy Worters. Every weakness Lehman may have had in the playoffs, Tony Esposito had, and Lehman actually did win the Cup as a starter (albeit on a fairly stacked team).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It should be noted that some of the "no" votes for Lehman in the goalies project were by posters who felt like the PCHA was a "minor league" compared to the NHA/NHL. Hopefully we are past that by now - the two leagues were quite close in quality overall - though the single greatest team between either of them was the NHL's Ottawa Senators.

 

[ImporterExporter]

A few more tidbits on Lehman:

@ResilientBeast posted more contemporary opinions on him than I ever could have. So I'll just post two quickies:

1) The 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list

Here's a copy to the original article: All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

Note that the voters were basically a who's who of hockey insiders at the time.

Georges Vezina was 1st Team. Percy LeSueur was 2nd Team. Hugh Lehman and Clint Benedict were tied for 3rd team.

Two things should be noted about the article:

a) The final vote count clearly put "old-timers" like LeSueur on the same footing as "modern" players. We had this discussion when Russell Bowie finished 2nd to Nighbor, ahead of Lalonde. In fact, there were some voters who filled out separate ballots for the two different generations and had them both counted.

b) The only major criticism of the final list by contemporary press came from western papers complaining that it was biased against western players. Among goalies, this would only affect Lehman.

2) His legacy - by the 1930s, for Charlie Gardiner to be "the best ever," the Lehman was 1 the 2 commonly thought of then-GOAT goalies

When researching Charlie Gardiner about 10 years ago, I was taken by the fact that when writers were discussing whether Gardiner was "the greatest goalie of all-time," he was generally compared to two men - Georges Vezina and Hugh Lehman.

Here's one example:

Wes Champ - President of the Regina vics after returning from watching 2 games of the Stanley Cup playoff series:

"Charlie Gardiner is the greatest goalkeeper hockey fans ever saw.
...
Gardiner is even better than Hughie Lehman, known as "Eagle Eye' was in his prime, and the way he comes out of his goal - sometimes as much as 15 feet - just breaks the hearts of opposing sharpshooters."

Sure, some of this could be Western Bias. Clint Benedict and Georges Vezina would be easy to compare for fans of Eastern hockey, but Lehman would have been the choice of Western fans.

____________________________________

Anyway, Lehman is an easy #1 for me this round. Probably should have gone close to Clint Benedict. DEFINITELY should have gone in the realm of Tony Esposito and Roy Worters. Every weakness Lehman may have had in the playoffs, Tony Esposito had, and Lehman actually did win the Cup as a starter (albeit on a fairly stacked team).

Tony Esposito played in a much tougher era with consolidated talent. Espo's AS nods are more impressive, significantly so given the strength of the league he was playing and goalies he was competing with for accolades vs Hughie. His Hart record is fantastic and as you said, they're both in the same general area playoff wise.

I have no idea how a man who had a team full of HOF'ers around him, at least one (I think 2) AS votes that border on stupidity, in a 3/4 team league, not consolidated, can be put into the class of a 5 time AS with EIGHT top 11 Hart finishes, including a runner up, as a rookie. And Esposito didn't have the benefit of a roster that was almost entirely made up of HOF'ers and that team won a single SC. With 7 losses.

To be fair, there were multiple series where Lehman was fabulous, but a 1-7 record and some inconsistent play relative to this rep is troubling. His main competition out west, Holmes won SC's wherever he went. He put teams over the top. Toronto. Seattle. Victoria. Hell he bested Lehman in the SCF, on an inferior Toronto team in 1918, with a 2-1 victory in the deciding game 5 (both goalies were described as being great much this series for full transparency).

How does a vastly inferior goalie pull that off, over a long period of time, on inferior rosters? I think these are legitimate questions and should be discussed in these types of projects. Did Vancouver choke because the forwards sucked? Was their defense porous? Did Lehamn backslide to often?

