HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[MXD]

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.

Well, he had crapped the bed big time in his rookie year, but that was about 5% of his playoffs outings then, and its probably 2% of his outings now. Otherwise, he was Lundqvist, for all the good and bad it implies.

And I don't see how this years Vezina voting is that important. Barring a collapse, Price finishes first and will get a long, very long look for the Hart, and Rinne finishes second, all the while also getting some significant Hart support. Schneider and Holtby will get some consideration. And maybe Dubnyk ?!?! Though he'll clearly lack GP.

(And for those who argue for Rinne for Vezina, look at that GSAA metric on HR vs Price. That's a very big gap).

 

[MXD]

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...

The thing, if that thesis works for Thomas, then Rask is basically worthless (never mind those collapses).

 

[tarheelhockey]

And I don't see how this years Vezina voting is that important. Barring a collapse, Price finishes first and will get a long, very long look for the Hart, and Rinne finishes second, all the while also getting some significant Hart support. Schneider and Holtby will get some consideration. And maybe Dubnyk ?!?! Though he'll clearly lack GP.

I'm not saying the votes will be all that unpredictable, but it's important for Rinne in particular in terms of how he's viewed a long time from now. He had those two big seasons a couple of years ago, and now there's a gap. He'd also had a rough spell lately that, if it extends much longer, could cost him a ranking or two. I think there's a big difference for his legacy between finishing 2nd and finishing 4th this year.

And you know how awards voting goes.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The thing, if that thesis works for Thomas, then Rask is basically worthless (never mind those collapses).

Rask passes the eye test. The only reason why you investigate this in such a manner is if the ability does not match the output, then something is usually wrong.

Jonathan Cheechoo is a good example of this. A player that lacked the technical skills to lead the league goals...and then...led the league in goals. It raises a red flag for investigation. If Ilya Kovalchuk was replaced by Jonathan Cheechoo in that same scenario and produced the same results, no one says boo about it. Because it's obvious that Kovalchuk is skilled enough - or reasonably so - to produce such an outcome.

Tim Thomas, like Roman Cechmanek before him, are not good goaltenders. Their style of play not sustainable. Tuukka Rask - outside of his very poor skating ability - is a very good goaltender. So it's not surprising that he produces statistically in the way that he does.

Just because one goaltender is a product of one system doesn't mean that you have to subscribe to the notion that all goaltenders are buoyed by their respective teams. Like Martin Brodeur, for instance, I would never make the argument that he was a "product of his system" - he was the reason the system worked as well as it did. Evaluation is a necessary part of the process.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well....

Rask passes the eye test. The only reason why you investigate this in such a manner is if the ability does not match the output, then something is usually wrong.

Jonathan Cheechoo is a good example of this. A player that lacked the technical skills to lead the league goals...and then...led the league in goals. It raises a red flag for investigation. If Ilya Kovalchuk was replaced by Jonathan Cheechoo in that same scenario and produced the same results, no one says boo about it. Because it's obvious that Kovalchuk is skilled enough - or reasonably so - to produce such an outcome.

Tim Thomas, like Roman Cechmanek before him, are not good goaltenders. Their style of play not sustainable. Tuukka Rask - outside of his very poor skating ability - is a very good goaltender. So it's not surprising that he produces statistically in the way that he does.

Just because one goaltender is a product of one system doesn't mean that you have to subscribe to the notion that all goaltenders are buoyed by their respective teams. Like Martin Brodeur, for instance, I would never make the argument that he was a "product of his system" - he was the reason the system worked as well as it did. Evaluation is a necessary part of the process.

You said it not me. But it does explain those "What happened there?" moments. Also it keeps him from helping his slow defensemen at times as well as impacting his puckhanding - playing it up the ice like Carey Price is starting to do.

Or is Price a product of Stephane Waite? Niemi?

 

[Michael Farkas]

You said it not me. But it does explain those "What happened there?" moments. Also it keeps him from helping his slow defensemen at times as well as impacting his puckhanding - playing it up the ice like Carey Price is starting to do.

Or is Price a product of Stephane Waite? Niemi?

