HOH Top 40 Goaltenders of All Time

[Sonic Disturbance]

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.

I've only glimpsed through Mike Farkas's long posts so I can't be sure, but is the argument really that Thomas is a bad goaltender? Or that he is undeserving on being in the top-40 (the title of the thread)?

Anyway, once again, I don't see how focusing on 38 games in 2006 where Thomas posted a .917 proves that much. Superstar Hannu Toivonen had a .914 in 20 games that year on the same team. 38 games in half a season is such a small size to focus on. James Reimer has also had similar stretches of .921 (2011) and .924 (2013 - was also top-10) in around the same amount of games in worse systems.

In his next and only other year without Julien in Boston, he played 66 games (a 174% increase in sample size), an expected workload for a starter and posted a poor .905 SV%. If you look at the total SV% based on 104 games in those two seasons, his SV% is a mediocre ~.909 (yes I realize scoring was higher in the first couple seasons post-lockout leading to a lower average SV%, but .909 is still not very good at all).

So basically, without Julien, Thomas had a SV% in 104 games of ~.909. I'm too lazy to do the calculations, but his SV% with Julien is MUCH higher, even scaling for the fact that less goals were being scored from 2008 and on.

I would never say Thomas is a bad goaltender, but rather one with a short peak who was greatly benefited by the system he played in and benefited from lighter workloads (usually ~55 games). I cannot believe he would be ranked about Lundqvist (YES, I am aware that this project was done in 2012, but I would easily take 2005-2012 Lundqivst over 2005-2012 Thomas).

I also think his 2011 playoff was overrated, but not to the extent of Mike Farkas. He was flat-out dominant at times, but was somewhat inconsistent compared to other great goalie runs in the playoffs. I watched almost all the Bruins playoff games that year and he imploded a few times in the Montreal/Tampa series. It would definitely be misleading to just look at a .198 GAA and .940 SV%.

Brian Elliott is the perfect example of how workloads + systems can affect SV%. He was struggling to put up a .900 SV% in Ottawa/Colorado, but then somehow puts up .940 in St. Louis in 38 games. He's had multiple seasons of .920+ since as well. Did he improve? Maybe, but there's no question Hitchcock had something to do with it. Now obviously Elliott never had the playoff success of Thomas and Thomas >>>> Elliott but it just goes to show how misleading raw SV% numbers can be.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I've only glimpsed through Mike Farkas's long posts so I can't be sure, but is the argument really that Thomas is a bad goaltender? Or that he is undeserving on being in the top-40 (the title of the thread)?

Thomas' performance in 2005-06 and 2007-08 was brought up to address the following statement:

Just because Thomas has 2 Vezina's means nothing to me. Thomas was average at best the other 8 seasons.

While he does not have other seasons where he was more than 3 standard deviations above the average goaltender like he was in 2009 (3.5) and 2011 (3.9), he was still noticeably above-average in 2006 (1.8), 2008 (1.8), and 2012 (1.0).

In his next and only other year without Julien in Boston, he played 66 games (a 174% increase in sample size), an expected workload for a starter and posted a poor .905 SV%.

His statistics suffered as a result of the Bruins' 442 penalty kills with a below-average kill percentage. Here are some of the even-strength percentages and the overall percentages of some 2006-07 goaltenders:

2006-07
Kiprusoff: .932 (.917)
Hasek: .932 (.913)
Lundqvist: .931 (.917)
Vokoun: .931 (.920)
Luongo: .928 (.921)
Brodeur: .927 (.922)
Giguere: .926 (.918)
Thomas: .920 (.905)

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

While he does not have other seasons where he was more than 3 standard deviations above the average goaltender like he was in 2009 (3.5) and 2011 (3.9), he was still noticeably above-average in 2006 (1.8), 2008 (1.8), and 2012 (1.0).

