HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
Brick City
Ignore me!
I do not think NBCSN went back that far period because with the exception of Tretiak every other goalie they skipped over was retired by 1951 (3 in 1950 or 1951 and the other 3 in the 1920s or 1930s. That said, I was pleasantly surprised a more mainstream TV special came pretty close to matching a hardcore enthusiast hockey community's assessment.
Just for the sake of discussion...
Was Grant Fuhr really any better than Tom Barrasso?
Also, Curtis Joseph always seemed to be the best player during the playoffs each year during his time with the Oilers...
They'd finish as the 7th or 8th seed and have to battle Dallas or Colorado in the 1st round, but it seemed like every game went into OT or was decided by a goal
4th all-time in career wins with the same career save% as Belfour
CuJo deserves an honourable mention
Was Grant Fuhr really any better than Tom Barrasso?
Also, Curtis Joseph always seemed to be the best player during the playoffs each year during his time with the Oilers...
They'd finish as the 7th or 8th seed and have to battle Dallas or Colorado in the 1st round, but it seemed like every game went into OT or was decided by a goal
4th all-time in career wins with the same career save% as Belfour
CuJo deserves an honourable mention
Hasek was better than Roy. I'm surprised at the outcome. Peak against peak, it's Hasek by a lot. If I was playing one game with my life on the line, I want Hasek in goal for me.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Wow, that's a good question. I was thinking of Hasek's incredible peak in the last half of the 1990s when I was writing that. I suppose Roy's best season, relative to his peers, might have been 1991-92. But I think Hasek's peak was still more dominant. As a Canadian, we sometimes fall too much in love with our own and overlook worthy players elsewhere. Roy was very good, but I think he's overrated on these boards. Hasek literally willed teams to wins - and he did it time and time and time again. To me, the 1998 Olympics was the greatest example I can think of vis-Ã -vis a goaltender intimidating world-class players. He intimidated Canada in the semis and shut down a good Russian team in the finals. He made a mediocre Sabres team a Stanley cup threat.
His top end was scarier than Roy's.
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
Cujo is the hockey equivalent of Tom Glavine
Hasek = Pedro
Roy = Clemens
Brodeur = Maddux
Belfour = Johnson
Grant Fuhr = Fernando Valenzuela
Hasek = Pedro
Roy = Clemens
Brodeur = Maddux
Belfour = Johnson
Grant Fuhr = Fernando Valenzuela
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
- Jun 5, 2008
- 4,109
- 0
So... I made a massive post and the forum ate it. I'm rather depressed about that.
To sum it up, I was doing a comparison of using various different scoring systems based on the same voting results (with the objective of separating the values of the votes a little more, and to eliminate outliers such as phantom 7th place votes for Hasek, etc).
The ultimate result, at least in regards to the Hasek vs Roy debate, is that while Hasek won slightly (and I mean very slightly; by less than 1% in some of the systems) in most, I ultimately consider their results a tie.
One bit of math I wish to preserve was an absurd look at the original scoring system, and my reason for disliking it.
24 voter sample size
Player A: 15 first place votes, 1 third place vote, 8 seventh place votes. = 118 votes
Player B: 19 2nd place votes, 5 7th place votes = 119 votes
Player C: 30 3rd place votes = 120 pts
The ultimate result? A player that receives no first or second place votes takes 1st place. Another player that receives 19/24 2nd place votes ranks behind one that took no 1st OR 2nd place votes. A player 62.5% of voters thinks is worthy of 1st place ranks behind two players that received no votes for 1st place.
While indeed absurd, it does point out possible flaws in the scoring system. I suppose I'll have to join in next time (I really should post here more often)...
To sum it up, I was doing a comparison of using various different scoring systems based on the same voting results (with the objective of separating the values of the votes a little more, and to eliminate outliers such as phantom 7th place votes for Hasek, etc).
The ultimate result, at least in regards to the Hasek vs Roy debate, is that while Hasek won slightly (and I mean very slightly; by less than 1% in some of the systems) in most, I ultimately consider their results a tie.
One bit of math I wish to preserve was an absurd look at the original scoring system, and my reason for disliking it.
24 voter sample size
Player A: 15 first place votes, 1 third place vote, 8 seventh place votes. = 118 votes
Player B: 19 2nd place votes, 5 7th place votes = 119 votes
Player C: 30 3rd place votes = 120 pts
The ultimate result? A player that receives no first or second place votes takes 1st place. Another player that receives 19/24 2nd place votes ranks behind one that took no 1st OR 2nd place votes. A player 62.5% of voters thinks is worthy of 1st place ranks behind two players that received no votes for 1st place.
While indeed absurd, it does point out possible flaws in the scoring system. I suppose I'll have to join in next time (I really should post here more often)...
Doctor No
Registered User
You can contrive an absurd outcome from just about any scoring system. All you've proven is that you can do that here as well.
Was that even close to the voting that actually happened here? No.
Was that even close to the voting that actually happened here? No.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
He typed it wrong. 3rd place should get 5 points if there are 7 names up and 24 X 5 = 120. I don't see anything wrong with those results, though
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
I think you'd see something "wrong" with the results of any voting in which a guy got over half the 1st place votes, but only 1 3rd, and 8 7th place finishes; let alone the 2nd place guy getting almost consensus #2 voting support, but no votes at all pegging him anything between that and 7th place.
Even if the potential math is sound enough, the situation that you'd have to imagine is fairly absurd - enough so, imo, that the scoring system would be a secondary or tertiary "concern" at best.
*Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! I know this one!* (flails his scholarly arm wildly)
The playoffs!
I went through round 2, vote 1 in it's entirety (skimmed over the oldies as I have no real frame of refence aside from the stats provided), 1958 Habs vote, and this one and am thoroughly impressed by 1. The quality of discourse. 2. The consideration afforded all athletes in question. 3. See #1. Also cool to see my boyhood idol edge the Dominator in what's basically a tie.
