Convince me that goaltending was bad in the 1980s

[Iain Fyffe]

One claim I've seen a lot of people make is that goaltending was just not very good in the 1980s, especially early in the decade, and that's one reason why scoring was higher in that decade. If you're someone who believes this is true, could you make a case for it?

Average NHL save percentages were in the .870s in the 80s, with a slight uptick at the end of the decade, and then in the .880s in the first half of the 90s and in the .890s and then .900s in the last half of the 90s. So something clearly changed between the 80s and the 90s. Goaltending being relatively bad in the 80s would help to explain this fact.

But save percentages were also higher before the 80s. Post-expansion, average save percentages were over .900 until 72/73, when they dipped into the .890s and continued dropping slightly into the .880s by the late 70s. There was a general trend of an increase in the number of power-play opportunities, but the power-play success rate increased more significantly (peaking at an average of 23% in 1981/82) than the rate of opportunities, so it certainly wasn't just more power-plays, since each power play was more likely to produce a goal as well.

So my first question is: if goaltending was just bad in 80s, it seems it was better in the 80s, so what caused that change? Things like improved equipment and coaching are often credited for the apparent improvement in the 90s, but there was no degradation of equipment or coaching going into the 80s to explain it in the opposite direction.

So I'm currently agnostic toward the claim that goaltending was just bad in the 80s. Can anyone convince me that the claim is true?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it was mostly due to the changing tactics of the game - lots more odd man rushes and the like.

But one bit of evidence in favor of the theory that overall, goaltending wasn't great in the 1980s - no goalie between Dryden/Esposito and Roy was able to be consistently on top of the league, either from an awards standpoint or by a statistical standpoint. Looking at the 1st/2nd Team All Stars or save percentage leaders, you are struck by how few of them managed to stay near the top for very long

 

[johan f]

Goaltending was not bad in the 80s. One can watch games and see alot of good saves. Most highlightreels on youtube contents goals. That is not a fair view.

Every era had it's line of development. In late 70s and to 80s the creative offensive game flourished while defense still not had come to a system. Goalies were left to dry which forces goalies to secondguess a lot and lose position.

To say goaltending was not good in the 80s is as logical as stating players skated bad in the past or slalomskiiers were slower in the past. The evolution of the game is natural. No need to single out goalies in the 80s as being lesser.

 

[The Panther]

I agree with TheDevilMadeMe. Goaltending obviously didn't suddenly get worse in the mid-70s/early-80s as opposed to 10 years earlier (is that even possible?), but rather the dominant style of play changed.

The late-70s to early-80s was a unique time in N.A. pro-hockey, when

(a) players got younger, and more young players were dominant for the first time
(b) European-influenced hockey (puck control, stickhandling, fast-passing, creativity on offense) became a major factor for the first time
(c) NHL/WHA expansion and collapses were at times messy, which led to players moving around more and less stable teams/systems

Around the mid-80s, these influences started leveling-off, and by the early-90s they were a non-factor completely (or, if you like, they'd been accepted and 'normalized' into the everyday fabric of the sport).

To point (a), consider the first pro 18-year-olds signed by the WHA, and then the 18 year olds entering the NHL draft. You've got American college students knocking off the Soviet national team at the Olympics, and 18/19-year-old Gretzky beating Lafleur in scoring (and setting the all-time points record at 19/20). All of this would have been unthinkable (also legally impossible) 10-15 years earlier. If you look at NHL team rosters in the early 80s, a lot of teams were young. Edmonton's rapid success with a youth-oriented roster influenced other teams as well. Edmonton's 1980-81 team was really young -- at the start of the season, 5 of the top 6 scorers were aged 19 to 21 -- and they knocked off Montreal in the playoffs. The following season (when they began to dominate the League), at the start of the season their top 5 guys were all 19 or 20 years old. Other teams like the North Stars followed in this direction. It tends to be the case that younger players play less defense, and take more risks. This would result in more odd-man rushes, breakaways, and general scoring opportunities against the goaltenders of the early-80s.