Also, Lehman was the choice of Vancouver fans. Probably most Western Canada fans. He was not considered the best G in the west, in Seattle for example. This speaks to the biases that existed between cities, countries. I can promise you this much. Lehman was not universally thought of the best G out west, during his playing days. Mickey Ion and few others are certainly not the end all, be all here.

MacLean's? Big bullet point. AS nods in the PCHA? Meh. AS nods in general pre consolidation don't mean all that much to me.

And for the record I'm not a big fan of Espo by any stretch, but putting Lehman in this class is...interesting. Benedict even more so. .

At the current rate he'll be tangling with Vezina in another 10 years.

I still maintain he'd be a fine entry now, hell maybe even a round or two ago. But Espo? Benedict? Not quite and a definite no.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Modano is interesting. I think he's probably similar value to Datsyuk IMO.

I was thinking the same thing, though Modano was probably more removed from best player discussions than Datsyuk.

Still, his numbers from the 1995-2005 thread we had a while back were pretty solid across the board. And his THN rankings weren’t Kariya-esque, but still very, very good: 8th in 1998, 6th in 1999, 5th in 2000, 7th in 2001, 15th in 2002, 7th in 2003.

What especially hurts is that when he got injured in 1997-98, he was the leading scorer at the time with 38 points in 29 games. With the rest of his resume (full career, defensive acumen, playoffs), just one year like that would have been major for him.

Added to that, he had the most 1st place votes for 1st Team in 2000 but came up a little short of Yzerman for the selection. Weak year at Center with Sakic and Forsberg’s injuries, but it would have been a nice pickup for him after he didn’t catch a break on the 1999 Conn Smythe.

 

[DN28]

Biases existed everywhere in that era. Style points meant a lot. Being visually pleasing was a much bigger piece of the pie as it pertained to perception than it is today, and I think it diminishes the statistical angle of this debate and obscures what people were saying in other cities, both in the West and East. So much is focused on AS nods as if they are in the same ballpark as those being put forth by groups of writers/coaches/gm's etc, in later eras. AS votes in 1913 to 1920 something are not as valuable as AS votes in a consolidated, 06 era NHL. This doesn't get enough attention.

All I will say is there is so much information out there this discussion will have in the near future. Wish it were ready for public consumption but I'm not going to put out a incomplete bio.

Lehman deserves to go now. I think he's worthy and come around on him a lot in recent years and have found some very flattering things written that I don't see around these parts. With that being said, I do not think he was universally considered the best G in the West. Not with what I've found at this juncture and there is still multiple years to go over.

Just consider, for starters:

From 1915-16 through 1921-22 Holmes gave up 380 goals in 132 PCHA regular season games. That's a 2.88 GAA

Lehman, over that same time period gave up 453 goals in 130 games for 3.48 GAA.

Edit 2:14 pm: (this does not include 1917-18 as Holmes went back to NHL for a year)

Now consider who Lehman had in front of him those years, compare that to the rest of the league. Then go game by game, get a decent idea of shot volume (this is possible in many games and in later years you can find some shot totals, broken down by period even) and conclude that Lehman wasn't facing some sort of massive amount of volume relative to Holmes or any other goalie.

This isn't Vezina (who did face insane volume) vs Benedict (who benefited greatly from Pete Green and Frank Nighbor) where you can point and say, yeah Benedict has better numbers, but part of that has to do with shot volume and defensive system in front of him. We can pretty clearly see Benedict simply didn't have the defensive troubles that Vezina did for many years. This is not the case in the west.

So the question becomes. How does the overwhelming best G (Lehman), routinely put up inferior numbers, on the strongest team, on paper, Vancouver? In some cases significantly worse numbers. At some point, you have to take a step back and say, let's dig deeper.

But as I said. I have no issue if Lehman were to go now. His resume is good enough at this juncture, IMHO.

Definitely interesting... but not enough to change my opinion on Lehman for now. His GAA being worse than Holmes' is one thing. The other thing is overwhelming media support of Lehman as THE goalie of the West. It's not just some Vancouver papers and one referee praising Lehman and giving him all-star nods. There were many other writers, newspapers, west and east, left and right, promoting Lehman. One Toronto newspaper, I believe, called Lehman best G in the world in 1915 for example.