Are these metrics based on raw SV%? Because that would be a very flawed way to determine whether a player was average or above-average. Yes, his .917 is above-average, but he played 38 games, allowing for greater deviations. Luongo, who had a .914 in 75 games would be considered to be having an inferior season then, which is extremely unfair. You can saw that is raw SV% was better than average, but you can't just throw a metric out there and say Thomas was above-average.

EDIT: Okay, Doctor No explained, disregard the sample size part this post.

His statistics suffered as a result of the Bruins' 442 penalty kills with a below-average kill percentage. Here are some of the even-strength percentages and the overall percentages of some 2006-07 goaltenders:

2006-07
Kiprusoff: .932 (.917)
Hasek: .932 (.913)
Lundqvist: .931 (.917)
Vokoun: .931 (.920)
Luongo: .928 (.921)
Brodeur: .927 (.922)
Giguere: .926 (.918)
Thomas: .920 (.905)

It seems that Hasek was effected more and Kipper & Lundqivst were effected around that same amount as Thomas. Vokoun slightly less. Giggy, Luongo, Brodeur were effected noticeably less. All the same, why does ESV% matter all of a sudden, when you've been using total SV% for pretty much all your arguments? Goalies play a role (and are often referred to as the most important penalty-killer as well) on the PK too. Even his even-strength SV% is noticeably lower than everyone else listed there. A 42-year old Hasek had a .12 lead based on those stats. I don't have the numbers for other goalies, so I can't comment too much on ESV%.

.905 is poor no matter how you spin it. So is .909 over 104 games pre-Julien.

 

[Doctor No]

Are these metrics based on raw SV%? Because that would be a very flawed way to determine whether a player was average or above-average. Yes, his .917 is above-average, but he played 38 games. Luongo, who had a .914 in 74 games would be considered to be having an inferior season then, which is extremely unfair. You can saw that is raw SV% was better than average, but you can't just throw a metric out there and say Thomas was above-average.

For what it's worth, the standard deviation approach accounts for sample size.

Someone posting a 95% save percentage over one game? Not a high standard deviation. Over 10 games? More remarkable. Over 60 games? Exceptionally remarkable.

In your example, Thomas' 91.7% equates to a +1.8 standard deviation performance.

Luongo's 91.4% in the same season, although lower than 91.7%, is +2.3 standard deviations (so more impressive).

 

[quoipourquoi]

.905 is poor no matter how you spin it.

.905 was league average in 2006-07, not poor.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

.905 was league average in 2006-07, not poor.

.905 is the total average all goaltenders in 2007. This includes backups, AHL call-ups etc. I assume when we refer to Thomas as "average", we mean an average starting goaltender. Otherwise an "average" goalie in NHL is essentially a backup. Compared to other starting goaltenders in the league, I would assume .905 is below average (this is an assumption, too lazy to go look up all the stats ATM).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

.905 is the total average all goaltenders in 2007. This includes backups, AHL call-ups etc. I assume when we refer to Thomas as "average", we mean an average starting goaltender. Otherwise an "average" goalie in NHL is essentially a backup. Compared to other starting goaltenders in the league, I would assume .905 is below average (this is an assumption, too lazy to go look up all the stats ATM).

It should be kept in mind that the year Thomas had a .905 SP was the year Dale Lewis coached the Bruins. How bad were they? Bergeron was -28 and Chara was -21. Clearly a dysfunctional team. Believe me, watching that team play was no fun. Nor was playing goal for them. But Thomas did manage to win 30 games that year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I've only glimpsed through Mike Farkas's long posts so I can't be sure, but is the argument really that Thomas is a bad goaltender? Or that he is undeserving on being in the top-40 (the title of the thread)?

Anyway, once again, I don't see how focusing on 38 games in 2006 where Thomas posted a .917 proves that much. Superstar Hannu Toivonen had a .914 in 20 games that year on the same team. 38 games in half a season is such a small size to focus on. James Reimer has also had similar stretches of .921 (2011) and .924 (2013 - was also top-10) in around the same amount of games in worse systems.

