HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[Michael Farkas]

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.

Boy, the fun with numbers games are out in full force today. 20 games here, 30 games there...it's really an impressive spin job I hope you guys work in PR/marketing firms...

"As you can see here, Mr. Murphy, from 1992-1996 and 1998-2003, has a 98.5% NSP rate, that is, of course, the Not Soliciting a Prostitute rate. He's very good at not soliciting them historically, I can assure you."

So, the guy is stopping pucks at a record* setting rate was not played more by his coaches even though he statistically gave them the best chance to win and the best chance to stop pucks because, why, they were sick of winning? No, they had to do that because of the limitations of the goaltender.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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...

At their best, Belfour hit 69.9% (1991) and Brodeur hit 67.5% (2008). Carey Price has 64.2% this year. Tuukka Rask had 65.5% last year.

Again, Tim Thomas hit 72.2% and 73.7% in his peak seasons and averaged 62.3% throughout all of the regular season and playoff games he had played at the time of the project. The consistency in his performance was there, no matter what you think of his form.

 

[MXD]

Boy, the fun with numbers games are out in full force today. 20 games here, 30 games there...it's really an impressive spin job I hope you guys work in PR/marketing firms...

"As you can see here, Mr. Murphy, from 1992-1996 and 1998-2003, has a 98.5% NSP rate, that is, of course, the Not Soliciting a Prostitute rate. He's very good at not soliciting them historically, I can assure you."

So, the guy is stopping pucks at a record* setting rate was not played more by his coaches even though he statistically gave them the best chance to win and the best chance to stop pucks because, why, they were sick of winning? No, they had to do that because of the limitations of the goaltender.

The other thesis - the Bruins saw no point in tirelessly using a record setting netminder because they had a pretty good young (and bigger and first rounder) netminder - also makes lots of sense.

I mean, the Leafs used Jacques Plante one game out of two when he had one of the very best statistical season ever in the early 70ies. And that's rarely used against Plante.

Thomas wasn't as old as Plante was. But he is definitely smaller than Rask. And the Bruins didn't quite need Thomas every game that season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So, the guy is stopping pucks at a record* setting rate was not played more by his coaches even though he statistically gave them the best chance to win and the best chance to stop pucks because, why, they were sick of winning? No, they had to do that because of the limitations of the goaltender.

In 2008, his backup was Alex Auld. This was Thomas' breakout season in the NHL. I'm sure you know that Auld was capable of some shockingly strong streaks when he was "on", so he got quite a few starts because of those.

In 2009, his backup was Manny Fernandez. A veteran who had started to blossom as a #1 in Minnesota and was brought in to challenge Thomas. They started as a platoon, alternating games, and by the end of the season Thomas was the clear cut #1.

From 2010 forward his backup was Tuukka Rask. An emerging stud who has still never posted below a .918 in his career. Rask was deliberately brought forward as a future #1 and given workloads that eased him in to a North American schedule. This was all very process-oriented and mostly an indicator of how promising Rask was at the time.

I wouldn't say that the coaching staff ever had a hard decision to make, really. Thomas was clearly a star, Rask was clearly going to be a star. It's probably true that Thomas' style meant he could use the rest, but when the backup is posting a .930+ I don't think it's "trying not to win" or anything like that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

At their best, Belfour hit 69.9% (1991) and Brodeur hit 67.5% (2008). Carey Price has 64.2% this year. Tuukka Rask had 65.5% last year.

Again, Tim Thomas hit 72.2% and 73.7% in his peak seasons and averaged 62.3% throughout all of the regular season and playoff games he had played at the time of the project. The consistency in his performance was there, no matter what you think of his form.

No, not best. Career. Where I can see a list of the careers for this. Not onesies and twosies...

 

[quoipourquoi]

So, the guy is stopping pucks at a record* setting rate was not played more by his coaches even though he statistically gave them the best chance to win and the best chance to stop pucks because, why, they were sick of winning? No, they had to do that because of the limitations of the goaltender.

And exactly how limited was Tim Thomas in the 2011 playoffs?

That's 82 GP (57 GP + 25 GP) in 2011 at .939.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No, not best. Career. Where I can see a list of the careers for this. Not onesies and twosies...

It takes about a half-hour per goaltender to do it.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1220987


But since you don't care about save percentage, do you mind if I do not devote that kind of time to trying to impress you?

