HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[BanditKeith99]

mike richter???

 

[bigbuffalo313]

That's redicoulous man. The team he is on right now has excellent depth and no excuses.

After the trade deadline, before that the team had no reason being near the playoffs

 

[Pominville Knows]

And can the same not be said of Luongo to an even greater degree?

Of course. And looking back it also is true that the Rangers with Lundqvist in net really has had nothing to be vastly embarrassed about in the play-offs considering their respective rosters trough the years.
Lundqvist is a winner, Luongo probably not as much although i would not exactly be surprised if he starts in Sochi and i believe he could take Canada to a second straight gold medal. Mainly becouse his skaters obviously is top of the games, but still. A little bit like Osgood at the NHL-level then perhaps lol.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Of course. And looking back it also is true that the Rangers with Lundqvist in net really has had nothing to be vastly embarrassed about in the play-offs considering their respective rosters trough the years.
Lundqvist is a winner, Luongo probably not as much although i would not exactly be surprised if he starts in Sochi and i believe he could take Canada to a second straight gold medal. Mainly becouse his skaters obviously is top of the games, but still. A little bit like Osgood at the NHL-level then perhaps lol.

The last time the Olympics were on international size ice, Canada didn't do so well.

 

[Pominville Knows]

The last time the Olympics were on international size ice, Canada didn't do so well.

Yeah but then again they won in 2002. Mysterious, no?

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Yeah but then again they won in 2002. Mysterious, no?

Different teams

 

[Crosbyfan]

Okay let's be fair about it. Why would an O6 goalie want to execute a perfect butterfly?. The pads are easily 15-17 pounds heavier so the fatigue factor over 60 minutes, 70 games has to enter the picture.. He is giving away the backhand and east-west game. So why does a skill that makes him a weaker goalie important?

Not to mention the fact that goalies had to defend their unprotected head, and not use it to cover part of the net...

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Here's the big difference though...
Luongo stands out when he was on bad teams but he hasn't stood out much on good ones.
Lundqvist on the other hand has stood out in either case.

Great goalies make bad teams good and good teams great. Luongo has only managed the former.

whoa, i readily admit luongo is a flawed player with some pretty low moments in his career, but...

i guess i must have homerically dreamt luongo's two third team all-stars and a jennings on 100 point canuck teams, and him taking a team that refused to score in the finals to game seven on the back of his two shutouts.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Well, you didn't bother arguing when everyone else was putting together well-reasoned and sound arguments. And you probably haven't read those well-reasoned and sound arguments, either.

So I wouldn't expect that you'd bother at this point.

Seriously - we worked our ***** off for this. Don't come in here and piss all over it with flippant remarks.

How about:

It is a laudable, but sadly extremely flawed effort.

Edit: you'd probably get different goalies for each of the past few decades, with Roy, Hasek and Brodeur all taking turns at #1.

There is no one who saw Vezina play. You are just voting for a name. That goes for 3 of your top 6.

If you wanted to do something, compare all of the goalies from 18xx-1970 , compare goalies from 1970-1980s, compare goalies from 1980-1990, 1990-2003 and 2003-present.

Trying to compare them straight up is such apples and oranges that Peter Budaj with his improved technique would likely top your list if we transported him back in time.

Nobody has seen the first group play, few have seen the second group - and separating the rest out wouldn't make names like 'Tim Thomas' and 'Mikka Kiprosoff' jump out as quite so ludicrous on an all-time goalie sheet.

As someone who watched Mike Liut play and liked him alot, I chuckle that he's on this list.

Nice try guys - but carting your scientific poll of best goalies out in an argument is pretty weak.

 

[billingtons ghost]

mike richter???

As a Devils fan who hates the Rangers with <insert metaphor here - white hot thousand suns, etc...>

I still have nightmares about Mike Richter.

It would be close between him and Hank, but I think Richter is more likely to steal a game, and he didn't have the benefit of collapsing defense, nor even defensemen who actually played defense.

 

[Doctor No]

You're free to your opinions.

However - saying that you can't reasonably vote on players whom you didn't experience firsthand AUTOMATICALLY means that you can't do any sort of "all time" voting.

Since you knew that, and came into the thread anyhow, then I'm not sure why you're surprised at what you ended up seeing.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How about:

It is a laudable, but sadly extremely flawed effort.

Edit: you'd probably get different goalies for each of the past few decades, with Roy, Hasek and Brodeur all taking turns at #1.

There is no one who saw Vezina play. You are just voting for a name. That goes for 3 of your top 6.

If you wanted to do something, compare all of the goalies from 18xx-1970 , compare goalies from 1970-1980s, compare goalies from 1980-1990, 1990-2003 and 2003-present.

Trying to compare them straight up is such apples and oranges that Peter Budaj with his improved technique would likely top your list if we transported him back in time.

Nobody has seen the first group play, few have seen the second group - and separating the rest out wouldn't make names like 'Tim Thomas' and 'Mikka Kiprosoff' jump out as quite so ludicrous on an all-time goalie sheet.

As someone who watched Mike Liut play and liked him alot, I chuckle that he's on this list.

Nice try guys - but carting your scientific poll of best goalies out in an argument is pretty weak.

Thank you for your excellent input.

 

[Doctor No]

There is no one who saw Vezina play. You are just voting for a name. That goes for 3 of your top 6.

I didn't fully catch this the first time.

You do realize that, just because you never saw Sawchuk, Hall, or Plante play first-hand, that doesn't *necessarily* mean that none of the voters in the effort never saw them play?

 

[billingtons ghost]

You're free to your opinions.

However - saying that you can't reasonably vote on players whom you didn't experience firsthand AUTOMATICALLY means that you can't do any sort of "all time" voting.

