HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[nabby12]

Like Karakas, another name that I'm considering for my top-80 list from that same era is Earl Robertson, the New York Americans stalwart netminder of the late 1930s who took over after Roy Worters retired.

A small NHL career compared to most others of his era, but put up some great numbers on some bad Americans teams and earned quite a lot of accolades:
- 1937 Stanley Cup champ (Backstopped Detroit to the Cup after starter Normie Smith went down with injury)
- 1939 NHL Second Team All-Star
- Two-time top five finish in Hart Trophy voting

Here's a story I had written for THN Top 100 Goalies magazine a few years back. Robertson was #98 I believe on that list.

Not many goalies can make the claim they made their big-league debut in an NHL final and went on to win the Stanley Cup, but that’s exactly what Earl Robertson did back in 1937 for the Detroit Red Wings.

A 10-year minor-league journeyman, Robertson made his NHL debut in Game 1 of the Cup final after Detroit starter Normie Smith injured his elbow in the Red Wings’ first-round series. Smith’s elbow had swelled up so badly, he had to watch from the stands.

The Red Wings faced the New York Rangers in the 1937 final and were looking to defend the Cup. Detroit was dealing with injury problems already when its star goalie went down. Prior to joining the Wings, Robertson had lived a nomadic pro career starting at age 17, playing for minor-league teams in Regina, Vancouver, Victoria, Tacoma, Oakland, San Francisco, Hollywood, Edmonton, Windsor, Rochester and Pittsburgh.

Robertson was 26 when the Wings called him up from the Pittsburgh Hornets. He played well the first three games, withstanding the pressure of a Cup-final series, but Detroit trailed 2-1 and was on the brink of elimination in the best-of-five final. That set the stage for heroics that forever etched Robertson into hockey history.

He was flawless turning aside shot after shot in a 1-0 Game 4 victory in Detroit. He followed that up with a 3-0 shutout on home ice in Game 5 to give Detroit its second Stanley Cup. Robertson even stopped the first penalty shot awarded in a Cup final game when he robbed Rangers forward Alex Shibicky to preserve the shutout. “They could take me out and shoot me now,” Earl told reporters after the game. “I’d die happy.”

After backstopping his team to glory, Robertson didn’t receive any of the team bonus money Stanley Cup winners get, newspapers reported. That’s because he was viewed as a replacement. The Red Wings owner, James Norris Sr., soon insisted on looking after Robertson personally by handing him a $600 cheque. It’s likely that if the Conn Smythe Trophy had been awarded in those days, Detroit’s Marty Barry would have won it. But Robertson surely would have been runner-up. Barry, who scored the Cup-winning goal, told Robertson, “You were great, kid. Just sensational. They can’t keep you in the minors now.”

Barry was right. But they could trade Robertson. The Red Wings stuck with Normie Smith the following season, so Robertson was shipped to the New York Americans for Red Doran and cash. It worked out because Robertson, who never played a regular-season game for Detroit, went on to play five seasons with the Americans and was one of the NHL’s better goalies despite playing for a weak squad. He was named a second team all-star in 1939 and twice finished in the top five in Hart Trophy voting.

In addition to back-to-back shutouts in the 1937 Cup final, Robertson posted a 3-0 shutout in his NHL regular-season debut on Nov. 4, 1937, against Chicago. Living in New York for five years, Robertson and his wife were often seen at nightclubs or the Radio City Music Hall on off nights or even watching the sunset from the Empire State Building. It was a different lifestyle from growing up in a small Saskatchewan town.

In 1942, Robertson went to fight in the Second World War and served with the 19th Alberta Dragoons. When he came out of the service at 32, his hockey career was over. Robertson died in 1979 at 68 in Wetaskiwin, Alta., where he had made his home after retiring.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This might be common knowledge, I'm not sure...

1979 Stanley Cup Final - Dryden gives up 4 on 13 and gets pulled. The "sleepy" Canadiens (according to the Rangers broadcast WOR-9) turned to Bunny Larocque. Well, it turns out that Bowman had turned to Bunny to start game 2. Unfortunately, Bunny took a puck in the face in warm-ups and couldn't play. Dryden gave up two early goals - one of which was not very good.

Now, Larocque doesn't win a 7-game series in his NHL career (his previous experience was a loss to New York, in fact).