 

[Doctor No]

I do something similar (so not exactly what QPQ describes):

http://www.hockeygoalies.org/bio/thomast.html

Under REGULAR SEASON STATISTICS, columns:

• BAV - percentage of games where the goaltender was below average (worse than 0.5 standard deviations below expected, given the season and opponent)
• AVG - percentage of games where the goaltender was average (between -0.5 and +0.5 standard deviations)
• AAV - percentage of games where the goaltender was above average (better than +0.5 standard deviations)

All are weighted by shots faced.

I need to add the functionality on the site to total NHL careers, but it's a simple sumproduct between the three columns (separately) and shots faced each season.

For Thomas' career (breaking out my trusty HP50g):

BAV - 20% of his games
AVG - 37% of his games
AAV - 44% of his games

(League average would be about 31%/38%/31%).

 

[Michael Farkas]

It takes about a half-hour per goaltender to do it.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1220987


But since you don't care about save percentage, do you mind if I do not devote that kind of time to trying to impress you?

No certainly not, I wasn't asking you to do the leg work, I assumed it was pulled from a larger table. I certainly wouldn't impose in such a way. And no, I'm not impressed by save percentage, especially in this era. But especially not from teams that play a style that is conducive to larger save percentages. Semyon Varlamov's save pct. means a lot more to me than Brian Elliott's...for reasons that become obvious when you factor the teams and their respective styles...

My guess would be that the career save pct. metric thing that you provided would probably contain at least 7 to 9 goaltenders out of the top-10 that are currently playing or have played in the last seven years. Or would at least kind of mirror QB rating, where it would have a very heavy modern bias...

---

Thanks for that, Doctor No.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No certainly not, I wasn't asking you to do the leg work, I assumed it was pulled from a larger table. I certainly wouldn't impose in such a way. And no, I'm not impressed by save percentage, especially in this era. But especially not from teams that play a style that is conducive to larger save percentages. Semyon Varlamov's save pct. means a lot more to me than Brian Elliott's...for reasons that become obvious when you factor the teams and their respective styles...

My guess would be that the career save pct. metric thing that you provided would probably contain at least 7 to 9 goaltenders out of the top-10 that are currently playing or have played in the last seven years. Or would at least kind of mirror QB rating, where it would have a very heavy modern bias...

---

Thanks for that, Doctor No.

Ah, I get you. I don't think that there would be any reason in particular for goaltenders to be more likely to be consistent now than, say, 20 years ago. They're being compared on a game-by-game basis to the league average of that particular season, so the increase in save percentage does not aid them in any way.

If you look at the first post in the linked thread, which covered every Vezina winner and various All-Stars from 1988-2012, the best single season percentages came in 1999, 1992, 1994, 1990, and 2011. Of the 50+ goaltenders I looked at (12 coming from 2006-2012), Ryan Miller in 2010 was the only other goaltender from after the 2005 lockout to make the top-20.

So I don't see any reason to believe current goaltenders are more consistent relative to the league average save percentage than goaltenders from the previous generation.

 

[quoipourquoi]

And I would like to clarify that at no point did I come close to offering you a "career save pct. metric thing". Career save percentage is a horrible statistic that I would not wish upon my worst enemy.

 

[Doctor No]

Related to the question of whether or not it's become easier to have an above-average game in the recent era (where league average save percentages are higher)...

My theory would have been the opposite of the claim above, based on the data shown here:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1830333

(Short version: when the league average save percentage is lower, there's more room to exceed it).

To test my theory, I pulled NHL seasons at five-year intervals (2013-14, back to the earliest season where I'd done the game logs), and looked at league totals for BAV (below -0.5 SD), AVG, and AAV (above +0.5 SD) games. The totals by year surprised me:

SEASON|BAV|AVG|AAV
1983-84|28%|35%|37%
1988-89|28%|34%|37%
1993-94|26%|38%|36%
1998-99|27%|34%|38%
2003-04|27%|37%|36%
2008-09|28%|36%|36%
2013-14|26%|37%|37%

So...it hasn't really gotten easier to have a high save percentage game (relative to the league), nor has it gotten easier to have a stinker (relative to the league).

As for why the proportion of below-average games is not the same as the proportion of above-average games, I would attribute this to two things (in descending order of importance).

• When a goaltender is having a stinker, he's more likely to be pulled early. Since my totals are shots-weighted, this lessens the impact of stinkers on the result.
• A (very small) positive correlation between shots faced and save percentages - goalies facing more shots have slightly higher save percentages. Since my totals are shots-weighted, you would expect to see slightly more above average games.

