HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[Michael Farkas]

Oh, yes. Who could forget how Tim Thomas put the Vancouver series in serious jeopardy?

With his club down 1-0 in series, he gives up the garbage goal midway through the first to put his team down. And then later in the clip just - I have no idea, he spontaneously combusts (?) diving out of his net inexplicably to assure the Bruins that they needed to win four of the next five...

Giving away a game in the playoffs, in the Final, is a big deal to me...when games start being won on an aggregate number of saves, we can re-evaluate the list and add Sean Burke's 20,000 saves or something...

Nothing deflates a bench more than a bad goal against, no question...when you have a goalie that is doing that, you might have problems...clearly, the Bruins were forced into an excess of games that really didn't need to be played...

But we've been through this time and time again...I think it got even more obvious after we were able to step out of the moment, step out of the day by day and go...well...this guy only put up good stats in one situation, the rest of his career is fringe NHL caliber and the same team - though older and less efficient now - has produced the NHL's all-time* (save pct. era, min. 100 games) leader in save pct. in Tuukka Rask...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Nothing deflates a bench more than a bad goal against, no question...when you have a goalie that is doing that, you might have problems...clearly, the Bruins were forced into an excess of games that really didn't need to be played...

Don't you think their excess of games in the 2011 Finals was perhaps the result of losing two 1-0 games that their goaltender kept them afloat in?

Or does that not deflate the bench?

 

[patnyrnyg]

I don't understand the fascination over award voting in this comparison you trying to make.

Look back at the last page. Someone asked if I want to bring up all-star and vezina voting. I simply pointed out how with Richter and Beezer it is kind of weird. One was voted higher for the all-star team, the other for the Vezina in the same season. I know it is different voters, just odd. Shows those votes aren't always the most reliable indicator.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Don't you think their excess of games in the 2011 Finals was perhaps the result of losing two 1-0 games that their goaltender kept them afloat in?

Or does that not deflate the bench?

- Excess of games was a reference to the entire playoffs.

- Your second question is a disingenuous jab.

 

[quoipourquoi]

- Excess of games was a reference to the entire playoffs.

So which of the three losses from the Montreal series should the Bruins have won if Tim Thomas wasn't, as you have said, "'bad' different"?

The one where they scored 0 goals on 31 shots?
The one where they scored 1 goal on 35 shots?
The one where they scored 1 goal on 32 shots?

That "heroic effort scoring-wise" wasn't always present. The scorers on the team gave away more games in those playoffs than Tim Thomas, so singling him out as the person who put the team in "serious, serious jeopardy" against Montreal and Vancouver for playing "wrong" isn't exactly a reflection of what was happening.

Carey Price (96/98 in his three wins) and Roberto Luongo (95/97 in his three wins) are the reason Boston went to 7 games - not Tim Thomas (153/165; .927 in those six losses).

 

[ted2019]

I realize that the comment I'm about to make is a bit idiotic, but what do you do with Bernard Parent?

Parent great seasons were better, but the career track is about similar -- the biggest difference is that Thomas had its better seasons later. And those arguing for Thomas could always claim he did in a somewhat "better" NHL as well.





I don't think it should be held against a goalie to not have a job at 40 years old. I mean, not at Thomas level.

Concerning Bernie, I would say that he played in a higher scoring era and his GAA from 1967-68 to the cup years in 1973-74 was 2.64 while the league average was 2.98 and even the final 4 years of his career it was 2.49 while the league average was 3.33. To me that means he was the better goalie then Thomas.

 

[MadArcand]

It's good to see that two years later, Tim Thomas is still apparently stealing Mike's lunchbox.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So which of the three losses from the Montreal series should the Bruins have won if Tim Thomas wasn't, as you have said, "'bad' different"?

The one where they scored 0 goals on 31 shots?
The one where they scored 1 goal on 35 shots?
The one where they scored 1 goal on 32 shots?

That "heroic effort scoring-wise" wasn't always present. The scorers on the team gave away more games in those playoffs than Tim Thomas, so singling him out as the person who put the team in "serious, serious jeopardy" against Montreal and Vancouver for playing "wrong" isn't exactly a reflection of what was happening.

Carey Price (96/98 in his three wins) and Roberto Luongo (95/97 in his three wins) are the reason Boston went to 7 games - not Tim Thomas (153/165; .927 in those six losses).

Unfortunately, counting saves is not of interest to me as it isn't relevant in this context, but yet it keeps on coming out of the same old well...

So if the "heroic effort" wasn't always present from the team that scored 62 ES goals in that playoffs (next best team had 38) then Thomas certainly wasn't either...