I don't understand your last line, C1958. Can you clarify what you're asking me? I know that Waite is the goalie coach for Montreal, but that's the extent of it...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stephane Waite

I don't understand your last line, C1958. Can you clarify what you're asking me? I know that Waite is the goalie coach for Montreal, but that's the extent of it...

Stephane Waite was the goalie coach in Chicago when they won the SC. Niemi was the goalie. Niemi left Chicago after the SC as a free agent to join San Jose where his performance has drifted downwards. While Carey Price, after Stephane Waite left Chicago to join Montréal as the goalie coach has improved steadily.

So if there is a Claude Julien effect - is there a Stephane Waite effect?

Or raise the stakes a bit. is there a Michel Therrien effect?

Therrien was the coach when Jose Theodore won the Hart in Montréal.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/2002.html

 

[Michael Farkas]

Stephane Waite was the goalie coach in Chicago when they won the SC. Niemi was the goalie. Niemi left Chicago after the SC as a free agent to join San Jose where his performance has drifted downwards. While Carey Price, after Stephane Waite left Chicago to join Montréal as the goalie coach has improved steadily.

So if there is a Claude Julien effect - is there a Stephane Waite effect?

Or raise the stakes a bit. is there a Michel Therrien effect?

Therrien was the coach when Jose Theodore won the Hart in Montréal.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/2002.html

There are impactful goalie coaches, certainly. Mitch Korn being a prominent one himself. But that is part of the natural development of a goaltender. While, typically defensive, coaches can help insulate a goaltender and produce statistics that would not ordinarily be obtainable.

MT is definitely a guy who does a good job insulating goaltenders. Add young Marc-Andre Fleury to the list as well. Carey Price is superbly talented, so eyebrows are not raised - at least not as high. There aren't a lot of holes to Carey's game...same can't be said for some of the others mentioned in this thread: Thomas, Niemi, Cechmanek, etc. when you identify a player that is deficient in talent producing abnormally, you start to investigate why...

Inverse is true as well...

 

[ted2019]

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...

I think that Thomas is extremely overrated. 2 really great seasons in 10 doesn't = a top 40 goalie to me.

 

[ted2019]

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.

I didn't have a vote for this, but he's my opinion.
Thomas = overrated
Lundqvist has exercised his demons as a playoff choker. Top 40 for sure.
Luongo: Has played on some bad teams for sure. 3 top 3 Vezina finishes is pretty good, but no earth shattering. His 2011 finals performance against the Bruins did a lot of harm to his legacy. Is he a top 40 goalie? I'm not sure.
Rinne has had to carry a lot of the mail in Nashville due to their lack of scoring. Is he a top 40 goalie currently? I say no.
Rask has a long way to go to be even considered for a spot on the list.
Ryan Miller has really rode the coattails of his Olympic performance against Canada and the 2010 Olympics in general. Is he a top 40 goalie? He is anywhere between 35-45 for me.
MAF. Nah.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think that Thomas is extremely overrated. 2 really great seasons in 10 doesn't = a top 40 goalie to me.

Only goalie not on the top 40 with multiple Vezina's is Charlie Hodge. But he wasn't a first team all-star either time he won. Nor did he carry his team to a championship like Thomas did.

 

[seventieslord]

I wouldn't include Tim Thomas if we were doing this over again.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

So does all-star and vezina voting matter in this conversation or not? Because if it does...

 

[seventieslord]

Has anyone else noticed Beezer and Richter played mostly in the same seasons, and Beezer is a .915/.424 in the playoffs, and Richter is .909/.554? Shows you how important goal support is.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Has anyone else noticed Beezer and Richter played mostly in the same seasons, and Beezer is a .915/.424 in the playoffs, and Richter is .909/.554? Shows you how important goal support is.

Unless of course you're Patrick Roy getting some of the lowest goal support for SC winners in '86 and '93.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Has anyone else noticed Beezer and Richter played mostly in the same seasons, and Beezer is a .915/.424 in the playoffs, and Richter is .909/.554? Shows you how important goal support is.

I would also venture to guess that Beezer was the more consistent of the two, and Richter had the higher highs and lower lows.

I think when comparing Richter and Beezer it can't be discounted that both the Rangers and Team USA chose Richter over Beezer when a choice had to be made.