Lehman's longevity, consistency, impact during his prime, innovative goaltending style and name power.. all of this makes him a clear top-100 player IMO.

Holmes was an excellent goalie too, it's Holmes who should be appearing at this stage of discussion but lord knows if participants even had him on their lists somewhere...

Problem is that plenty of people just forget about players/goalies who didn't follow "the Eastern North American way" - NHA and NHL. Goalies who spent at least part of their best years in PCHA, WHL, WCHL in 1910s-1920s, AHL in O6 era, Soviet league and Czechoslovak league 1970s-1980s etc. are frequently put into disadvantegous position of having "to prove themselves".

Lehman vs. Benedict is a discussion I'd like to see some time in the future.

 

[Sanf]

Why did Lehman get first team honors in 1015-16 despite finishing 3rd out of 4 in GAA (3.8), giving up a full goal more per game than the leader, Tom Murray (2.8) of Portland, a team that wasn't close to Vancouver in terms of talent. The only way you could conclude he was worthy of this, in a traditional AS panel, is if you could prove he faced far more shots than both Murray and Holmes, especially Murray. The Rosebuds literally won the PCHA going 13-5, went to the SCF and yet Lehman, on a team with a half dozen HOF'ers, finished 9-9 and he gets 1st team status? Doesn't add up.

This reminded me of one of the criticism from the time so I needed to go to my notes. I´m doubtful that being flashy was the reason of those selection, but I´m ready to see your case on it. Maybe already being established star may have helped Lehman at some pounts. But overall the selection for Lehman that year was rather unanimous.

A.P. Garvey (Sport editor of Vancouver World), Tommy Phillips (referee of PCHA), Mike Jay (Sports editor of Vancouver Sun), Jimmy Hewitt (Sports Editor of Vancouver province and as trivia uncle of Foster Hewitt) and Frank Patrick (President of PCHA) all selected Lehman as their All-Star goalkeeper of that season (various pointson on late season). Now this group is admitedly very Vancouver heavy (especially Garvey was rather homer ), but there are lots of hockey figures from the time from here.

Portland Oregon Daily also published All-Star selection in midway through the season. Lehman was their selection. This slighty underlines the fine start that not that well known goalies had.

The Oregon Daily Journal, January 16, 1916
There are some who dispute Lehman's claims to being the best goalkeeper in professional hockey, but the best way to decide this point is to figure up the average on past performances. McCulloch and Murray, the former of Victoria and the latter Portland's custodian, are two young fellows who are first coming to the front and they have performed in sensational style. Holmes appears overrated. In ranking goalkeepers he could not expect any better than fourth place in the coast league, at leaast, on what he has shown in the games to date.

This is comment from Lou Kennedy from Portland Telegram (who I would say was probably the leading hockey voice from the city) had this to say after the season during the All-Star game. (It was published also in Vancouver Sun)

The Vancouver Sun March 7 1916
...Carpenter and Cook putting up a great brand of defensive hockey, while Lehman was in good form, which means that he is the best in the league.

Very early at the next season newspaper from Spokane had this to say.

The Spokesman-Review December 19 1916
Hugh Lehman, who was the unanimous choice of hockey critics last season as all-star goalkeeper of the P.C.H.A is again with the Vancouver team. his sterling work in front of the has done much to keep the Millionares in front. Players say he is the hardest man in the league to shoot the puck by.

The Spokesman-Review December 22 1916
Young Tommy Murray is a remarkable goal keeper, ranking second only to Hugh Lehman of Vancouver.

And the thing that I write up that your post reminded me is this from Winnipeg Tribune where their sport writer gives critic for leaving Tom Murray our of the All-Star selections. (and again note that Murray was from Winnipeg.)