Since you knew that, and came into the thread anyhow, then I'm not sure why you're surprised at what you ended up seeing.

I'm not surprised - I'm just surprised that people are holding the results up as something to be considered valid - because the approach is so flawed.

It cuts both ways. Brodeur had a good night, so he'd bounce up the list today. If he let in a few softies, he'd go down.

Roy has no such worries, but at least has some folks remembering when he made a great save, or when he let in a softie or went ballistic.

Vezina has nothing to recommend him but his name and some numbers.

In twenty years, if your poll is taken again, Marty will likely be at the top based solely on the strength of numbers - the same way Barry Bonds might get a bump.

 

[Doctor No]

Thank you for your excellent input.

 

[unknown33]

In twenty years, if your poll is taken again, Marty will likely be at the top based solely on the strength of numbers - the same way Barry Bonds might get a bump.

You didn't even read a single word of the discussion thread or argument, did you?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I'm not surprised - I'm just surprised that people are holding the results up as something to be considered valid - because the approach is so flawed.

It cuts both ways. Brodeur had a good night, so he'd bounce up the list today. If he let in a few softies, he'd go down.

Roy has no such worries, but at least has some folks remembering when he made a great save, or when he let in a softie or went ballistic.

Vezina has nothing to recommend him but his name and some numbers.

In twenty years, if your poll is taken again, Marty will likely be at the top based solely on the strength of numbers - the same way Barry Bonds might get a bump.

Brodeur could be the worst goalie in the league this year and I don't think it'd affect his spot, it wouldn't have mattered to me at least. (See the effect Mark Messier's Vanouver years just had in the Top Centers project)

People DID watch Vezina play, some of them have been recognized by the Hall of Fame for their contributions to hockey. The "numbers" say Vezina was worse than Benedict, something this group disagreed with.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I didn't fully catch this the first time.

You do realize that, just because you never saw Sawchuk, Hall, or Plante play first-hand, that doesn't *necessarily* mean that none of the voters in the effort never saw them play?

lol.

Uh, maybe you want to look to see that Vezina DIED in 1926.

That means NOBODY on this board saw him play, and NOBODY on this board saw a highlight of him play and I would be surprised if you could even gin up a grainy, blurry photo of him in action.

Plante, Hall, Sawchuk might have had someone see something other than a grainy highlight on ESPN history night.

That's opposed to say, someone like myself who has seen maybe 80+ games a year for the past 30+ years, and got a pretty good look at Brodeur, Lundqvist, Hasek, Roy, etc...

 

[Doctor No]

lol.

Uh, maybe you want to look to see that Vezina DIED in 1926.

That means NOBODY on this board saw him play, and NOBODY on this board saw a highlight of him play and I would be surprised if you could even gin up a grainy, blurry photo of him in action.

Plante, Hall, Sawchuk might have had someone see something other than a grainy highlight on ESPN history night.

That's opposed to say, someone like myself who has seen maybe 80+ games a year for the past 30+ years, and got a pretty good look at Brodeur, Lundqvist, Hasek, Roy, etc...

Vezina's one of the top six? You said "three of the top six".

Glad to see that you're really looking under the hood of the car here with your eagle eyes. Thank you for your excellent input.

 

[billingtons ghost]

You didn't even read a single word of the discussion thread or argument, did you?

No, I did, actually. There's *alot* of good stuff there, and if just broken down and applied the right way it probably would lead to very good lists of goaltenders.

 

[Doctor No]

No, I did, actually. There's *alot* of good stuff there, and if just broken down and applied the right way it probably would lead to very good lists of goaltenders.

We're looking forward to your insights the next time we update the goaltender poll. Thank you for your excellent input.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That's opposed to say, someone like myself who has seen maybe 80+ games a year for the past 30+ years, and got a pretty good look at Brodeur, Lundqvist, Hasek, Roy, etc...

Maybe skip a few games this year and take an etiquette class...

 

[billingtons ghost]

Vezina's one of the top six? You said "three of the top six".

Glad to see that you're really looking under the hood of the car here with your eagle eyes. Thank you for your excellent input.

sorry - no, I just brought up Vezina because I saw him on the list and it was to my point.

You're right about alot of the goaltenders - and you guys did a good job... it's just an inevitable evil of comparing players from different eras (as plenty of folks pointed out during the process).

 

[seventieslord]

lol.

Uh, maybe you want to look to see that Vezina DIED in 1926.

That means NOBODY on this board saw him play, and NOBODY on this board saw a highlight of him play and I would be surprised if you could even gin up a grainy, blurry photo of him in action.

Plante, Hall, Sawchuk might have had someone see something other than a grainy highlight on ESPN history night.

That's opposed to say, someone like myself who has seen maybe 80+ games a year for the past 30+ years, and got a pretty good look at Brodeur, Lundqvist, Hasek, Roy, etc...

Good point. Wait... what's your point?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Flawed

I'm not surprised - I'm just surprised that people are holding the results up as something to be considered valid - because the approach is so flawed.

It cuts both ways. Brodeur had a good night, so he'd bounce up the list today. If he let in a few softies, he'd go down.

Roy has no such worries, but at least has some folks remembering when he made a great save, or when he let in a softie or went ballistic.

Vezina has nothing to recommend him but his name and some numbers.

In twenty years, if your poll is taken again, Marty will likely be at the top based solely on the strength of numbers - the same way Barry Bonds might get a bump.

Flawed. Interesting comment.

Since the project ended, ongoing research has accumulated some more goalie performance data. SV% data from the early thirties which provides additional perspective about the strengths of goalies from the early thirties compared to today or any era where the SV% data is readily available.

Research in every historical domain regularly turns up new data. History is not bound by the observable.