In his next and only other year without Julien in Boston, he played 66 games (a 174% increase in sample size), an expected workload for a starter and posted a poor .905 SV%. If you look at the total SV% based on 104 games in those two seasons, his SV% is a mediocre ~.909 (yes I realize scoring was higher in the first couple seasons post-lockout leading to a lower average SV%, but .909 is still not very good at all).

So basically, without Julien, Thomas had a SV% in 104 games of ~.909. I'm too lazy to do the calculations, but his SV% with Julien is MUCH higher, even scaling for the fact that less goals were being scored from 2008 and on.

I would never say Thomas is a bad goaltender, but rather one with a short peak who was greatly benefited by the system he played in and benefited from lighter workloads (usually ~55 games). I cannot believe he would be ranked about Lundqvist (YES, I am aware that this project was done in 2012, but I would easily take 2005-2012 Lundqivst over 2005-2012 Thomas).

I also think his 2011 playoff was overrated, but not to the extent of Mike Farkas. He was flat-out dominant at times, but was somewhat inconsistent compared to other great goalie runs in the playoffs. I watched almost all the Bruins playoff games that year and he imploded a few times in the Montreal/Tampa series. It would definitely be misleading to just look at a .198 GAA and .940 SV%.

Brian Elliott is the perfect example of how workloads + systems can affect SV%. He was struggling to put up a .900 SV% in Ottawa/Colorado, but then somehow puts up .940 in St. Louis in 38 games. He's had multiple seasons of .920+ since as well. Did he improve? Maybe, but there's no question Hitchcock had something to do with it. Now obviously Elliott never had the playoff success of Thomas and Thomas >>>> Elliott but it just goes to show how misleading raw SV% numbers can be.

Yes, that appears to be Mr. Farkas's contention.

Why Lundqvist easily over Thomas? Thomas accomplished more in that time frame. His playoff record is clearly better over that time. Did he simply look that much better than Thomas?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Oh, he's bad. But that's an unrealistic viewpoint to take that I don't hope to convince anyone of. That's too extreme to readily swallow. My argument is to recognize that we were duped and to hopefully learn from it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh, he's bad. But that's an unrealistic viewpoint to take that I don't hope to convince anyone of. That's too extreme to readily swallow. My argument is to recognize that we were duped and to hopefully learn from it.

He sure managed to dupe a lot of people, including the majority of NHL GMs

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

.905 is the total average all goaltenders in 2007. This includes backups, AHL call-ups etc. I assume when we refer to Thomas as "average", we mean an average starting goaltender. Otherwise an "average" goalie in NHL is essentially a backup. Compared to other starting goaltenders in the league, I would assume .905 is below average (this is an assumption, too lazy to go look up all the stats ATM).

The average for starters that season was .909 - I'll leave it to others to hash out how significant a difference that is.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Yes, that appears to be Mr. Farkas's contention.

Why Lundqvist easily over Thomas? Thomas accomplished more in that time frame. His playoff record is clearly better over that time. Did he simply look that much better than Thomas?

Thomas had two fantastic seasons in 2009 and 2011, totaling two Vezinas. However, Lundqivst was much more consistent season-to-season, even if he won only one Vezina. He never finished lower than 6th in Vezina voting from 2005-2012 was a finalist four times.

Boston's defensive system under Julien also inflates SV%. Unlike some of the Devils' teams in the DPE who stifled teams by allowing a minimal amount of shots (which is why Brodeur's SV% is not that special), Boston allowed a significant quantity of shots that were lower in quality compared to other teams. While some of the New York teams later on were good defensively, their style (a lot of shot blocking characterized by the posterboy for this style Dan Girardi) doesn't inflate SV% IMO. Finally, Lundqvist, could play significantly more games, going over 70 several times (four straight years - the fifth year he played 68). Thomas usually played ~55 games in a typical season and only went over 60 ONCE (his worst statistical season of that period too).