The Winnipeg Evening Tribune February 24 1916
JIMMY HEWITT is a well-known sport writer whose judgement is generally respected as being authorative, but I can hardly figure out his selection of first and second All Star Coast hockey teams. Jimmy has been witnessing Coast games for many years and should have a good line on the players, but it is hard to puzzle out why Tom Murray´s name was not mentioned in his selections. The Winnipeg youngster has the best goal record of any net-guardian in the Coast league. He showed his real class when he held Vancouver to 1 goal in two of the most important games of the series. Vancouver has the best goal-getters in the league. Hugh Lehman is classed as the greatest of all goal tenders, but it seems as if Murray deserves a place ahead of Holmes. Of course the selection are only myth and I am only writing from figures, but they are generally a substantial basis.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

These are the Norris/All-Star records I have for the defensemen available this round.

My criteria for inclusion is "at least 2 top 3 votes"

I'm bolding top 6 finishes.

I'm also showing the competition in the years when they finished top 4:
______

Marcel Pronovost: 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 11

1959: 1. Tom Johnson 2. Bill Gadsby 3. Marcel Pronovost 4. Doug Harvey (who missed a bunch of games)
1960: 1. Doug Harvey 2. Allan Stanley 3. Marcel Pronovost 4. Pierre Pilote
1961: 1. Doug Harvey 2. Marcel Pronovost 3. Allan Stanley 4. Pierre Pilote

My take: Pronovost looks like the next O6 defender we should add due to his long career of consistent recognition. But swapping 2nd and 3rd place finishes with Allan Stanley does not make his peak look very high. Pilote was still a a little removed from his peak - the 1961 playoffs were kind of his "coming out party." I think Pronovost is still a round or two away from being relevant to our list.

Guy Lapointe: 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6

1973: 1. Bobby Orr 2. Guy Lapointe 3. Bill White 4. Brad Park (who missed a bunch of games)
1975: 1. Bobby Orr 2. Denis Potvin 3. Guy Lapointe 4. Borje Salming
1976: 1. Denis Potvin 2. Brad Park 3. Borje Salming 4. Guy Lapointe
1977: 1. Larry Robinson 2. Borje Salming 3. Denis Potvin 4. Guy Lapointe

My take: Competition in 1973 was actually quite weak beyond Bobby's Orr, but that's a murderer's row of competition Lapointe was competing with in 1975-1977. Clearly the next best 1970s defender to be added. Is it time for him?

Rod Langway: 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 9, 10, 11

1983: 1. Rod Langway 2. Mark Howe 3. Ray Bourque 4. Doug Wilson
1984: 1. Rod Langway 2. Paul Coffey 3. Roy Bourque 4. Denis Potvin
1985: 1. Paul Coffey 2. Ray Bourque 3. Rod Langway 4. Doug Wilson

My take: Bourque wasn't fully in his prime yet, and Potvin wasn't fully in his prime anymore, so I don't think this competition is nearly as strong as what Lapointe saw. Still, it's a very impressive 3-year period in terms of awards recognition. I'm sure we all have our own opinions by now on whether Langway "deserved" those votes or if there was a "reactionary" element involved (Randy Carlyle and Doug Wilson had just won back-to-back Norrises on the strength of their offensive numbers, and Paul Coffey was emerging). For a short-peak defender, I just wish Langway's playoff record was better.

Scott Niedermayer: 1, 2, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12

2004: 1. Scott Niedermayer 2. Zdeno Chara 3. Chris Pronger 4. Bryan McCabe
2006: 1. Nicklas Lidstrom 2. Scott Niedermayer 3. Sergei Zubov 4. Zdeno Chara
2007: 1. Nicklas Lidstrom 2. Scott Niedermayer 3. Chris Pronger 4. Dan Boyle

My take: One way to look at it: In a Canada-only (or North America only) league, does Niedermayer win 3 Norrises? On the other hand, when Bryan McCabe and Dan Boyle sneak into the top 4, overall competition is definitely not at an all-time high. Niedermayer, with his short peak straddling the 2005 work stopping could be the player whose awards record was most screwed by the NHL's labor stoppages.