Now, of course, the Habs rally and everything is fine...but I wonder what happens if Bunny wins that series (as the Habs out-matched the Rangers pretty handily)...? Could he win it with 17 goals of support in the final four games of the series? I wonder if that takes a bite out of Dryden's legacy at all.

 

[Doctor No]

Doug Risebrough took the shot. I hate guys who shoot high in warmups.

Richard Sevigny backed up Dryden in Game Two (and has a Cup to show for it).

 

[Doctor No]

@Doctor No you have a VAR stat on your site. Have you found yourself able to derive (or theorize) any conclusions with that? Whether solo or in conjunction with another stat(s) that points towards positive performance?

(He notes on his site that you can be "consistent" (that is, not varying much) good and consistent bad).

I ask because I'm watching Tony Esposito a good bit this morning...and it seems like his good is very good and is bad is quite bad. It almost feels like goals just pile on him once he gives one up.

I'd still take old Esposito over young Liut, I'll say that much. Liut has been a disappointment in my viewings thus far, I had a thought that he might be a sleeper candidate.

This is a good question - first, the numbers:

These are generally slightly lower than the theoretical average (a perfectly league-average goaltender should be about 1.00 each year). Esposito's meaningfully better than league average (insert save percentage caveat) which makes it easier for him to have lower game-to-game variation, but it's not as low as I'd expect it to be based on that. So I suppose for a HHOF level goaltender, he's less consistent.

It does appear that he has "below average" games more than his star contemporaries (games one standard deviation below expected or worse). Here's Espo:

Here's Dryden:

Dryden's "bad games" were consistently in the teens, while Esposito was consistently in the twenties.

Parent:

Parent fell off a bit after his peak, of course, but damn that 1973-74 is amazing.

To give you someone on the other side of the ledger, here's Ron Low:

This isn't some sort of statistical Bill James brilliance to say "Tony Esposito was more consistent than Ron Low", but I wanted to show the other side of the coin.

And now I'll throw in a beefier save percentage caveat, specifically noting here that what this shows also shows the impact of the Black Hawks', Flyers', Canadiens', and Capitals' defenses and how those vary from game-to-game. I do adjust for opponent (so the expectation facing the 1984 Oilers is lower than for facing the 1976 Capitals). And a bonus save percentage caveat is that the 1970s were super weird in the NHL and goaltender save percentages follow suit.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I do adjust for opponent (so the expectation facing the 1984 Oilers is lower than for facing the 1976 Capitals).

Yeah, what's Ron's middle name..."Very" (?)

[Silence broken by someone yelling out "I think it's 'Albert' actually"]

Now, when you say you adjust for opponent - is that captured in the screenshots above? Meaning, that 27 saves on 30 shots against the 1984 Oilers might be average or above average; but against the 1984 Devils it might be in one of the lesser categories? Or am I taking that too far...?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This might be common knowledge, I'm not sure...
1979 Stanley Cup Final - Dryden gives up 4 on 13 and gets pulled. The "sleepy" Canadiens (according to the Rangers broadcast WOR-9) turned to Bunny Larocque. Well, it turns out that Bowman had turned to Bunny to start game 2. Unfortunately, Bunny took a puck in the face in warm-ups and couldn't play. Dryden gave up two early goals - one of which was not very good.
Now, Larocque doesn't win a 7-game series in his NHL career (his previous experience was a loss to New York, in fact).
Now, of course, the Habs rally and everything is fine...but I wonder what happens if Bunny wins that series (as the Habs out-matched the Rangers pretty handily)...? Could he win it with 17 goals of support in the final four games of the series? I wonder if that takes a bite out of Dryden's legacy at all.

I don't think so.

That was Dryden's final season and his performance wasn't up to his standards all season. I don't think that season added anything to his legacy, so the scenario you presented probably doesn't hurt it either.

 

[Doctor No]

Now, when you say you adjust for opponent - is that captured in the screenshots above? Meaning, that 27 saves on 30 shots against the 1984 Oilers might be average or above average; but against the 1984 Devils it might be in one of the lesser categories? Or am I taking that too far...?

It's not perfect (but you all know that already) - it takes a composite of the team/season's non-empty net shooting percentage and shots faced (I also adjust for the playoff environment relative to regular season; otherwise most games in the playoffs would be above average).

So if you face 40 shots from a team with a non-EN shooting percentage of 10%, you'd expect to see 36 saves. And then you can calculate the goaltender's performance relative to that using binomial distributions (yes, this also has underlying assumptions).