As a coach/GM/player I would definitely feel more comfortable playing with Lundqvist behind me. With Thomas, you could get ridiculous acrobatic saves, but then a lot of ugly goals/implosions from time to time.

Also minor, but Lundqvist was/is dynamite in the shootout.

 

[MXD]

The average for starters that season was .909 - I'll leave it to others to hash out how significant a difference that is.

Arguably extremely insignificant, especially if we accept that Thomas looked better than he should behind the turn-of-decade Boston team (at least, SV%-wise), we HAVE to accept that his SV% was worst than it should've been behind the Lewis-fueled Boston Bruins.

What's good for a part of the thesis must be good for the counterpart.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, that appears to be Mr. Farkas's contention.

Why Lundqvist easily over Thomas? Thomas accomplished more in that time frame. His playoff record is clearly better over that time. Did he simply look that much better than Thomas?

Vezina records as of 2011-12:

Year |Lundqvist |Thomas
2006|3rd |none
2007| 3rd |none
2008| 3rd |9th
2009| 6th |1st
2010| 6th |none
2011| 4th |1st
2012| 1st |none

And yes, I realize that some of those finishes were with only a few votes, and that there is a save percentage case for Thomas.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He sure managed to dupe a lot of people, including the majority of NHL GMs

If it's a reference to Vezina voting, I mean, what were they supposed to do...if anything, it shows you that he had more skeptics among the talent evaluators...

2009 - With basically no competition with the goalie awards...Media: 103 of 131 first place votes (78.6%); GMs: 22 of 30 first place votes (73.3%).

2011 - Media: 92 of 125 first place votes (73.6%), 97.6% of ballots; GMs: 17 of 30 first place votes (56.7%), 86.7% of ballots.

I mean, you'd think after the season and the fanfare that Thomas got in 2011 (record breaking*) that he would have been a shoo-in universally...but just a touch over half of the league's GMs even considered him the league's best goalie that year...and 4 out of 30 didn't even consider him top-3 in the league that year! That's odd...no?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Thomas had two fantastic seasons in 2009 and 2011, totaling two Vezinas. However, Lundqivst was much more consistent season-to-season, even if he won only one Vezina. He never finished lower than 6th in Vezina voting from 2005-2012 was a finalist four times.

Boston's defensive system under Julien also inflates SV%. Unlike some of the Devils' teams in the DPE who stifled teams by allowing a minimal amount of shots (which is why Brodeur's SV% is not that special), Boston allowed a significant quantity of shots that were lower in quality compared to other teams. While some of the New York teams later on were good defensively, their style (a lot of shot blocking characterized by the posterboy for this style Dan Girardi) doesn't inflate SV% IMO.

As a coach/GM/player I would definitely feel more comfortable playing with Lundqvist behind me. With Thomas, you could get ridiculous acrobatic saves, but then a lot of ugly goals/implosions from time to time.

Also minor, but Lundqvist was/is dynamite in the shootout.

This guy gets it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Thomas had two fantastic seasons in 2009 and 2011, totaling two Vezinas. However, Lundqivst was much more consistent season-to-season, even if he won only one Vezina. He never finished lower than 6th in Vezina voting from 2005-2012 was a finalist four times.

Boston's defensive system under Julien also inflates SV%. Unlike some of the Devils' teams in the DPE who stifled teams by allowing a minimal amount of shots (which is why Brodeur's SV% is not that special), Boston allowed a significant quantity of shots that were lower in quality compared to other teams. While some of the New York teams later on were good defensively, their style (a lot of shot blocking characterized by the posterboy for this style Dan Girardi) doesn't inflate SV% IMO. Finally, Lundqvist, could play significantly more games, going over 70 several times (four straight years - the fifth year he played 68). Thomas usually played ~55 games in a typical season and only went over 60 ONCE (his worst statistical season of that period too).

As a coach/GM/player I would definitely feel more comfortable playing with Lundqvist behind me. With Thomas, you could get ridiculous acrobatic saves, but then a lot of ugly goals/implosions from time to time.

