HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[Doctor No]

yeah, I'm all for that.

Sorry for the noise. It's Rangers-Devils hangover. Takes at least three days to come down off of the hate.

I think everyone who watches a goalie for a long time HATES the fact that other fans only get to see the highlights - and not the consistent day-to-day.

Brodeur is on his hot streak now not because of any positioning, nor the saves he's making and certainly not because of the crappy D in front of him. It's because he's playing 3rd Defenseman and no team can stay in the zone for more than the time it takes for him to make an outlet pass. It's just been ridiculous to watch.

I'm a huge Brodeur fan - he's done a lot for the advancement of the game. I always wanted to be Ron Hextall as a goaltender, with the way that he handles the puck and controls the zone. Brodeur's taken that to another level.

That's one problem with the "stats suck, I'd rather watch them play" folks (not saying that you are one) - we're in a highlight culture, which magnifies the impact in our brains of those events. Even if you're watching every game on television, they choose which replays to show over and over again (and ultimately, your brain gives in).

There's a book that I can't recommend enough - "Thinking Fast and Slow" by economist Daniel Kahneman; it talks about narrative biases and the ways that our brain tricks itself into justifying gut instincts.

That's why you'll always see me advocate for both "scouting" and
"stats" - the combination will always be an improvement on one or the other. And yes, I'm one of those who are working to improve the quality of the statistics that we have available (see here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1501681 for instance), but for me, there's nothing better than sitting down in the first row of the upper level, center ice, watching a good goaltending battle.

Anyhow, time to drive home and then bed. Pick up where we left off in the morning?

 

[Doctor No]

My green Christmas tree #1 jersey concurs.

Those were nice sweaters - I have a Billington (signed from his goaltending camp) and a Sam St. Laurent (last NHL goaltender to wear the Plante-style mask). I know black is a "cool" color, but I loved the red/green.

 

[Plural]

well, this escalated quickly.

For billington:

I get why you might have problems when including players from early era's. (I don't get your attitude tough) But can I ask you, if you have problem with the older goalies, why just don't leave them out of the list and use it as a "list of best goalies after '50"?

I mean, as far as I can say, none of the participants are not showing the list down on anyone's throat as a definitive. If you think it's a well thought and good listing of goaltenders, why would you nullify the list only cause you dislike listing old players. I suggest you try to use it the best way possible to you.

Personally, I enjoy looking at how older guys fare against younger. This list does best job on that. So, even if you think the idea is faulty, not every one does. I think it's perfectly fine, necessary even, to rank players from the past. Otherwise the listing is lazy.


Edit: I see you guys made up and kissed already. Good.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I'm a huge Brodeur fan - he's done a lot for the advancement of the game. I always wanted to be Ron Hextall as a goaltender, with the way that he handles the puck and controls the zone. Brodeur's taken that to another level.

That's one problem with the "stats suck, I'd rather watch them play" folks (not saying that you are one) - we're in a highlight culture, which magnifies the impact in our brains of those events. Even if you're watching every game on television, they choose which replays to show over and over again (and ultimately, your brain gives in).

There's a book that I can't recommend enough - "Thinking Fast and Slow" by economist Daniel Kahneman; it talks about narrative biases and the ways that our brain tricks itself into justifying gut instincts.

That's why you'll always see me advocate for both "scouting" and
"stats" - the combination will always be an improvement on one or the other. And yes, I'm one of those who are working to improve the quality of the statistics that we have available (see here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1501681 for instance), but for me, there's nothing better than sitting down in the first row of the upper level, center ice, watching a good goaltending battle.

Anyhow, time to drive home and then bed. Pick up where we left off in the morning?

Drive safe. Great book, btw - was recommended to me by my CTO.

 

[billingtons ghost]

well, this escalated quickly.

For billington:

I get why you might have problems when including players from early era's. (I don't get your attitude tough) But can I ask you, if you have problem with the older goalies, why just don't leave them out of the list and use it as a "list of best goalies after '50"?