I welcome other theories, of course.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm kind of in the middle of QPQ and Mike Farkas when it comes to Tim Thomas. Okay, not Thomas' 2011 playoffs - then I completely disagree with Mike; Thomas was awesome then, even if his style maybe made him look a little more awesome than he actually was. But yeah, I'll take Thomas in 2011 over Quick in 2012 any day.

But one thing I'll say - and Dr No's latest post made me think of it - IMO, the Claude Julien Bruins play a style that inflates save percentage, by allowing lots of outside shots but not much in the middle of the ice. I mean, if # of shots allowed was a perfect proxy for team defense, the Bruins would be one of the worst defensive teams in the league, and that... is just not true.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm kind of in the middle of QPQ and Mike Farkas when it comes to Tim Thomas. Okay, not Thomas' 2011 playoffs - then I completely disagree with Mike; Thomas was awesome then, even if his style maybe made him look a little more awesome than he actually was. But yeah, I'll take Thomas in 2011 over Quick in 2012 any day.

But one thing I'll say - and Dr No's latest post made me think of it - IMO, the Cladue Julien Bruins play a style that inflates save percentage, by allowing lots of outside shots but not much in the middle of the ice. I mean, if # of shots allowed was a perfect proxy for team defense, the Bruins would be one of the worst defensive teams in the league, and that... is just not true.

And assuming that is true, we're still dealing with a goaltender who:

1. Has a top-ten save percentage finish prior to Claude Julien's arrival
2. Led the league in save percentage by .007 and .008, which were the biggest leads since 1999
3. Led his backups by 0.49 GAA, .023 SPCT; and 0.67 GAA, .020 SPCT

How many superfluous saves would we have to say Claude Julien is worth for us to take a goaltender like that and say that he is not only not Top-40, but was in fact a "bad" goaltender?


If anything, I think time will show that both Tim Thomas and Tuukka Rask were amazing goaltenders, and that the use of Rask in the Thomas vs. backups arguments during the 2012 project hurt him more than it should have.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Related to the question of whether or not it's become easier to have an above-average game in the recent era (where league average save percentages are higher)...

My theory would have been the opposite of the claim above, based on the data shown here:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1830333

(Short version: when the league average save percentage is lower, there's more room to exceed it).

To test my theory, I pulled NHL seasons at five-year intervals (2013-14, back to the earliest season where I'd done the game logs), and looked at league totals for BAV (below -0.5 SD), AVG, and AAV (above +0.5 SD) games. The totals by year surprised me:

SEASON|BAV|AVG|AAV
1983-84|28%|35%|37%
1988-89|28%|34%|37%
1993-94|26%|38%|36%
1998-99|27%|34%|38%
2003-04|27%|37%|36%
2008-09|28%|36%|36%
2013-14|26%|37%|37%

So...it hasn't really gotten easier to have a high save percentage game (relative to the league), nor has it gotten easier to have a stinker (relative to the league).

As for why the proportion of below-average games is not the same as the proportion of above-average games, I would attribute this to two things (in descending order of importance).

• When a goaltender is having a stinker, he's more likely to be pulled early. Since my totals are shots-weighted, this lessens the impact of stinkers on the result.
• A (very small) positive correlation between shots faced and save percentages - goalies facing more shots have slightly higher save percentages. Since my totals are shots-weighted, you would expect to see slightly more above average games.

I welcome other theories, of course.

This is interesting, thanks for posting. I would have assumed that below average games would have shrunk more due to the proliferation of the butterfly and the cookie cutter goalies...not exactly the case though.

My issue is more complicated. You can slice up save pct. any way you want, and God knows you and others have done some very creative and interesting things regarding it...but I just don't take all those numbers at face value. You can coach Corsi, you can coach save pct.

Doc, I think you live out that way, Semyon Varlamov doesn't face the same type of workload that Brian Elliott does...Kari Lehtonen doesn't face the same type of shots that 2011 Tim Thomas did or 2012 Tuukka Rask or whatever...

And I know that some of the stats guys don't believe in shot quality and that it all evens out...that's fine if that's you see it, but that's the line in the sand for me...there's just no way that's true for me...zero percent chance to put it numerically. I'm not saying every save Jaro Halak has to make is a ten-bell job or that poor Jonathan Bernier has to go to the ER after every game at the ACC...but on the whole, these guys play on highly unattentive teams...