As far as the rest of the list, I've always been pretty clear than, I believe Tretiak is perhaps the most overrated player in the history of the game. I wouldn't have him anywhere close to the top 10.

 

[MXD]

I didn't have a vote for this, but he's my opinion.
Thomas = overrated

But then again : his highs are very high. Like MikeFarkas said, doesn't do well on the eyetest, but if there's a position where results should prevail over eyetest, it's probably goaltending. And when I say "results", that's on a Ceteris Paeribus basis, and this is where Thomas is possibly hurt more than anything. He'd still be in as far as I'm concerned.

Lundqvist has exercised his demons as a playoff choker. Top 40 for sure.

Well, he was Top-40 last time around. We're probably looking at a Top-30 hopeful now.

Luongo: Has played on some bad teams for sure. 3 top 3 Vezina finishes is pretty good, but no earth shattering. His 2011 finals performance against the Bruins did a lot of harm to his legacy. Is he a top 40 goalie? I'm not sure.

And that's a common problem with awards voting. Luongo should really, really have won a Vezina, in 03-04, for he might have posted the best season of the decade (and all he has to show for it is a meager 3rd place -- he should've won Hart, let alone the Vezina). His 2nd place in 06-07 is also a very, very strong 2nd place, with Luongo and Brodeur monopolizing the Top-2 spots in voting, except for a rogue voter who thought Backstrom was better than Luongo (the gap in games was just huge between those two...). Luongo ended up 36th.

 

[MXD]

I would also venture to guess that Beezer was the more consistent of the two, and Richter had the higher highs and lower lows.

I think when comparing Richter and Beezer it can't be discounted that both the Rangers and Team USA chose Richter over Beezer when a choice had to be made.

While I must admit you are right on this front, I think there's a few caveats :
- First of all, teams can make bad decisions. Not that the Rangers decision was bad, but it shouldn't be end-of-all evidence.

- Second, and it's a point that often gets forgotten, Beezer got decent Vezina consideration for 4 straight seasons before Richter even played one single NHL game, including one actual Vezina win. And both players would never post anything else than a marginally above-average season past 1997. After Richter's entry in the NHL, both players got very similar Vezina support as well (and Beezer being even somewhat better). Hell, I think I'd even prefer Beezer's playoff resume to Richter, mostly because Richter had more bed-crapping performances. Both had one great run, the difference being one was a in the crease for an NHL playoffs team and the other was an AHL club masquerading as a SC Finalist.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

While I must admit you are right on this front, I think there's a few caveats :
- First of all, teams can make bad decisions. Not that the Rangers decision was bad, but it shouldn't be end-of-all evidence.

- Second, and it's a point that often gets forgotten, Beezer got decent Vezina consideration for 4 straight seasons before Richter even played one single NHL game, including one actual Vezina win. And both players would never post anything else than a marginally above-average season past 1997. After Richter's entry in the NHL, both players got very similar Vezina support as well (and Beezer being even somewhat better). Hell, I think I'd even prefer Beezer's playoff resume to Richter, mostly because Richter had more bed-crapping performances. Both had one great run, the difference being one was a in the crease for an NHL playoffs team and the other was an AHL club masquerading as a SC Finalist.

Agreed, that overall I think Beezer was the better goalie. He was insane beating the Fkyers in 86 ... enough so that the Flyers traded Bob Froese to NY in large part because they hoped it would screw the Rangers up .. and it did.

Also Beezer's play during the 96 season is better than any full season and playoffs that Richter put up.

And with the way the game has changed ... neither would likely even get a sniff today due to their height.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Convergence

There are impactful goalie coaches, certainly. Mitch Korn being a prominent one himself. But that is part of the natural development of a goaltender. While, typically defensive, coaches can help insulate a goaltender and produce statistics that would not ordinarily be obtainable.

MT is definitely a guy who does a good job insulating goaltenders. Add young Marc-Andre Fleury to the list as well. Carey Price is superbly talented, so eyebrows are not raised - at least not as high. There aren't a lot of holes to Carey's game...same can't be said for some of the others mentioned in this thread: Thomas, Niemi, Cechmanek, etc. when you identify a player that is deficient in talent producing abnormally, you start to investigate why...

Inverse is true as well...