______________

I had Niedermayer very slightly over Lapointe heading into this round. Looking at their records this way, I might reverse that. I do think Niedermayer has the best playoff record of any defenseman this round, but is it enough to rank him over Lapointe, who also has a good playoff record?

 

[Professor What]

I'm still far from set in my vote, but as someone else already said in this thread, I think there are going to be a lot of defensemen and goalies on my list. I really like the competitive feel that this group of players has. There are a lot of interesting comparisons to be made here. I just wish I had more to contribute in the case of Lehman since I still perhaps find him the most intriguing player.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I will never understand this notion. Ever.

Vezina and Benedict are both top 12 goalies all time for most people. We're talking easy top 100 players all time. They ruled the East for years. There is no combination out West that can match that. And I have yet to see any group of goalies in the West that can bridge the gap collectively against Vezina/Benedict who were the 2 best goalies, in the world, for the bulk of the 1910's and early/mid 20's. Lehman and Holmes cannot compete.

You also had Paddy Moran, HOF'er in the east for years. Percy LeSuer, HOF'er, in the east for years. By the early 20's you also had John Ross Roach in the east.

I think the NHA and PCHA were very evenly matched for most of their existence but goal tending peak/depth is not an area of equal talent or all time resume.

What am I missing?

You try and go after Lehman was playing on a stacked roster....the Sens during the 20s were probably the best team ever at that point in history. If Benedict doesn't play on those Sens I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have dominated the 20s.

Benedict in the 20s: Nighbor, Denenny, Broadbent, Gerrard, Boucher
Lehman in the 20s: Adams, MacKay, Cook, Duncan, Harris, young F.Boucher

Edit: They also were coached by Pete Green who you're very familiar with IE. I think Frank Patrick was a pretty good coach and innovative, but you'd react violently if I suggested Green and Patrick were of similar quality as a HC.

Lehman won with the best team the Millionaires ever had in 1915 over Benedict on a Sens team without Nighbor.

I think contemporary opinions on Benedict are muddied by his playing style "Praying Benny" because he always fell accidentally to his knees to save shots (something not allowed at the time)

This project is going to make it look like a chasm exists between the two of them and I'm not sure how justified that is based on the historical record.

 

[ResilientBeast]

My list is basically done. I have.
1. Hugh Lehman
2. Rod Langway
3. John Bucyk
4. Adam Oates
5. Gilbert Perreault
6. Tiny Thompson
7. Paul Kariya
8. Guy Lapointe
9. Marcel Pronovost
10. George Hainsworth

I have Bucyk way down the list. I can't have him over Kariya and Bentley

Those two were the best or second best offensive players on their own teams for most of their career.

Bucyk is 3rd at best and before Orr would not rank of this list at all.

Edit: I also think Thompson is too high.

Double Edit: Tommy Phillips ahead of Bucyk too

 

[Professor What]

I have Bucyk way down the list. I can't have him over Kariya and Bentley

Those two were the best or second best offensive players on their own teams for most of their career.

Bucyk is 3rd at best and before Orr would not rank of this list at all.

Edit: I also think Thompson is too high.

Double Edit: Tommy Phillips ahead of Bucyk too

I'm high on Phillips, so I definitely have him ahead. I don't know exactly what I'm going to do with Kariya, but he's ahead. And as I said, I'm going to have a lot of defensemen and goalies on my list. I suspect Bucyk doesn't make my ballot this time.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'm high on Phillips, so I definitely have him ahead. I don't know exactly what I'm going to do with Kariya, but he's ahead. And as I said, I'm going to have a lot of defensemen and goalies on my list. I suspect Bucyk doesn't make my ballot this time.

I sketched it out for now I don't really have room for any goalie outside of Lehman #1

Phillips and Stuart I think probably need to be reasonably close to one another, but Stuart has some pretty stiff competition this round since the D field are all on pretty even footing. I'm having a hard time not ranking the D back to back to back to back in the middle of the list.