Either way, we've kicked this can down the road already...he's just Cechmanek with a Cup, trivia worthy, but not all-time list worthy...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Unfortunately, counting saves is not of interest to me as it isn't relevant in this context, but yet it keeps on coming out of the same old well...

So if the "heroic effort" wasn't always present from the team that scored 62 ES goals in that playoffs (next best team had 38) then Thomas certainly wasn't either...

Either way, we've kicked this can down the road already...he's just Cechmanek with a Cup, trivia worthy, but not all-time list worthy...

And did anyone claim that Tim Thomas had a quality start in every playoff game?

No, but it was pointed out in the project that his 33-17 (66.0%) record of quality games based upon the league average save percentage was more similar in percentage to Patrick Roy (68.7%) and Dominik Hasek (66.9%) than it was to Martin Brodeur (60.5%) and Ed Belfour (61.5%), and certainly more impressive than Henrik Lundqvist's at the time, which was at 28-27 (50.9%).

When you're pointing fingers at players for why the Bruins went to 7 games against the Canadiens and Canucks, you can't condemn Tim Thomas for his averaging statistics in one breath, and pump up the tires of the Boston Bruins for scoring 62 even-strength goals in the next. With the way the offensive support was spread out (and I demonstrated in the previous post that it wasn't as consistent from game-to-game as Thomas' performance, which again, was close in terms of game-to-game consistency at an above-average level to that of Roy and Hasek), beating the Canadiens or Canucks in less than 7 games was improbable. The "serious, serious jeopardy" in those series came from only 2% of shots on Carey Price and Roberto Luongo going in during those six losses.

It was the same problem the team ran into in 2009, when Tim Thomas' run of 10-1 quality games was cut short by the Bruins' torching Cam Ward for 4 goals on three occasions, but being stopped at a rate of 111/116 (.957) in the other four games combined.


And that's why this argument about Tim Thomas being at fault for the "excess of games" doesn't really work. We can look at the three games against Montreal, the three games against Vancouver, and the four games against Carolina in 2009 and see that based upon the Bruins' goal support (9 goals in 10 games) and shots allowed (298), Thomas would probably need to string together a series of 30-save 1-0 shutouts to not be at fault.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And did anyone claim that Tim Thomas had a quality start in every playoff game?

No, but it was pointed out in the project that his 33-17 (66.0%) record of quality games based upon the league average save percentage was more similar in percentage to Patrick Roy (68.7%) and Dominik Hasek (66.9%) than it was to Martin Brodeur (60.5%) and Ed Belfour (61.5%), and certainly more impressive than Henrik Lundqvist's at the time, which was at 28-27 (50.9%).

Again, using save pct. to decide who had "quality" games on a per-game basis is very odd to me. It's not a theory I would subscribe to as it has no account for quality and timing.

The rest of the post is fine, it's rare that you see it spun that way I feel like, but it's not wrong overall. The only issue is, no one is talking about the Bruins as a whole - I made a passing effort to shed some light on the real heroes of that run - the 60+ ES goal scorers. We were talking about the guy who gets awarded the win or the loss, the guy that swiped the Conn Smythe...that's the performance under scrutiny. Having a few games where your team didn't score more than once is pretty normal in a playoff run. Having a few games where you're giving up 45-foot shots along the ice or diving out of your net randomly to lose a game, generally does not. That's why the questions arise. That's why he wasn't in the NHL for most of his pro career. It's not the peak performance that's the exception, it's being in the league that's the exception, not the rule in this case.

You can make 900 saves in a game and give up a crappy goal from center to lose 1-0 in overtime and you still lost it...the quality of your goals against is more valuable and more telling than the quantity of saves you make.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Even having already acknowledged that Thomas' legacy took some lumps since we did this project...

The guy took a year off of hockey, came back at age 39 and posted a .932 over a 20-game run, bookended by a rusty start and a weak finish on the second-worst team in the league. What part of that performance would be unexpected from any goalie? I mean, look at Hasek's .907 at the same age under the same circumstances. Did that mean Hasek was exposed as a fraud?

 

[BraveCanadian]

You can make 900 saves in a game and give up a crappy goal from center to lose 1-0 in overtime and you still lost it...the quality of your goals against is more valuable and more telling than the quantity of saves you make.

If a goalie made 900 saves and then let in a goal from center ice to lose the game it still isn't his fault.

The only reason his team was in the game in the first place was because of him.

You have very strange goaltender evaluations. ie. you're demanding perfection from human beings.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If a goalie made 900 saves and then let in a goal from center ice to lose the game it still isn't his fault.

The only reason his team was in the game in the first place was because of him.

You have very strange goaltender evaluations. ie. you're demanding perfection from human beings.