This started as a way to replace the "quality start" definition that I don't recall who was using at the time. Now I color goaltenders green and red, which is fine as long as the reader takes it with a grain or two of salt.

That's a long-winded way of saying "yes, opponent adjustments are included in the numbers above".

 

[Michael Farkas]

TIL that the Habs were granted a special commissioner exception to carry four goalies (effectively an extra roster spot) when Dryden took leave during the 73-74 season.

 

[MXD]

TIL that the Habs were granted a special commissioner exception to carry four goalies (effectively an extra roster spot) when Dryden took leave during the 73-74 season.

- Does that include Dryden?
- If so, considering that Dryden wasn't under contract (at least, from my understanding of the situation), why would he require a roster spot?

 

[Michael Farkas]

- Does that include Dryden?
- If so, considering that Dryden wasn't under contract (at least, from my understanding of the situation), why would he require a roster spot?

Yes, it includes Dryden.
Apparently he was under...something...because the source mentioned that they could either:
- Put him on the voluntary retirement list (which would lower his trade value, according to them)
- Put him on waivers and put him on the Nova Scotia roster (you can't waive a contract that doesn't exist, I wouldn't think - it also mentioned "who wouldn't claim Dryden off waivers?")
- Keep him on the roster

They chose the latter. Along with Bunny, Plasse, and Thomas.

 

[MXD]

Yes, it includes Dryden.
Apparently he was under...something...because the source mentioned that they could either:
- Put him on the voluntary retirement list (which would lower his trade value, according to them)
- Put him on waivers and put him on the Nova Scotia roster (you can't waive a contract that doesn't exist, I wouldn't think - it also mentioned "who wouldn't claim Dryden off waivers?")
- Keep him on the roster

They chose the latter. Along with Bunny, Plasse, and Thomas.

Contract automatically renewed, I suppose.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok...re: Dryden/Tretiak.

I'm having a bit of difficulty with the 70s, as I mentioned. Here's where I'm at. I'm not gonna over-think it too much because I'm just one panelist in a sea of other panelists...

Hockey Sense: About even. Both are terrific play readers. They take calculated risks, but their heads are in the game and it shows in their positioning, reads, anticipation of dangerous shooters. Both have high end hockey sense. Effectively, a draw.

Technical skill: I think Tretiak has better form. I think he keeps better posture when moving post to post. I like the direction of his rebounds slightly better. I like his stick positioning slightly better. I also like him to have less holes through him than Dryden in their standup and pad stack save selections. Dryden probably has the better glove. Nod to Tretiak.

Skating: I think this is Tretiak by a decent margin. I think Dryden moves well for his size. But Tretiak is more agile, quicker, and more importantly for this era, better balance. This allows him to stay in flurry situation more aptly and he's less likely to lose his angles on big pushes across the net mouth. Advantage Tretiak.

Compete: Again, Tretiak. Sometimes bigger guys get unfairly labeled as lazy. I don't find Dryden lazy. I just think the second-shot competitiveness and the battle belongs to Tretiak by a decent gap.

Floor/Ceiling: More or less a wash. Dryden slightly higher floor, slightly lower ceiling. Tretiak slightly lower floor, slightly higher ceiling. Both have higher floor and ceilings than most goalies I'm finding of this era.

My only question is does Tretiak do enough for me to make my "A" list...Dryden doesn't. I think he's going to be comfortably on my "B" list. Tretiak is on my A/B fence right now.

But I fully expect Tretiak to be ranked ahead of Dryden on my list.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I came to the same conclusion re: Dryden/Tretiak. I feel like Dryden's size almost worked against him, considering the style and equipment of the time.

 

[VanIslander]

I hope i'm not the only one with Pekka Rinne on the list.

 

[Michael Farkas]

All right, so here's the thing. Pekka Rinne is even worse than I thought actually. I'm usually very high on Finns, but this is not a great example of Finnish execution in net. A lot of pucks go through him and he has a horrible blocker side. But not only that, just shots coming from the entire left side of the ice, seem to give him a ton of problems.

At 8:13 I talk about that for a few seconds here with clips.



I really like goalies that play with the glove out in front of the plane of their body with upward finger direction. I think it really frees up your glove's movement, I think it's better for rebound control, I think it's better for watching pucks into your glove. Rinne does this. He has a good glove - mostly on shots from the middle and right side of the ice.