To point (b), the creativity of younger players -- the Gretzky-generation, if you like, that was the first N.A. one to be influenced by Soviets and Swedes -- was probably creating more offensive chances and challenging veteran defenders (and goalies) in ways previously not seen. This also hurt goaltenders' numbers, in general.

To point (c), unstable franchises created (and were result of) poor management by team-owners and the NHL/WHA. It's perhaps a lesser factor, but this instability led to large-scale coaching changes, bad drafting and F.A. signing, short-cut solutions rather than long-term planning. All of that leads to worse 'systems' on the ice, which leads to worse team defense and goaltending.


Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[sr edler]

is that even possible?

Yeah, of course it's possible. All development, talentpools and affecting factors in society and sports aren't inherently linear.

Life sometimes is whimmy.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, of course it's possible. All development, talentpools and affecting factors in society and sports aren't inherently linear.

Life sometimes is whimmy.

I agree that development of different aspects of the game is not always linear. For example, for reasons outlined in my post above, 'offense' in general became more developed from the mid-70s through mid-80s than did goaltending. It took a few more years for goaltending to catch up.

But that doesn't mean that the development of goaltending wasn't linear. Grant Fuhr and Bill Smith and Tom Barrasso were still better than Tony Esposito and Gerry Cheevers, regardless of save percentage. And Esposito and Cheevers were better than the guys before them. And the guys before them were better than the guys before them, and so on.

The improvements in players at given positions, etc., does not always occur at the same time/rate as that of other positions, but the improvement is always occurring, quickly or (usually) gradually.

 

[Sentinel]

I always thought that forwards and offensive systems, on average, started getting better in the late 70s. It took a few years for goaltending to catch up.

 

[Rebels57]

The style of play and ability of the forwards advanced too quickly and the goaltending didn't catch up until the 90s, starting with larger equipment and the increase in popularity of the butterfly style. It's going to be a constant chess match between offense and goaltenders for as long as hockey exists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree that development of different aspects of the game is not always linear. For example, for reasons outlined in my post above, 'offense' in general became more developed from the mid-70s through mid-80s than did goaltending. It took a few more years for goaltending to catch up.

But that doesn't mean that the development of goaltending wasn't linear. Grant Fuhr and Bill Smith and Tom Barrasso were still better than Tony Esposito and Gerry Cheevers, regardless of save percentage. And Esposito and Cheevers were better than the guys before them. And the guys before them were better than the guys before them, and so on.

The improvements in players at given positions, etc., does not always occur at the same time/rate as that of other positions, but the improvement is always occurring, quickly or (usually) gradually.

I find it awfully hard to believe that Fuhr, Smith, and Barrasso were better than Esposito. Espo even played the butterfly!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Two Goalie System

Goaltending was not bad in the 1980s, simply it had not matured to accommodate the two goalie system introduced in the 1960s, throughout the NHL, minor and developmental hockey.

Goalies were entering the NHL - example Tom Barrasso having played a fraction of the games against elite competition that a Jacques Plante or Tony Esposito did as rookies.They lacked experience, lacked the endurance to play 60-70 games in a season. Check Patrick Roy's GP, first five or six seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/roypa01.html

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think a lot of it had to do with the plays suddenly becoming a lot more European style on offense and going east-west.

Goalies weren't bad in the 80s. Things were just changing. There was a lot of net to cover with the relatively poor equipment goalies had at the time. In the later part of the 80s-early 90s equipment advances enabled the butterfly to become a style (rather than a save) in response to all the east-west play in the zone.

Just my opinion.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I think it was mostly due to the changing tactics of the game - lots more odd man rushes and the like.