Perfection? Hardly. In fact, not even close. I ask for general competency.

Thus, my high opinions on goaltenders like Grant Fuhr and Billy Smith relative to their numbers. The sooner we distance ourselves from all shots are created equal ("advanced" stats) and all goals are created equal and get into the actual evaluation of the game and the players within it, we'll have even more enlightening discussions than what we already have here...this sub-board is the beacon for hockey discussion, in my opinion...investigation into the how and why of how games are played and numbers are created and how players are evaluated should not be glossed over by a few points either way on a veritable batting average...

 

[Doctor No]

The sooner we distance ourselves from all shots are created equal ("advanced" stats)

To be fair, truly advanced stats have already moved past this flaw.

 

[Cool Bryz]

Funny, I think the Bruins walk all over everyone's face if they had better goaltending. Besides maybe mobile puck-moving from the back line, goaltending was the biggest weakness of that team. It was evident in the goals allowed and games lost or jeopardized as a result of them.

You think someone would have given the B's better than a record .938 S% in the regular season and.940 (playoff high) in the postseason? Who, exactly? Those are prime Hasek numbers. You are going out of your way to discredit Thomas. He had perhaps the greatest regular+post season of any goalie ever in 10-11.

People like to point at "team effects" when a B's goalie posts a high S% and when one of them struggles it's entirely the individual's fault.

Please check your bias.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Perfection? Hardly. In fact, not even close. I ask for general competency.

Thus, my high opinions on goaltenders like Grant Fuhr and Billy Smith relative to their numbers.

Fuhr let in softies all the time, even in some big games.

Sure he had the mentality to pour it on at the right time, but I can hardly see how you can back Fuhr and discount Thomas, who in this case did the same thing and has the hardware (and numbers) to prove it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The guy took a year off of hockey, came back at age 39 and posted a .932 over a 20-game run, bookended by a rusty start and a weak finish on the second-worst team in the league.

So, the microcosm of Thomas' career...highlighting how unreliable he is perfectly, as per his obvious limitations...is proof that he was good? With all due respect, tarheel, and I do mean that, this is a lay-up for my side...

He's hoisted with his own petard here as tarheel points out...his lack of technical ability leads to a lack of consistency, the lack of consistency leads to unpredictably, unpredictably leads to a lack of trust, a lack of trust leads you to the door...

Especially any more, with how defensive systems are: it's not the talent of the goaltender even necessarily, every outside of a few duds (like Thomas, Jonas Hiller, Reto Berra, Ray Emery, etc.) and a few studs (Pekka Rinne, Henrik Lundqivst, Carey Price, etc.) have a very similar level of technical ability or talent...it's the consistency in which you bring that talent to the forefront that is the main thing, that is the divider. Almost any GM or goalie coach will tell you that, as I've posed that exact wording to more than a few of them and they agree wholeheartedly.

That limiting factor keeps goaltenders like Marc-Andre Fleury or Kari Lehtonen out of the studs category...consistency to bring their immense talent to the forefront has held them down over the course of their respective careers...

 

[Michael Farkas]

To be fair, truly advanced stats have already moved past this flaw.

This is true. But not the most common ones that the "public" (for lack of a better term) has the easiest access to...you noted quite aptly the "truly advanced"...

 

[tarheelhockey]

So, the microcosm of Thomas' career...highlighting how unreliable he is perfectly, as per his obvious limitations...is proof that he was good? With all due respect, tarheel, and I do mean that, this is a lay-up for my side...

He's hoisted with his own petard here as tarheel points out...his lack of technical ability leads to a lack of consistency, the lack of consistency leads to unpredictably, unpredictably leads to a lack of trust, a lack of trust leads you to the door...

Why are you chalking it up entirely to a lack of technical ability instead of a completely-understandable lack of conditioning and mental focus due to having not played for over a full year and being 39 years old?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Fuhr let in softies all the time, even in some big games.

Sure he had the mentality to pour it on at the right time, but I can hardly see how you can back Fuhr and discount Thomas, who in this case did the same thing and has the hardware (and numbers) to prove it.

I'm not sure you can find a goalie that didn't let in the occasional softie...the consistent brand of play is what you need now-a-days...

Fuhr did not play in the same era or nearly the same system as, say, the 2011 Boston Bruins' goaltenders...look at what Fuhr had to deal with from the opposition and his own team's wild and highly caustic breakout strategies...major differences.

Your point was that I demand perfection. It's not the case, my arguments - in almost all cases - are contextual...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Why are you chalking it up entirely to a lack of technical ability instead of a completely-understandable lack of conditioning and mental focus due to having not played for over a full year and being 39 years old?