 

[DN28]

Players I like the most from this week's group:

Hugh Lehman. Yesterday I started writing a post about all the Western and Eastern all-star teams to show how consistently Lehman had been appearing on those lists. But since Lehman's career lasted so insanely long I hadn't even finished it. Oh well, maybe next time.. Anyway, Lehman wasn't PCHA all-star just because Mickey Ion was putting him on his lists, Lehman's support was widespread from writers, coaches, players etc. Steadily a top 4, usually even top 3 or 2, goalie in hockey from at least 1912 to 1924. Besides his prime, Lehman played three different leagues from 1904 to 1911. I don't have much information about this period other than Lehman was one of the most seeked out goalies in the business. Senators wanted him to replace LeSueur, then Patricks came with the formation of PCHA and offered Lehman higher salary. Later, Lehman even joined the NHL at the age of 41. His two NHL seasons (1927, 1928) doesn't seem very special but here's one trivia for you: Lehman became the oldest goaltender to win his first NHL game at 41 years 21 days. This record was broken almost century later on February 22, 2020 by David Ayres who at 42 years, 194 days came into a game as an emergency backup goaltender for the Carolina Hurricanes against the Leafs. Hugh Lehman was 5 years older than Russell Bowie, a legend who was done with hockey in 1910.

Hod Stuart & Tommy Phillips. Giants of 1900s hockey. Pioneers. Current list is still very thin on older, pre-WW2 hockey players in general.

Tiny Thompson & George Hainsworth. Goalies that were also more dominant at their positions than the remaining eligible skaters which is why they deserve a spot on our final list more than guys like Perreault, Bentley or Lapointe, Langway, Niedermayer. Thompson was basically a top 4 goalie in already consolidated NHL for a decade straight. In addition to his strong AST record of the 1930s, Thompson was a 1st teamer in 1930' GMs unofficial all-star voting. Has a retro Smythe for his 1929 run... Hainsworth has slightly worse all-star G voting record than Thompson but he still was a mainstay, a reliable goalkeeper for many many years. Hainsworth also has retro Smythe for 1930 playoffs. Recently gathered unofficial GMs voting ASTs for 1927-1930 should move Hainsworth up the ladder. 1st teamer in 1927, 2nd teamer in 1928 and 1929. Hainsworth was of course the WHL 1st teamer in 1926, and had a long career before he even joined the NHL.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Organized some old THNs this morning and flipped through some of the 2003 issues looking for last minute things on Oates, Kariya, and Niedermayer. Some casual mentions of Niedermayer being the best player in the 2003 Finals and along with Keith Carney being on the 2003 playoff All-Star Team. Fun write-up about how Oates and Kariya were friends before they were teammates.

A lot of talk in the 2007 Stanley Cup issue about Alfredsson shooting the puck at Niedermayer and Pronger elbowing McAmmond. They also referenced Sami Pahlsson as “Niedermayer’s closest competition for the Conn Smythe” despite having ranked Giguere, Pronger, and Getzlaf (in order) as the Ducks’ Conn Smythe favorites going into the Finals. Not saying Niedermayer wasn’t great, but there was a vibe of maybe not necessarily glorifying the non-violent players but undercutting the less-professional ones.

Kariya was referenced as having the best skating ability on 2002 Canada. Much was made about him being available for this tournament after missing the 1996 World Cup and 1998 Olympics, and he was profiled as one of the “10 players to watch” in the tournament.

In grading Team Canada’s performance, Scott Niedermayer (A) ranked third behind Adam Foote (A+) and Joe Sakic (A+) while Paul Kariya ranked ninth (B+). I don’t know that we hear too much about the Niedermayer-Foote pairing (American defensemen got a lot of attention that year), but THN definitely highlighted it. So as much as Niedermayer’s awards resume feels kinda meh between 1999-2002, he at least got some positive attention in his best-on-best appearance.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is where I'm at now:

Three must-adds:

1. Hugh Lehman - easy #1 for reasons stated earlier in this thread. Really highly thought of by basically everyone who watched him play, great longevity, etc.