But one bit of evidence in favor of the theory that overall, goaltending wasn't great in the 1980s - no goalie between Dryden/Esposito and Roy was able to be consistently on top of the league, either from an awards standpoint or by a statistical standpoint. Looking at the 1st/2nd Team All Stars or save percentage leaders, you are struck by how few of them managed to stay near the top for very long

I'm inclined to agree that tactics and style of play explain a great deal, but I want to remain open-minded about the possibility that goaltending did get worse, since no one seems to suggest that goaltending in the 70s was bad.

As for no goalies being consistently at the top, that's at least something of an argument. But does it hold any water? In the 70s there was certainly more consistency in, say, the top three in All-Star voting at goal than there was in the early 80s. For instance, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, none of the top three goalies were among the top three the season before. The problem with that is, the same things happened in 2009, 2010 and 2011. In fact, in the last seven seasons there have only been two repeaters in the top three (Rinne in 2012 and Lundquist in 2013). And I don't think anyone would argue this means that goaltending is not very good right now.

Moreover, the effect that one or two individuals can have on league-wide numbers is very small. Take Patrick Roy's numbers out of the 1989/90 league totals, and the average save percentage goes from .8892 to .8885, a swing of .0007 when we're trying to explain swings of 40+ times that magnitude.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Goalies were entering the NHL - example Tom Barrasso having played a fraction of the games against elite competition that a Jacques Plante or Tony Esposito did as rookies.They lacked experience, lacked the endurance to play 60-70 games in a season. Check Patrick Roy's GP, first five or six seasons.

I'm not sure this makes sense. Just because goalies did not play 60-70 games does not mean they couldn't have. But it wasn't up to them, it was up to the coaches. Roy's not a great example if you're trying to make this case, because Brian Hayward put up some very good numbers as his backup, and though he was presumably facing somewhat weaker competition, the degree of difference in performance between starter and backup has a clear effect on how much the backup plays.

 

[Theokritos]

I'm not sure this makes sense. Just because goalies did not play 60-70 games does not mean they couldn't have. But it wasn't up to them, it was up to the coaches.

Experience against elite competition respectively lack of that experience looks like a reasonable factor to me, regardless of who it was up to.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Experience against elite competition respectively lack of that experience looks like a reasonable factor to me, regardless of who it was up to.

I still don't follow the argument. Tom Barrasso had two of the best goalie seasons of the early 80s in his rookie and sophomore years, when he 18 to 20 years old. Starters generally play against the better teams, and backups against the worse teams, so while the starters might not have been playing the minutes they do now, presumably the proportion of good teams they faced was actually higher.

 

[Sens Rule]

I agree that development of different aspects of the game is not always linear. For example, for reasons outlined in my post above, 'offense' in general became more developed from the mid-70s through mid-80s than did goaltending. It took a few more years for goaltending to catch up.

But that doesn't mean that the development of goaltending wasn't linear. Grant Fuhr and Bill Smith and Tom Barrasso were still better than Tony Esposito and Gerry Cheevers, regardless of save percentage. And Esposito and Cheevers were better than the guys before them. And the guys before them were better than the guys before them, and so on.

The improvements in players at given positions, etc., does not always occur at the same time/rate as that of other positions, but the improvement is always occurring, quickly or (usually) gradually.

I disagree that development was strictly linear. Was the next generation after Plante, Hall and Sawchuk really better? Very old versions of all of them did quite well.
I don't think anyone now is better then Roy, Belfour and certainly Hasek.

Do you really think Fuhr, Barrasso and those 80's, early 90's goalies are better then Parent?

I think that maybe the biggest things that saw weaker goaltending is the splitting of time and the expansion to 32 teams by the WHA peak era....

You go from having SIX goalies in 1960 in the NHL to a few more when teams started to play two guys, to 24 in 1967, to 30 or so before the WHA, to 64 in the peak WHA time... Then the WHA is gone and you have about 21 teams. A few European goalies, but still largely North Anerican.

No position is more affected by expansion then goalies. You end up with a lot of weaker goalies. And then due to equipment not being as big, you needed even more talent to be a top pro goalie.