But he's very loosey goosey with it. And it costs him a lot, and it costs him big spots a lot. He's basically playing the defenseman equivalent of "outside-in". Beyond just pucks going through him, it also affects his rebound control.

Mute your sound for this.



He's just not able to make himself soft in his torso, so these rebounds leak out all over the place.

And I thought, "all right, am I penalizing this guy for being tall a bit too harshly?" but the answer is "probably not" because he's just not very technically tidy or even mentally focused on his rebounds in general.



Like, there's a few ways to cut this...but my first instinct is kind of old school, "buddy, what do you think the stick is for?"

I asked around for help on him because he produces, but he was also in a really, really good situation in Nashville...a defensive team, the goalie guru, everything was sort of in place for him. The overwhelming response from former pro goalies, pro coaches, scouts was..."he's very overrated"

One just straight up said that he's not a good goalie. He overplays the stuff you shouldn't and underplays the stuff you should.

He's teetering on my "C" list right now. He may fall into the "Weak interest" portion though.

He'll be below Juuse Saros on my list certainly.

 

[VanIslander]

The tongue in cheek is epic!

 

[nabby12]

All right, so here's the thing. Pekka Rinne is even worse than I thought actually. I'm usually very high on Finns, but this is not a great example of Finnish execution in net. A lot of pucks go through him and he has a horrible blocker side. But not only that, just shots coming from the entire left side of the ice, seem to give him a ton of problems.

At 8:13 I talk about that for a few seconds here with clips.



I really like goalies that play with the glove out in front of the plane of their body with upward finger direction. I think it really frees up your glove's movement, I think it's better for rebound control, I think it's better for watching pucks into your glove. Rinne does this. He has a good glove - mostly on shots from the middle and right side of the ice.

But he's very loosey goosey with it. And it costs him a lot, and it costs him big spots a lot. He's basically playing the defenseman equivalent of "outside-in". Beyond just pucks going through him, it also affects his rebound control.

Mute your sound for this.



He's just not able to make himself soft in his torso, so these rebounds leak out all over the place.

And I thought, "all right, am I penalizing this guy for being tall a bit too harshly?" but the answer is "probably not" because he's just not very technically tidy or even mentally focused on his rebounds in general.



Like, there's a few ways to cut this...but my first instinct is kind of old school, "buddy, what do you think the stick is for?"

I asked around for help on him because he produces, but he was also in a really, really good situation in Nashville...a defensive team, the goalie guru, everything was sort of in place for him. The overwhelming response from former pro goalies, pro coaches, scouts was..."he's very overrated"

One just straight up said that he's not a good goalie. He overplays the stuff you shouldn't and underplays the stuff you should.

He's teetering on my "C" list right now. He may fall into the "Weak interest" portion though.

He'll be below Juuse Saros on my list certainly.

What a horrendous take. Even from you lol.

You're an idiot if you think that Rinne was a bad goalie. He'll be on mine and a lot of other's Top 80 lists, no doubt.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think he's bad. Like I said, he's on my "C" list right now. But asking around to people that played and/or evaluate goalies for a living, it's very clear that the tide goes against him. Of course, everyone else could be "an idiot" too...that's totally possible. Those videos above...also idiots.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess maybe a more productive area discussion would be...either your own analysis of his strengths or some sort of retort on my evaluation of his tendencies and weaknesses. Otherwise, I feel like that's sort of a vintage HF moment right there haha

[mid-sized technical description of issues, backed by video]

Followed by: The word "take" or "bias" and then a variant of "big, stupid, doo-doo head".

 

[nabby12]

I guess maybe a more productive area discussion would be...either your own analysis of his strengths or some sort of retort on my evaluation of his tendencies and weaknesses. Otherwise, I feel like that's sort of a vintage HF moment right there haha

[mid-sized technical description of issues, backed by video]

Followed by: The word "take" or "bias" and then a variant of "big, stupid, doo-doo head".

You are grinding here, my man.

Rinne is a borderline HHOFer from his very strong career that included a Vezina Trophy (and finalist four times), First Team All Star, Second Team All Star, Four-time All Star Game, World Championship MVP, most wins by a Finnish goalie, etc.