2. Gilbert Perreault - I think he should have gone last round. Everything said about Bure by people who watched Bure play was said about Perreault by people who watched him play AND Perreault's longevity is actually pretty good. Tremendous star power. This is what I said last time: "good peak, good longevity, tremendous star power, very visually appealing, absolutely fantastic player in Best-on-Best international play. Really good string of All-Star consideration: 1972: 4th (behind Esposito, Ratelle, Clarke), 1973: 3rd (Esposito, Clarke), 1974: injuries, 1975: 3rd (Clarke, Esposito), 1976: 2nd (Clarke), 1977: 2nd (Dionne). He was also 3rd behind Dionne and rookie Gretzky in 1980. Career similar to what I picture Bure having if Bure stayed healthy (and was a center)."

3. Doug Bentley - Another guy who probably should have gone last time. This is what I said about him: "If his playoff record was as good as his brother's he'd be on our list already. Only a handful of star forwards had left for WW2 when he led the league in points in 1943. He followed it up with another strong year in 1944 against really war weakened competition. But it should be noted that Doug Bentley himself missed 1.5 years due to the war (1945 and half of 1946), so effectively missing 2 seasons of being able to finish near the top of the season end rankings. I like his versatility - before he left for the war, he was a LW who led the league in goals in 1943 and 1944. After he came back, he moved to C and led the league in assists in 1948 and 1949. And he was praised for his backchecking."

Next bunch (no particular order):

Scott Niedermayer - 3 really elite seasons, could have been 4 without the 2005 lockout? Excellent playoff resume.

Adam Oates - Not as much star-power as some, but the best straight up point-producer available this round. Made his linemates better - Would Brett Hull be as high on our list without Oates? Would Neely be in the HHOF without Oates?

Mike Modano - Didn't peak like Datsyuk (edit: Who was added last week), but was he better in his 3rd, 4th, 5th seasons? I give him lots of credit for playing on-par with Yzerman/Fedorov/Sakic/Forsberg when it mattered most.

Guy Lapointe - Best string of regular seasons by any defenseman left. Good in the playoffs too, even if he wasn't dominating plus/minus numbers to the extent of Savard or Robinson. Best special teams defenseman left? He was a big part of both Montreal's #1 PK and #1 PP.

Tommy Phillips - I like him better than Hod Stuart, because he contributed a lot to winning teams.

George Hainsworth - I like him a little better than Thompson, because his playoff record is better. While his longevity as a good player was excellent, I don't think he had the sustained period of excellence of someone like Lehman - after his peak in the late 1920s, he struggled to get on the NHL All-Star team again.

A little too soon:

Rod Langway - Great peak, but dropped off fairly young. He is well behind Niedermayer and Lapointe in the playoffs. I realize that others feel differently.

Hod Stuart - I have him behind Tommy Phillips because his teams generally did poorly, even in weak leagues. I just wish that arguably "the best player in the world" in a weak talent pool could make more of a difference than that, at a time when players played the full 60 minutes.

Tiny Thompson - I have him behind Hainsworth because of playoffs. Thompson had the one great run, but was otherwise part of a generally underachieving Bruins team. He was only able to capture a 1st Team All-Star against weak competition - 1930, when Hainsworth and Worters were a bit on the decline and Gardiner hadn't emerged yet - and 1936 after Gardiner died when Wilf Cude was the 2nd Teamer

Paul Kariya - At this point, I realize I'm lower on "dead puck era" stars than most. But his regular season prime is fairly average compared to the guys available this round, and that's all he has.

Johnny Bucyk - Very good player for a long time, who looked like a great one on the Bobby Orr/Phil Esposito power play.

Marcel Pronovost - The next O6 defenseman to be added; I just can't put him at the level of Niedermayer or Lapointe, not when his peak looks at least somewhat weaker than their's.