Michel Therrien was a very different coach in 2002 than he is today. Different levels of support from his assistants and management as well.

Today there is great convergence and synergy on theCanadiens from Ownership thru management thru coaching.

Will illustrate.

Michel Therrien and J.J.Daigneault go back to the 1982-83 Longueuil Chevaliers coached by Jacques Lemaire;

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0013881983.html

Clement Jodoin has an interesting pedigree;

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=2542

Note Rosemount was district 6 in Montreal. Michel Therrien played his minor hockey
in St.Michel, abuting on Rosemount, part district 6, part district 7.Also note the Concordia University connection.

Stephane Waite is interesting also, entry job as a goalie coach was with the Sherbrooke Castors coached by Joe Canale:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0036522001.html

Marc Bergevin, J.J. Daigneault, Joe Canale and a few others in lower management all played their minor hockey in the Sud Ouest organization(produced Mario Lemieux).

So there is a very strong shared background and vision of hockey and the structure of a hockey team.

 

[Sentinel]

As far as the rest of the list, I've always been pretty clear than, I believe Tretiak is perhaps the most overrated player in the history of the game. I wouldn't have him anywhere close to the top 10.

[MOD] If anything, he is UNDERRATED. FIVE TIME MVP over his CSKA teammates is insane. Anything under Top 5 is inexcusable. #2 for me.

On a different issue: what is this "unsustainable style of play" that people attribute to Thomas and Cechmanek?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

[MOD] If anything, he is UNDERRATED. FIVE TIME MVP over his CSKA teammates is insane. Anything under Top 5 is inexcusable. #2 for me.

What percentage of games did Tretiak play for either CSKA or the Nationall team, where he wasn't an overwhelming favorite?

 

[patnyrnyg]

So does all-star and vezina voting matter in this conversation or not? Because if it does...

If you want, but look at 1992. Richter finished higher in the all-star voting but Beezer finished higher in the Vezina voting.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I would also venture to guess that Beezer was the more consistent of the two, and Richter had the higher highs and lower lows.

I think when comparing Richter and Beezer it can't be discounted that both the Rangers and Team USA chose Richter over Beezer when a choice had to be made.


As far as the rest of the list, I've always been pretty clear than, I believe Tretiak is perhaps the most overrated player in the history of the game. I wouldn't have him anywhere close to the top 10.

While I must admit you are right on this front, I think there's a few caveats :
- First of all, teams can make bad decisions. Not that the Rangers decision was bad, but it shouldn't be end-of-all evidence.

- Second, and it's a point that often gets forgotten, Beezer got decent Vezina consideration for 4 straight seasons before Richter even played one single NHL game, including one actual Vezina win. And both players would never post anything else than a marginally above-average season past 1997. After Richter's entry in the NHL, both players got very similar Vezina support as well (and Beezer being even somewhat better). Hell, I think I'd even prefer Beezer's playoff resume to Richter, mostly because Richter had more bed-crapping performances. Both had one great run, the difference being one was a in the crease for an NHL playoffs team and the other was an AHL club masquerading as a SC Finalist.

Considering the Rangers won the Cup after selecting Richter over Beezer, not sure how there can be any question about whether they made the right the decision. Would they have still won if they traded Richter and kept Beezer? Probably, but you never know. The Panthers in 96 were pretty good, by no means an AHL squad. When they played against each other in 97, Richter was much better.

But again, Beezer was NEVER the starter over Richter when on the same team. They split the duty with the Rangers and it was always Richter given the nod for Team USA. He also had a slighty better Save percentage and GAA for their careers.

Finally, whenever I have heard people discuss the best American born goalie of all-time, the discussion was always Barrasso or Richter. Although now, I would imagine people will start putting Miller and Quick into the mix. Have never heard anyone bring in Beezer.

 

[Doctor No]

Considering the Rangers won the Cup after selecting Richter over Beezer, not sure how there can be any question about whether they made the right the decision. Would they have still won if they traded Richter and kept Beezer? Probably, but you never know.

The Rangers making the right decision, at that point in time, does not necessarily mean that Richter was the better career NHL goaltender compared to Vanbiesbrouck.

And "they made the right decision because they won the Cup" is a weak argument, because it implies that every team that wins the Cup did so while making zero mistakes.