I mean, as far as I can say, none of the participants are not showing the list down on anyone's throat as a definitive. If you think it's a well thought and good listing of goaltenders, why would you nullify the list only cause you dislike listing old players. I suggest you try to use it the best way possible to you.

Personally, I enjoy looking at how older guys fare against younger. This list does best job on that. So, even if you think the idea is faulty, not every one does. I think it's perfectly fine, necessary even, to rank players from the past. Otherwise the listing is lazy.


Edit: I see you guys made up and kissed already. Good.

What you say makes sense. What I was advocating originally was something similar - in saying: why not just make multiple finer grained lists that are separated by eras - and I guess I just bristled at the response I got.

My newly found friend rightfully pointed out that I might not give Hrudey a fair shake based on the fact he played in the run and gun era. Similarly, I always thought Grant Fuhr to be one of the all-time greats that I've ever seen play, but he doesn't get the props for multiple reasons - certainly when stacked against dead-puck era goalies.

I was saying - the debate might be a lot different, and you might get a very different list, if it was 18xx-1950, 1950-197x, 197x-1993, 1993-2004, 2004-2013....

that's all.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel like we actually did a pretty good job of ranking goalies within their own generations. Typically we talked about individuals in terms of their own era or peer group, and the pace of the discussion was such that we had plenty of time to firmly establish who was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc best goalie of each era.

On a practical level, that means breaking the top-60 list into era-based clusters. I feel like if you do that, the resulting lists would be pretty close to definitively accurate to the greatest degree possible with the resources we have at hand... which is to say, probably the most thoroughly researched and debated lists available anywhere.

 

[seventieslord]

Heh, I can't figure that one out either. I guess all the true sages like to speak in riddles.

This was the best line of the thread.

Hrudey was an average goaltender - his longevity helped him pad his wins total, but that just puts him alongside guys like Wregget, Salo, Roloson, Millen... not money goaltenders like CuJo.

And I guess my point for bringing it up is that in a small sample set of opinions - these outliers really compromise the integrity - you like Hrudey, hence he's there in the convo. I have a Rick Wamsley jersey (believe it or not) from back in the day. I don't think he belongs on any list anywhere, though.

He did say "poor man's Cujo"...

I know his GAA is high, but that isn't at all why I value him less than you do. I just watched him play, and in the games I watched I saw a decent, average, solid goaltender. He played for a while, but he was never dominant, and he never seemed like the guy that opposing players would be talking about in a locker room before the game - 'uh oh, we've got Hrudey tonight!'

During the time he was in the league, in any given year there could have been maybe 10-15 goaltenders you would arguably want to have on your team ahead of him.

I'll even try to name them so you can rip me apart. Randomly selecting 1989 as his midway point in the league:
Roy
Casey
McLean
Ranford
Burke
Moog
Barasso
Belfour
Peeters
Vanbiesbrouck
Hextall
Vernon
Fuhr

Belfour wouldn't win the Calder for two years yet.

Definitely not ranford. Not Casey. Especially not Peeters. You know that Hrudey had been close to the save percentage lead three times, named to the Canada cup roster in 87, and was a vezina finalist in 88, right? Scouting reports were calling him a top 5 goalies in the league at this time. I think you're even pushing it with Moog, Burke and McLean at that point in time.

Here's a recent bio on hrudey with everything ever written about him by objective scouting report guides:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=73960091&postcount=162

For a decade he was an average (at worst) to above average (usually) starting goalie. That's not common. I'm not saying he's top 60 worthy, mind you. More like 80-90.

And here is why Peeters was not more highly regarded as of 1989.
I agree that he's a better all-time goalie, though.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=69717589&postcount=98

 

[ted2019]

Maybe with so many people on board with the Centers project, that We can finish this and get to the top 60 Goalies?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Maybe with so many people on board with the Centers project, that We can finish this and get to the top 60 Goalies?

We just did Defensemen and Goaltenders. Wingers are next. Then probably something other than positional players (another all-time list, playoff All-Star Teams, best individual seasons).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe with so many people on board with the Centers project, that We can finish this and get to the top 60 Goalies?