The Penguins are what I know best, I saw every single game of the Dan Bylsma era in Pittsburgh. The Penguins had the puck a lot, so they didn't give up a ton of shots. So, not giving up a ton of shots is deemed - still - as being a good defensive team. But the Penguins were not good defensively. Not in the neutral zone, definitely not in their own zone, they weren't tough near the crease, their retrieval/breakout system was based on high risk timing and touch passes deep in their own zone and in front of their own net. It was juggling faberge eggs most of the time...

Even players that left, particularly defensemen, remarked how difficult it was to pick up and execute...if it worked it was awesome, if it didn't, it was a total disaster with little chance of recovery.

These things just aren't taken into account numerically, and frankly, they really can't be...or it would be very difficult to. It's not just shot distance, quantity, or the player that's shooting or who is on the ice against it...there's just more to it than that...painting things with the broad save pct. brush just doesn't do it for me. But then again, most statistics do not. So I'm not the best person to ask (who asked me anyhow...) but if a player under-performs or out-performs his technical abilities, something caused it. Especially to the extent that we're talking about. A player who was not good enough for the NHL, came into the NHL and was not good, then popped off two non-consecutive Godly seasons, then left that perch and became barely good enough for the NHL shortly thereafter should raise such a huge amount of questions to a voter, an on-looker, a random pedestrian that it's hard to believe it's just accepted based on a save pct. number that has been ballooned for nearly every goalie in not only Claude Julien's Boston tenure, but Claude Julien's coaching career...

I mean, Boston is playing like crap this year...and Rask is still probably looking at another top-10 save pct. finish. Which is poor form, as he's normally top-3 I would think...

Say what you will about Thomas, call him a Mahogany God for all I care, it goes well beyond that rotund rubber regurgitator...we just need to be much more careful today with the advancement of coaching tactics, particularly defensive ones, and their influence on goalies and their averaging statistics.

We don't have video of Alec Connell (the all-time GAA leader), so we have to go by what we have. But when we have the ability to merge video with our paper products here, it's important to take advantage of that. Merge the actual game with the output that is produced from it, that's when we'll really be cooking with gas...the numbers are a product of the game, not the other way around. Durnan, Hainsworth, Connell, even Dryden...they got a little bit of that "yeah, but..." tag on them...and that's with multiple concentrated years of success (influenced by outside factors in some cases, of course), we have to make sure we're picking these out when we're in the moment as well...though tougher, it's just as important if we're going to create lists like this and have discussions like this...

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

And assuming that is true, we're still dealing with a goaltender who:

1. Has a top-ten save percentage finish prior to Claude Julien's arrival
2. Led the league in save percentage by .007 and .008, which were the biggest leads since 1999
3. Led his backups by 0.49 GAA, .023 SPCT; and 0.67 GAA, .020 SPCT

How many superfluous saves would we have to say Claude Julien is worth for us to take a goaltender like that and say that he is not only not Top-40, but was in fact a "bad" goaltender?


If anything, I think time will show that both Tim Thomas and Tuukka Rask were amazing goaltenders, and that the use of Rask in the Thomas vs. backups arguments during the 2012 project hurt him more than it should have.

I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing this point like it's something special. Thomas only played 38 games that year, almost literally half as many as Luongo, Brodeur and Kiprusoff. The SV% leader that year was Cristobal Huet, who had around the same number of games played as Thomas. Thomas's .917 in a smaller sample size was below the likes of a Manny Fernandez and barely above Manny Legace, both who played more games.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing this point like it's something special. Thomas only played 38 games that year, almost literally half as many as Luongo, Brodeur and Kiprusoff. The SV% leader that year was Cristobal Huet, who had around the same number of games played as Thomas. Thomas's .917 in a smaller sample size was below the likes of a Manny Fernandez and barely above Manny Legace, both who played more games.

Nice catch. This is why I prefer measures like goals-versus-threshold and goals-above-replacement, which are based on save%, but they are accumulative, rather than averaging stats.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is interesting, thanks for posting. I would have assumed that below average games would have shrunk more due to the proliferation of the butterfly and the cookie cutter goalies...not exactly the case though.

My issue is more complicated. You can slice up save pct. any way you want, and God knows you and others have done some very creative and interesting things regarding it...but I just don't take all those numbers at face value. You can coach Corsi, you can coach save pct.

Doc, I think you live out that way, Semyon Varlamov doesn't face the same type of workload that Brian Elliott does...Kari Lehtonen doesn't face the same type of shots that 2011 Tim Thomas did or 2012 Tuukka Rask or whatever...