It can't be understated how much he carried an injury-riddled Nashville team on his back to get to the Stanley Cup Finals. He played out of his mind that post-season. And although they lost the final in six games, Rinne would have won the Conn Smythe had they managed to win. (Albeit his play dipped a bit in the Finals). They would have won that Cup too if Ottawa had just scored a goal to win that triple overtime Game 7 with Pittsburgh in the conference finals!

While you can say that his blocker side was weaker, Rinne had the best glove-hand in the league throughout his career. And anyone in hockey world would tell you that. There's a plethora of his glove-hand saves on YouTube that anyone can go check out.

No one here is saying that Rinne is an all-time great, but I think it's pretty safe to say that he falls somewhere from Top 50 to 80 all time.

 

[nabby12]

Another name that I'm wondering where he'll land on the list is Alec Connell.

At the time of his retirement, Connell was second in NHL career shutouts, and nearly ninety years later, is still in sixth place, with 81. He is the only goaltender in league history to record 15 or more shutouts in two separate seasons. Connell's 1.91 career goals against average (GAA) is the lowest for any goaltender in the history of the National Hockey League, a record he has held for over ninety years. He is also the career leader for playoff goals-against average for goalies playing over twenty games.

The Society for International Hockey Research, in compiling a "retroactive" Conn Smythe Trophy (most valuable player in the playoffs) list, deemed that Connell would have won in 1927 had the trophy been awarded back then. Charles Coleman, in Trail of the Stanley Cup, believed that Connell would have won the Vezina Trophy in 1926, in similar fashion.

Everyone likely knows about Connell's exploits with the Ottawa Senators, but I'm most curious about how he virtually came out of retirement after barely playing and was excellent in 1934-35 for the Montreal Maroons, winning them the Stanley Cup after going undefeated in the postseason. And then after that, his career is pretty much over again and he retires a year later.

His coach Tommy Gorman said that Connell's performance in the 1935 Stanley Cup playoffs was the single greatest goaltending playoff performance he'd ever seen. It's extremely high praise and I think a bit hyperbolic considering Gorman had just coached Chicago the year prior when Charlie Gardiner stood on his head to win the Stanley Cup.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right. I think a lot of those accolades are helped along by being in Nashville. Plus, he fell into sort of a dead zone or weak time for goaltending. So I don't really take them at full face value. Saros is consistently doing better than him in a far worse environment (scoring and coaching). But that's probably too high of a bar to compare Rinne to. Saros is a borderline "B" player for me, but probably won't be on many lists. He deserves some consideration.

Were they injury riddled? RyJo broke, but who else of significance?

If they managed to win, it would have involved Saros coming in. Because Rinne was heinous in the Final against a team that could move the puck east-west very well. A team that could shoot for rebounds too (as demonstrated) because of their speed behind and overtop of rushes. It was a good advanced scout by the Pens to take advantage.

Now, the whole series may have gone different if - after not allowing a shot for 37 minutes (!) - they could have gotten a save here...



But...that's life sometimes.

He had a nice West playoff though. If the whole "if Ottawa wins..." thing applies, then maybe he was fortunate to face a more defensive St. Louis team or Anaheim team. You can only play who's on the schedule.

Best glove? Probably not best but yeah, like I said, glove is a plus. Again, it still shows weakness on shots from the left. But there's little gained from dicing it that finely unless "best" is being taken literally and some "points" are derived from it.

I would expect my "C" players and even some "weak interest" players to fall into the bottom of my list as well. Rinne is in that mix.

At the end of the day, probably a goalie that benefited from being a big dude with a glove in a very goalie friendly situation overall and it allowed him some leeway that he might not have gotten in many situations. Not a player that I'd generally trust in a playoff series because he's susceptible to getting exploited relatively easily.

 

[nabby12]

Right. I think a lot of those accolades are helped along by being in Nashville. Plus, he fell into sort of a dead zone or weak time for goaltending. So I don't really take them at full face value. Saros is consistently doing better than him in a far worse environment (scoring and coaching). But that's probably too high of a bar to compare Rinne to. Saros is a borderline "B" player for me, but probably won't be on many lists. He deserves some consideration.

Were they injury riddled? RyJo broke, but who else of significance?

If they managed to win, it would have involved Saros coming in. Because Rinne was heinous in the Final against a team that could move the puck east-west very well. A team that could shoot for rebounds too (as demonstrated) because of their speed behind and overtop of rushes. It was a good advanced scout by the Pens to take advantage.