We did top 40, which turned out to be more than necessary. Unlike the centers project where there are guys that you "can't believe didn't make the list..." with goalies, at 40, there are guys that I "can't believe actually got included in the discussion..."

 

[billingtons ghost]

Definitely not ranford. Not Casey. Especially not Peeters. You know that Hrudey had been close to the save percentage lead three times, named to the Canada cup roster in 87, and was a vezina finalist in 88, right?

You have your opinions, I have mine. No problem.

And this is exactly why stats monkeys are tough to have arguments with. SV% comes bounding in.

Jon Casey battling his way through the playoffs with the NoStars a couple of years later put on a better goaltending display than Hrudey did in all of his years with the Islanders and Kings. That's why I'd choose him - that said, it's not like Arturs Irbe should be in the top 60..

I'll agree with the 80-90 placement.

I can almost agree with McLean, but Moog, I think, was a very good goaltender.

Btw - I really hope 'brodeurisafraud' weblog guy decides to revisit his numbers this year, based upon the fact that there is likely to be a 50-50 split in starts between Schneider and Brodeur - and that Schneider has always had a higher save percentage.

I'm not saying that because I think behind the same defense Marty will post a better save % than Cory, but I want to see the Shots Against differential.

I would say that Brodeur's puck handling saves him at least 5 shots per game - and in that a game against the Rangers last week, Cory would have faced 45 shots instead of the 35 that Marty faced.

If Marty's puck handling caused him to face just one less shot per game, the holy stat of lifetime SV% which is held up as a knock against him would go up to .916.

If he faced 5 less per game, his lifetime SV% would be .927.

And that's not like having a defense that blocks shots for you - it's the goaltender making the difference.

My point is that someone like Hextall might be criminally undervalued based on his SV% alone.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You have your opinions, I have mine. No problem.

And this is exactly why stats monkeys are tough to have arguments with. SV% comes bounding in.

Jon Casey battling his way through the playoffs with the NoStars a couple of years later put on a better goaltending display than Hrudey did in all of his years with the Islanders and Kings. That's why I'd choose him - that said, it's not like Arturs Irbe should be in the top 60..

I'll agree with the 80-90 placement.

I can almost agree with McLean, but Moog, I think, was a very good goaltender.

Btw - I really hope 'brodeurisafraud' weblog guy decides to revisit his numbers this year, based upon the fact that there is likely to be a 50-50 split in starts between Schneider and Brodeur - and that Schneider has always had a higher save percentage.

I'm not saying that because I think behind the same defense Marty will post a better save % than Cory, but I want to see the Shots Against differential.

I would say that Brodeur's puck handling saves him at least 5 shots per game - and in that a game against the Rangers last week, Cory would have faced 45 shots instead of the 35 that Marty faced.

If Marty's puck handling caused him to face just one less shot per game, the holy stat of lifetime SV% which is held up as a knock against him would go up to .916.

If he faced 5 less per game, his lifetime SV% would be .927.

And that's not like having a defense that blocks shots for you - it's the goaltender making the difference.

My point is that someone like Hextall might be criminally undervalued based on his SV% alone.

I must say that with Brodeur and Schneider seeing equal starts, the difference in team territorial play due to Brodeur's puckhandling is shocking

 

[Doctor No]

I must say that with Brodeur and Schneider seeing equal starts, the difference in team territorial play due to Brodeur's puckhandling is shocking

I have to admit that I haven't had the chance to watch Schneider as much as I'd like to (or as much as I've seen of 90% of contemporary goaltenders). Would you characterize him as an average puckhandler or a poor one?

Five shots prevented per game sounds awfully high (just from a sniff-testing perspective). Has someone gone to the trouble of logging Brodeur games to get an unbiased estimate? (I'd truly like to see the results).

 

[billingtons ghost]

And here is why Peeters was not more highly regarded as of 1989.
I agree that he's a better all-time goalie, though.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=69717589&postcount=98

and one more thing - thanks for the Peeters post. He was one of my absolute favorites with Boston and when he got to the Caps. Never understood why he wasn't ever in any top goalies conversation. Now I do.