You could argue the number of top pro goalie positions increased 10 fold in only a dozen years.

Now there are 60 jobs, but so many higher level goalies. Because it has been stable for so long, you have a massive amount of talent and not a dearth of it.

As the OP descibed... The sv pct dips to .880 in the mid 70's and only really rises by the start of the Roy era in Montreal. By 1990 sv pct is similar to what it was in about 1970... By the mid 90's we probably get the kind of quality talent level more similar to the Original 6. Took a long time for the talent level to fill in 60 spots instead of 6/8 spots.

Equipment really then pushed sv pct to the .920/.930 levels.

 

[Theokritos]

Tom Barrasso had two of the best goalie seasons of the early 80s in his rookie and sophomore years, when he 18 to 20 years old.

Okay, that's one example. Are the more?

Starters generally play against the better teams, and backups against the worse teams, so while the starters might not have been playing the minutes they do now, presumably the proportion of good teams they faced was actually higher.

Why would that be?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Okay, that's one example. Are the more?

I can't be sure that I can provide any examples, because I don't understand the argument. Can you lay it out for me?

Why would that be?

Because a starter playing 70 games, including almost all games against the good teams, will play a lower proportion of games against good teams as a starter playing 50 games, including almost all games against the good teams. The games against good teams don't change, but the former plays more of the games against the poorer teams which the backup might otherwise play.

But the Roy example isn't really fair either, because while he personally didn't play 60+ games until later in his career, the number of goalies playing 60+ games each season didn't really change in the 80s compared to the late 70s.

 

[Theokritos]

I can't be sure that I can provide any examples, because I don't understand the argument. Can you lay it out for me?

Sure. I thought Barrasso was brought up as an example of someone who was excellent early on despite lacking experience against elite competition, so that's what I was aiming at.

Because a starter playing 70 games, including almost all games against the good teams, will play a lower proportion of games against good teams as a starter playing 50 games, including almost all games against the good teams. The games against good teams don't change, but the former plays more of the games against the poorer teams which the backup might otherwise play.

Okay, understood now.

 

[seventieslord]

Do you really think Fuhr, Barrasso and those 80's, early 90's goalies are better then Parent?

I assume he means better in the strict "time machine" sense, and not greater as in "more dominant in their time". It's still not a great case to make considering their primes were just ten years apart, but it at least makes sense.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I wonder when people stopped scoring goals a la Guy Lafleur on a regular basis (slapshot from the wing)?

In a lot of Gretzky goals, even though his slapshots were superb, I doubt they would go in today hence I doubt he would try that option.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think a lot of it had to do with the plays suddenly becoming a lot more European style on offense and going east-west.

Goalies weren't bad in the 80s. Things were just changing. There was a lot of net to cover with the relatively poor equipment goalies had at the time. In the later part of the 80s-early 90s equipment advances enabled the butterfly to become a style (rather than a save) in response to all the east-west play in the zone.

Just my opinion.

I agree with a lot here and as for goaltending getting "better" later in the 80's then more in the 90's until today it is one area where it's pretty clear that the influx of new talent streams had a huge affect on goaltenders in the NHL.

That and along with coaching/style and equipment influences.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I wonder when people stopped scoring goals a la Guy Lafleur on a regular basis (slapshot from the wing)?

In a lot of Gretzky goals, even though his slapshots were superb, I doubt they would go in today hence I doubt he would try that option.

One would need to back and watch game film but by the mid 90's that type of goal was a lot more rare with equipment and style changes.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I would pay a lot of money to watch a legitimate competitive game of today's player in 70s/80s equipment, goalies included.

We would see if today's goalies start to get beat by shots a la Lafleur on a more regular basis.

 

[Theokritos]

I would pay a lot of money to watch a legitimate competitive game of today's player in 70s/80s equipment, goalies included.

We would see if today's goalies start to get beat by shots a la Lafleur on a more regular basis.

Now that they are doing outdoor games every season, why not this? That's what I would call a heritage game.