And I know that some of the stats guys don't believe in shot quality and that it all evens out...that's fine if that's you see it, but that's the line in the sand for me...there's just no way that's true for me...zero percent chance to put it numerically. I'm not saying every save Jaro Halak has to make is a ten-bell job or that poor Jonathan Bernier has to go to the ER after every game at the ACC...but on the whole, these guys play on highly unattentive teams...

The Penguins are what I know best, I saw every single game of the Dan Bylsma era in Pittsburgh. The Penguins had the puck a lot, so they didn't give up a ton of shots. So, not giving up a ton of shots is deemed - still - as being a good defensive team. But the Penguins were not good defensively. Not in the neutral zone, definitely not in their own zone, they weren't tough near the crease, their retrieval/breakout system was based on high risk timing and touch passes deep in their own zone and in front of their own net. It was juggling faberge eggs most of the time...

Even players that left, particularly defensemen, remarked how difficult it was to pick up and execute...if it worked it was awesome, if it didn't, it was a total disaster with little chance of recovery.

These things just aren't taken into account numerically, and frankly, they really can't be...or it would be very difficult to. It's not just shot distance, quantity, or the player that's shooting or who is on the ice against it...there's just more to it than that...painting things with the broad save pct. brush just doesn't do it for me. But then again, most statistics do not. So I'm not the best person to ask (who asked me anyhow...) but if a player under-performs or out-performs his technical abilities, something caused it. Especially to the extent that we're talking about. A player who was not good enough for the NHL, came into the NHL and was not good, then popped off two non-consecutive Godly seasons, then left that perch and became barely good enough for the NHL shortly thereafter should raise such a huge amount of questions to a voter, an on-looker, a random pedestrian that it's hard to believe it's just accepted based on a save pct. number that has been ballooned for nearly every goalie in not only Claude Julien's Boston tenure, but Claude Julien's coaching career...

I mean, Boston is playing like crap this year...and Rask is still probably looking at another top-10 save pct. finish. Which is poor form, as he's normally top-3 I would think...

Say what you will about Thomas, call him a Mahogany God for all I care, it goes well beyond that rotund rubber regurgitator...we just need to be much more careful today with the advancement of coaching tactics, particularly defensive ones, and their influence on goalies and their averaging statistics.

We don't have video of Alec Connell (the all-time GAA leader), so we have to go by what we have. But when we have the ability to merge video with our paper products here, it's important to take advantage of that. Merge the actual game with the output that is produced from it, that's when we'll really be cooking with gas...the numbers are a product of the game, not the other way around. Durnan, Hainsworth, Connell, even Dryden...they got a little bit of that "yeah, but..." tag on them...and that's with multiple concentrated years of success (influenced by outside factors in some cases, of course), we have to make sure we're picking these out when we're in the moment as well...though tougher, it's just as important if we're going to create lists like this and have discussions like this...

Is it possible he was good enough for the NHL, but goalie experts like yourself determined from his style he wasn't good enough?

In Thomas's first season (05-06), on a bad Bruins team, he was 7th in the league in save percentage (no Julien). That's not good?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm not sure why you keep emphasizing this point like it's something special. Thomas only played 38 games that year, almost literally half as many as Luongo, Brodeur and Kiprusoff. The SV% leader that year was Cristobal Huet, who had around the same number of games played as Thomas. Thomas's .917 in a smaller sample size was below the likes of a Manny Fernandez and barely above Manny Legace, both who played more games.

Because it addresses some of the incorrect statements that were made. He was called up in January, played almost the entirety of the Bruins' last half of the season, and had one of the top save percentages (.917) despite playing on a horrible team whose previous starter finished the season with a .879.

So when people say that he was a bad goaltender without Claude Julien or that he didn't have above-average seasons outside of 2009 and 2011 - and they have - they are incorrect.

Are 2006 or 2008 Vezina-caliber seasons? Absolutely not. If he had three or four Vezinas and a Conn Smythe, he'd be in our top-20. But yes, 2005-06 is evidence that directly addresses some of the points raised against him this week.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I mean, it was the same stats as a bust in Hannu Toivonen put up in 05-06 and it was in, what, 35 decisions...who cares? Unless Brian Elliott's season a couple years back in the best season ever...but that would take it away from Thomas, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too here...