Couldn't ever understand why those Caps teams weren't better -

 

[billingtons ghost]

I have to admit that I haven't had the chance to watch Schneider as much as I'd like to (or as much as I've seen of 90% of contemporary goaltenders). Would you characterize him as an average puckhandler or a poor one?

Five shots prevented per game sounds awfully high (just from a sniff-testing perspective). Has someone gone to the trouble of logging Brodeur games to get an unbiased estimate? (I'd truly like to see the results).

I think that's why this year will be the real test. I want to see the difference between the two at the end of the year. If they come out even then I'm full of it. Seemingly in the career #s, Brodeur faces fewer shots per game but that could be the official scorer people talk about or just the D in front, or whatever. This year will be truly apples->apples.

I haven't seen enough of him except for the pre-season and regular season Devils games he's played this year, and maybe 5-10 total others with the Canucks, so I can't comment yet on his puckhandling.

I put him somewhere between a grenade handler like Bryz and King Hank - so the answer is, maybe slightly subpar?

He's cost us at least one goal this year so far, through an obvious mishandle.

 

[seventieslord]

You have your opinions, I have mine. No problem.

And this is exactly why stats monkeys are tough to have arguments with. SV% comes bounding in.

Jon Casey battling his way through the playoffs with the NoStars a couple of years later put on a better goaltending display than Hrudey did in all of his years with the Islanders and Kings. That's why I'd choose him - that said, it's not like Arturs Irbe should be in the top 60..

I'll agree with the 80-90 placement.

I can almost agree with McLean, but Moog, I think, was a very good goaltender.

Btw - I really hope 'brodeurisafraud' weblog guy decides to revisit his numbers this year, based upon the fact that there is likely to be a 50-50 split in starts between Schneider and Brodeur - and that Schneider has always had a higher save percentage.

I'm not saying that because I think behind the same defense Marty will post a better save % than Cory, but I want to see the Shots Against differential.

I would say that Brodeur's puck handling saves him at least 5 shots per game - and in that a game against the Rangers last week, Cory would have faced 45 shots instead of the 35 that Marty faced.

If Marty's puck handling caused him to face just one less shot per game, the holy stat of lifetime SV% which is held up as a knock against him would go up to .916.

If he faced 5 less per game, his lifetime SV% would be .927.

And that's not like having a defense that blocks shots for you - it's the goaltender making the difference.

My point is that someone like Hextall might be criminally undervalued based on his SV% alone.

I'm only responding to the part about Casey... we're talking about 1989 here, which was the year you chose. In 89 he was not in any way ahead of Hrudey. In fact, following his finals run might have been the only brief time he was.

and one more thing - thanks for the Peeters post. He was one of my absolute favorites with Boston and when he got to the Caps. Never understood why he wasn't ever in any top goalies conversation. Now I do.

Couldn't ever understand why those Caps teams weren't better -

He was, he definitely was considering he made a first all-star team and was 4th in voting a few times. Just not in 1989. The point of the bio was to show.you he was no.longer highly regarded by then.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have to admit that I haven't had the chance to watch Schneider as much as I'd like to (or as much as I've seen of 90% of contemporary goaltenders). Would you characterize him as an average puckhandler or a poor one?

Five shots prevented per game sounds awfully high (just from a sniff-testing perspective). Has someone gone to the trouble of logging Brodeur games to get an unbiased estimate? (I'd truly like to see the results).

The book on Schneider is definitely "below average puck handler" and in the limited games I've seen of him so far, that seems accurate

It's not just shots prevented; it's shots for - with no prohibition on two-line passes, Brodeur's outlet passes definitely lead to offense. Brodeur looks like a better outlet passer than most of the defensemen on the team, but that's as much an indictment of the current crop of Devils defensemen as anything else.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I'll see if I can keep track of Marty's clearing the puck.

The game against Nashville he faced *15* shots on goal. Against TB, he faced 17.