Because his entire career can be chalked up in the same way. We know that he was far from a workhorse. His two Vezina seasons were 53, and 55-start seasons...some goaltenders wear down much more over the course of seasons and it can be prohibitive to game/time management for a coach...

The lack of control in his game would likely be the cause of that. Same thing for young Marc-Andre Fleury in juniors actually...who made a ton more work for himself and it ended up costing him later in seasons in Cape Breton...

 

[quoipourquoi]

So, the microcosm of Thomas' career...highlighting how unreliable he is perfectly, as per his obvious limitations...is proof that he was good? With all due respect, tarheel, and I do mean that, this is a lay-up for my side...

He's hoisted with his own petard here as tarheel points out...his lack of technical ability leads to a lack of consistency, the lack of consistency leads to unpredictably, unpredictably leads to a lack of trust, a lack of trust leads you to the door...

Especially any more, with how defensive systems are: it's not the talent of the goaltender even necessarily, every outside of a few duds (like Thomas, Jonas Hiller, Reto Berra, Ray Emery, etc.) and a few studs (Pekka Rinne, Henrik Lundqivst, Carey Price, etc.) have a very similar level of technical ability or talent...it's the consistency in which you bring that talent to the forefront that is the main thing, that is the divider. Almost any GM or goalie coach will tell you that, as I've posed that exact wording to more than a few of them and they agree wholeheartedly.

That limiting factor keeps goaltenders like Marc-Andre Fleury or Kari Lehtonen out of the studs category...consistency to bring their immense talent to the forefront has held them down over the course of their respective careers...

And as a reminder of Tim Thomas' consistency, he delivered a performance at or above the league average save percentage in 72.2% and 73.7% of his games in 2009 and 2011 respectively when he won his Vezina trophies. By comparison, Dominik Hasek's quality games percentages in his Hart years were 72.1% and 65.3%.

At the time of the project, Tim Thomas' career regular season quality game percentage was 61.8%, again falling somewhere in-between the grouping of Patrick Roy and Dominik Hasek (both at 64.8%) and the grouping of Ed Belfour (57.9%) and Martin Brodeur (56.7%).

So I think referring to Tim Thomas as "unreliable" is incorrect.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Because his entire career can be chalked up in the same way. We know that he was far from a workhorse. His two Vezina seasons were 53, and 55-start seasons...some goaltenders wear down much more over the course of seasons and it can be prohibitive to game/time management for a coach...

The lack of control in his game would likely be the cause of that. Same thing for young Marc-Andre Fleury in juniors actually...who made a ton more work for himself and it ended up costing him later in seasons in Cape Breton...

I can see the argument for him wearing out too quickly, perhaps due to his playing style. It's entirely likely that part of the problem in Florida was that after 30 games or so, age and conditioning and playing style combined to cause little injuries to crop up and make him less effective.

I'm still not sure why that would compel anyone to see him as a "dud" or a Cechmanek parallel when he was putting up Vezina/Smythe runs just a few years prior. Even if he could have started 10 more regular season games with a different style, what do you want -- 10 more regular season starts or a Conn Smythe?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Because his entire career can be chalked up in the same way. We know that he was far from a workhorse. His two Vezina seasons were 53, and 55-start seasons...some goaltenders wear down much more over the course of seasons and it can be prohibitive to game/time management for a coach...

And yet he did not seem to struggle with playing 38 of the Bruins' final 41 games in 2005-06 when he placed 7th in league save percentage on a 26th ranked team without Claude Julien.

The fact that the Bruins did not play Tim Thomas more than they did does not mean that Tim Thomas could not play more than he did. He followed his 57 GP season in 2010-11 with 25 playoff games in two months. No one seemed to notice him fading with the increased workload in the Spring. In fact, people seem to look back quite fondly on his 2011 playoffs.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And as a reminder of Tim Thomas' consistency, he delivered a performance at or above the league average save percentage in 72.2% and 73.7% of his games in 2009 and 2011 respectively when he won his Vezina trophies. By comparison, Dominik Hasek's quality games percentages in his Hart years were 72.1% and 65.3%.

At the time of the project, Tim Thomas' career regular season quality game percentage was 61.8%, again falling somewhere in-between the grouping of Patrick Roy and Dominik Hasek (both at 64.8%) and the grouping of Ed Belfour (57.9%) and Martin Brodeur (56.7%).

So I think referring to Tim Thomas as "unreliable" is incorrect.

Disagree, your method of counting every shot from every team across multiple eras as equal is incorrect.

Let me ask you this...are there a lot of goalies that play today or recently that fall at or above the Belfour/Brodeur level on that metric? It has a "QB Rating" feel to it...