It seems unlikely, he was drafted and evaluated by Quebec for years, they opted out of it...he was given chances in the AHL, high profile Euro leagues, got camp invites, wasn't deemed to be good enough...

Came into the NHL, still wasn't good...I recall a poll on the Bruins board that was like, "who do you want going forward? Thomas or..." and I don't recall the other guy, but it was one of those losers like Raycroft or something...and it was overwhelmingly in [the other guy's] favor because he looked bad. Now, HF polls are far from relevant, but those fans in that moment were watching a very bad goaltender play, clearly. We all saw it.

Then the new sheriff came into town, all of a sudden he's a HOF-level goalie? And then he leaves that environment and is right back in the sewer...no one finds that even remotely odd. Oh, and also, his predecessor is the all-time leader in save pct. despite this season where the Bruins have played the worst they've played defensively in the Julien era...

I guess I just don't understand how the gap is so large between Thomas and Cechmanek...2 elite seasons and a Smythe vs. 3 elite seasons...if I put Cechmanek on the prelim list, it might get rejected...

I mean, Christ, does Cechmanek even get drafted in the MLD over on the ATD forum? AAA draft? Hard to believe...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Nice catch. This is why I prefer measures like goals-versus-threshold and goals-above-replacement, which are based on save%, but they are accumulative, rather than averaging stats.

Tim Thomas GAR in 2005-06 was 37.3.

So... still not average, as was alleged by ted1971, to which I brought up 2005-06 in response.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I mean, it was the same stats as a bust in Hannu Toivonen put up in 05-06 and it was in, what, 35 decisions...who cares? Unless Brian Elliott's season a couple years back in the best season ever...but that would take it away from Thomas, right? You can't have your cake and eat it too here...

It seems unlikely, he was drafted and evaluated by Quebec for years, they opted out of it...he was given chances in the AHL, high profile Euro leagues, got camp invites, wasn't deemed to be good enough...

Came into the NHL, still wasn't good...I recall a poll on the Bruins board that was like, "who do you want going forward? Thomas or..." and I don't recall the other guy, but it was one of those losers like Raycroft or something...and it was overwhelmingly in [the other guy's] favor because he looked bad. Now, HF polls are far from relevant, but those fans in that moment were watching a very bad goaltender play, clearly. We all saw it.

Then the new sheriff came into town, all of a sudden he's a HOF-level goalie? And then he leaves that environment and is right back in the sewer...no one finds that even remotely odd. Oh, and also, his predecessor is the all-time leader in save pct. despite this season where the Bruins have played the worst they've played defensively in the Julien era...

I guess I just don't understand how the gap is so large between Thomas and Cechmanek...2 elite seasons and a Smythe vs. 3 elite seasons...if I put Cechmanek on the prelim list, it might get rejected...

I mean, Christ, does Cechmanek even get drafted in the MLD over on the ATD forum? AAA draft? Hard to believe...

1/2 a season in 05-06 + his 2 Vezina seasons + his Conn Smythe run is not that small of a sample of games.

Cechmanek was (perhaps unfairly, perhaps not) run out of Philly after the playoffs. Thomas won a Conn Smythe.

Maybe Thomas was just a late bloomer, you know?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Late bloomer does not exist in this context. You can late bloom at 24, 25, 26, 27 maybe...but not at 33...other influences had to have occurred...

If you don't start shaving until you're 17, you're a late bloomer...if you don't start shaving until you're 33, you have a disease...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Durnan, Hainsworth, Connell, even Dryden...they got a little bit of that "yeah, but..." tag on them...and that's with multiple concentrated years of success (influenced by outside factors in some cases, of course), we have to make sure we're picking these out when we're in the moment as well...though tougher, it's just as important if we're going to create lists like this and have discussions like this...

I don't think those are unfair comparisons. Even if we accept that Thomas was a genuine star with the Bruins, he's still playing behind Zdeno and Friends. There's a certain amount of stat inflation for any goalie who plays in that net.

What I don't quite follow is that Dryden is our #7, Durnan is our #14, Hainsworth is our #22 and Connell is our #39... and you're basically saying Thomas didn't even belong on the aggregate list.

Even with their "yeah, but..." factors, nobody ever asserted that the above were outright impostors like you're saying about Thomas.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It seems unlikely, he was drafted and evaluated by Quebec for years, they opted out of it...he was given chances in the AHL, high profile Euro leagues, got camp invites, wasn't deemed to be good enough...

You're really misrepresenting his career track here.