I don't care how bad Nashville is, it's possible Marty handled and succeeded in clearing 10+ pucks in each of those games.

Thus far, it's 24.2 Shots/g vs 25 for Schneider but it's too early to draw any conclusions. Even that .8 gets him up to .910 lifetime SV% or something like that.

Here we go. Bingo:
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/20...-measure-martin-brodeurs-puckhandling-impact/

Not sure of everything he says but I'd like to see if Schneider's #s back it up this year.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I'm only responding to the part about Casey... we're talking about 1989 here, which was the year you chose. In 89 he was not in any way ahead of Hrudey. In fact, following his finals run might have been the only brief time he was.



He was, he definitely was considering he made a first all-star team and was 4th in voting a few times. Just not in 1989. The point of the bio was to show.you he was no.longer highly regarded by then.

Fair enough. So instead of 10 guys ahead of Hrudey in 1989 (or 88 which seems to be around his peak) there were 5? I could go with that. But I guess if you go a few years to either side Hrudey could be anywhere from the 4th best to the 12th in the league.

I don't know if that warrants a top 60s spot.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I've seen lots of Schneider in his career, live and on TV. I sat five rows back from him not too long ago too...definitely not a good puckhandler. Not his strong suit.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shots Prevented

I have to admit that I haven't had the chance to watch Schneider as much as I'd like to (or as much as I've seen of 90% of contemporary goaltenders). Would you characterize him as an average puckhandler or a poor one?

Five shots prevented per game sounds awfully high (just from a sniff-testing perspective). Has someone gone to the trouble of logging Brodeur games to get an unbiased estimate? (I'd truly like to see the results).

Shots prevented is not limited to the effects of puckhandling. Zone management, game plan execution and communications are also factors. Everything from unnecessary faceoffs to zone exits or entrance, end of PP awareness, etc, impact shots, zone times and goalie performance.

 

[Killion]

Yeah, I've seen lots of Schneider in his career, live and on TV. I sat five rows back from him not too long ago too...definitely not a good puckhandler. Not his strong suit.

Im in Vancouver, fairly steady diet of Schneider, and no, your quite correct, puckhandling, ameliorating or mitigating opportunities ala Marty Brodeur or a Tim Thomas not something he's very adept at. Doesnt play it that way in situations where & when he could & should. Bit of an island out there. Communication with his defence average.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Learning Curve

Im in Vancouver, fairly steady diet of Schneider, and no, your quite correct, puckhandling, ameliorating or mitigating opportunities ala Marty Brodeur or a Tim Thomas not something he's very adept at. Doesnt play it that way in situations where & when he could & should. Bit of an island out there. Communication with his defence average.

Factor in the learning curve with new teammates and a new team system structured to Brodeur's strengths. Give it until the mid season mark.

 

[Killion]

Factor in the learning curve with new teammates and a new team system structured to Brodeur's strengths. Give it until the mid season mark.

Indeed. Schneiders a terrific goaltender and Im sure has nothing but the upmost respect for Martin Brodeur so whatever the latter can pass on....

 

[seventieslord]

The book on Schneider is definitely "below average puck handler" and in the limited games I've seen of him so far, that seems accurate

It's not just shots prevented; it's shots for - with no prohibition on two-line passes, Brodeur's outlet passes definitely lead to offense. Brodeur looks like a better outlet passer than most of the defensemen on the team, but that's as much an indictment of the current crop of Devils defensemen as anything else.

A goalie corsi would sure be interesting. Especially since the shots Brodeur prevents never show up in stats the way people's eyes think they should.

Fair enough. So instead of 10 guys ahead of Hrudey in 1989 (or 88 which seems to be around his peak) there were 5? I could go with that. But I guess if you go a few years to either side Hrudey could be anywhere from the 4th best to the 12th in the league.

I don't know if that warrants a top 60s spot.

I agree, it doesn't. If we're talking modern guys I'd have him somewhere between around McLean. After Burke and khabibulin. Ahead of potvin, puppa, and Theodore.

Also, I agree, he was about 4th to 12th for about ten years. Pretty solid.