Also minor, but Lundqvist was/is dynamite in the shootout.

Thomas was also very good in the shootout, but being good in shootouts doesn't really do much good in the playoffs.

However, I do recall a shootout in the last game of the Rangers season in 2010 that meant the difference between making the playoffs and going home. And Lundqvist lost it.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Vezina records as of 2011-12:

Year |Lundqvist |Thomas
2006|3rd |none
2007| 3rd |none
2008| 3rd |9th
2009| 6th |1st
2010| 6th |none
2011| 4th |1st
2012| 1st |none

And yes, I realize that some of those finishes were with only a few votes, and that there is a save percentage case for Thomas.

And how about playoff records?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I mean, you'd think after the season and the fanfare that Thomas got in 2011 (record breaking*) that he would have been a shoo-in universally...but just a touch over half of the league's GMs even considered him the league's best goalie that year...and 4 out of 30 didn't even consider him top-3 in the league that year! That's odd...no?

In that case, Dominik Hasek in 1998-99 has some explaining to do. He was left off of six ballots, and less than one-third of GMs thought he was the best goalie.

Maybe they should have put an asterisk on that record-breaking season too?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And how about playoff records?

Obviously, Thomas had 2011, which is a big reason he made the list.

 

[quoipourquoi]

And yes, I realize that some of those finishes were with only a few votes, and that there is a save percentage case for Thomas.

A reminder of what their careers looked like going into the project:

Goals Above Replacement-Level: Regular Season + Playoffs
Thomas: 371.4 in 428 games
Lundqvist: 364.9 in 523 games

Support-Neutral Winning Percentage: Regular Season + Playoffs
Thomas: 239-173, 58.0%
Lundqvist: 288-228, 55.8%


We got it right at the time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A reminder of what their careers looked like going into the project:

Goals Above Replacement-Level: Regular Season + Playoffs
Thomas: 371.4 in 428 games
Lundqvist: 364.9 in 523 games

Support-Neutral Winning Percentage: Regular Season + Playoffs
Thomas: 239-173, 58.0%
Lundqvist: 288-228, 55.8%


We got it right at the time.

With the assumption of course that team situation didn't have a significant effect on either of their shot totals / save percentages / etc

Anyway....I'm fine with how it turned out, even if it isn't necessarily the way I voted.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If it's a reference to Vezina voting, I mean, what were they supposed to do...if anything, it shows you that he had more skeptics among the talent evaluators...

2009 - With basically no competition with the goalie awards...Media: 103 of 131 first place votes (78.6%); GMs: 22 of 30 first place votes (73.3%).

2011 - Media: 92 of 125 first place votes (73.6%), 97.6% of ballots; GMs: 17 of 30 first place votes (56.7%), 86.7% of ballots.

I mean, you'd think after the season and the fanfare that Thomas got in 2011 (record breaking*) that he would have been a shoo-in universally...but just a touch over half of the league's GMs even considered him the league's best goalie that year...and 4 out of 30 didn't even consider him top-3 in the league that year! That's odd...no?

Having GM's vote for anything is stupid. Its not part of their job. Its probably an afterthought for some. I'll bet some GMs didn't even look at any stats before making their picks.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'll bet some GMs didn't even look at any stats before making their picks.

One can only hope...should be only a small piece of the puzzle when you have the information available to them...

 

[bob437]

JIMMY FOSTER on Top Goalie Lists

I think the Goalie of the 1936 Winter Olympic Gold Medal Ice Hockey Team JIMMY FOSTER deserves consideration as one of the Best Goalies of all Time. I say this because of His excellent Play at the GOALIE Position during the 1936 Winter Olympics in which He Played on a Great Britain Team that was often outplayed by its Opponents along with His outstanding Career. I think JIMMY FOSTER deserves strong consideration to be inducted into The Regular and IIHF Hall of Fame's.