Someone compared Hasek to Peyton Manning - No, no, no - Hell no. In three words - Hasek was exciting, effective, and unorthodox. Peyton Manning shares only one of those traits with Hasek - Barry Sanders and Favre would be more apt NFL comparisons.
Thank you for putting so much time, effort and information into this.
Party Kane
Registered User
I do not care if he is on the to-40 or not, but Mike Richter was better than John Vanbiesbrouck.
edit: I know the poll is old, so it could change, but Lundqvist is also much better than Beezer (and Richter) ever was.
edit: I know the poll is old, so it could change, but Lundqvist is also much better than Beezer (and Richter) ever was.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
When they played on Team USA together in the 91 Canada Cup, it was Richter who was the starter.
Beezer was hurt for the 96 World Cup, but was still not going to start over Richter even coming off carrying Florida to the Finals.
When they were both in Team USA in 1998, Richter was the starter.
When they played together with the Rangers, Richter was better each year except 1993. Richter was actually an all-star in 92, 3rd in Vezina voting in 91.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,663
- 17,523
I wonder if there would be changes to this list, in view of the passing years. I think we mostly nailed it for past players (and I'm letting my personal disagreements out of this, but I'm nowhere near agreeing to Tretiak at 8th).
Some food for thoughts :
- Perception on Tim Thomas achievements might have changed. Or not.
- Lundqvist probably deserves a bump, though I cannot remember the exact timing of the project.
- I think Luongo doesn't move up in a significant fashion : if anything, what additionnal appreciation he may obtain might have more to do with possible under appreciation of his late Panthers years (03-04, mostly)
- Rinne is having a great bounce back season after two disappointing ones. I can't put him in if Kipper isn't.
- I wonder if Carey Price would be perceived differently if his career started at a normal age for a goalie. His rookie season was good, the two subsequent seasons were BAD. Can't put him ahead of Kipper yet.
- Somebody else is probably better placed to assess Tuukka Rask's career than I am.
- Ryan Miller looks more and more like a 1-season wonder and probably fell behind Price and Rinne.
- MAF ?! Nope.
- Quick got totally unjustified marginal Vezina support last season. One great regular season and good playoffs performances. But below average for the last cup win.
Conclusion : Goaltender list is probably the one with the less variation (except the Wingers one, as it was just made). Only somewhat significant change if Lundqvist (and is it even that significant?), changes regarding Luongo wouldn't be related to his play, Kipper effectively blocking the best of the rest amongst active players.
Some food for thoughts :
- Perception on Tim Thomas achievements might have changed. Or not.
- Lundqvist probably deserves a bump, though I cannot remember the exact timing of the project.
- I think Luongo doesn't move up in a significant fashion : if anything, what additionnal appreciation he may obtain might have more to do with possible under appreciation of his late Panthers years (03-04, mostly)
- Rinne is having a great bounce back season after two disappointing ones. I can't put him in if Kipper isn't.
- I wonder if Carey Price would be perceived differently if his career started at a normal age for a goalie. His rookie season was good, the two subsequent seasons were BAD. Can't put him ahead of Kipper yet.
- Somebody else is probably better placed to assess Tuukka Rask's career than I am.
- Ryan Miller looks more and more like a 1-season wonder and probably fell behind Price and Rinne.
- MAF ?! Nope.
- Quick got totally unjustified marginal Vezina support last season. One great regular season and good playoffs performances. But below average for the last cup win.
Conclusion : Goaltender list is probably the one with the less variation (except the Wingers one, as it was just made). Only somewhat significant change if Lundqvist (and is it even that significant?), changes regarding Luongo wouldn't be related to his play, Kipper effectively blocking the best of the rest amongst active players.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Lundqvist still had something of a rep as a playoff choker when this was put together and few voters really hammered him for it. He then proceeded to be excellent in the 2013 playoffs and the best player on the surprising 2014 Cup finalist. So he doesn't get "Cup" checked off on his resume, but he does get "choker" crossed off with his 3rd consecutive strong playoffs in a row.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I would say so. He handled the end of his career badly, both on and off the ice. Put some marks on his legacy.
As TDMM said, he took care of business in the playoffs which is important for a goalie. In this era especially, simply demonstrating that he can get it done in the playoffs is a big deal even if he didn't win the big prize at the end.
I dunno, a little bit of distance from the 2011 playoff disaster might help him if we re-did this today. Also, the majority of his play over the past 3 years has been strong and nothing we've seen from the Canucks since then suggests that he was the problem there.
This spring will be huge for him. The playoffs and Vezina voting will both be important.
He's moving up, though. Probably in the same general range as Rinne.
He has a lot to prove IMO. Lots of potential for him to have a great career, but he has been involved in some ugly collapses and hasn't done all that much to balance them out yet.
Agreed on both.
I think he will look like a Miller in a few years. Nothing really wrong with him, fun guy to watch in some ways, but I don't see him going on to a consistently great career.
bigbuffalo313
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
That was one of the things people could trot out if they wanted to bash him. Not sure it was really fair to him -- how often is that label fair to anyone for that matter? -- but now you can point to something specific to shoot it down.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
This is the drum that I beat during the project, I'll take the opportunity to twist the knife...
NHL career without Julien: 63-67-18, 2.96 GAA, .908 save pct., 4 SO
NHL career with Julien: 180-99-31, 2.24 GAA, .927 save pct., 33 SO
I mean, I suppose it's possible that he only felt like playing well for Claude Julien...but these numbers match exactly what the eye test would suggest...
Proud of the project, proud of the work that was done...always believed including him was a pretty big matzah ball hanging out there...