Now, the whole series may have gone different if - after not allowing a shot for 37 minutes (!) - they could have gotten a save here...



But...that's life sometimes.

He had a nice West playoff though. If the whole "if Ottawa wins..." thing applies, then maybe he was fortunate to face a more defensive St. Louis team or Anaheim team. You can only play who's on the schedule.

Best glove? Probably not best but yeah, like I said, glove is a plus. Again, it still shows weakness on shots from the left. But there's little gained from dicing it that finely unless "best" is being taken literally and some "points" are derived from it.

I would expect my "C" players and even some "weak interest" players to fall into the bottom of my list as well. Rinne is in that mix.

At the end of the day, probably a goalie that benefited from being a big dude with a glove in a very goalie friendly situation overall and it allowed him some leeway that he might not have gotten in many situations. Not a player that I'd generally trust in a playoff series because he's susceptible to getting exploited relatively easily.

Do you actually think that Saros already has a better career than Rinne despite no league accolades, no playoff success, etc? Once again, you're on an island there. And I'm very high on Saros too, but that's a ridiculous stretch.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Do you actually think that Saros already has a better career than Rinne despite no league accolades, no playoff success, etc? Once again, you're on an island there. And I'm very high on Saros too, but that's a ridiculous stretch.

Better total career? No, not yet. But why would I care so much about that? Rinne is probably like 12, 15 years older than him. But I've made no bones about my approach to this. I want the island because I think the island exports something unique to the project. If folks want to join me on the island or even visit for a short amount of time or whatever they want...great. I'm happy to oblige.

But here's the thing...
Wins is considered a team stat.
GAA got wrapped up into being a team stat.
Save pct. was the last to fall, some are still holding out hope, but especially in the last 25-30 years (but also longer) it's also a team stat...or at least, heavily team-influenced.

So, we don't have much in terms of "independent" goalie stats publicly available. A lot of team factors there.

Goalie accolades (award voting, all star teams, blah blah blah) seem to correlate fairly heavily with those stats.

It seems like goalies are the most team-dependent position statistically on the planet. I like my Erik Karlsson example from 2023. He played for the worst team in the league and they basically just told him to go have fun and do whatever...and he got 100 points and won a Norris. You can't tell a goalie to just "go play" and have it work out. No situation will that work. Ever.

So...we have don't have much on paper that we can reliably tie goalie greatness to without also shading into the "best team" or "best defensive team" list.

Goaltending is the least understood position by a mile. It's tough to turn on a game and have it jump off the page. So, if we sit around all day playing around with save pct. (the yearly leaders list of that recently looks like the plus/minus leader list...random) we're gonna have a bunch of players on similar teams go to the top. If we're just gonna go with Vezina finishes, then we don't need to really talk about it...folks have already made a list by proxy for us, even though they may or may not be vested in the ballot.

Or........................

We (I?) lean heavily on the technicals and the talent with the idea that we can better neutralize the team effects by looking at what goalies have the most scalable and translatable traits across most/all teams. Because not everyone was so lucky to have Mitch Korn and Barry Trotz or not everyone was so lucky to play for the Canadiens from 1955 to 1993 or not everyone was so lucky to play for the Claude Julien Bruins...and not everyone was so unlucky to play for the Atlanta Flames and Quebec Noridques or the expansion Lightning or the Bylsma-era Penguins or whatever...

So while I am cognizant of career accolades, and I'm trying to set some reasonable criteria (number of seasons of some notoriety, for instance)...I don't see any need to duplicate the 2012 list that we made here (I never felt great about that one), I don't see any need to recreate Vezina ballots over time, I don't see any need to look at save pct. (or its mutants) because I think there's going to be a bunch of lists that are probably gonna lean heavily on those things already...and that's fine. I get it. But I'm gonna try to treat this as close to an actual draft as I reasonably can.

And when you prepare for a draft, your focus is on the talent evaluation process. So I'm going back and watching these guys, also polling some others that I know know goaltending very well (better than me) to help me with stuff I might miss and that's what my list is gonna look like.

If I get called an idiot a few times a long the way, then so be it...but I believe this is the best way to do it, so that's what I'm gonna do haha

And it's not gonna be a secret either...I'll tell folks why players are where they are, I'm not gonna hide behind "I think he's a better goalie" blanket statements...I'll tell anyone that wants to know how it shook out to me.

 

[tony d]

Both Connell and Rinne will be on my final top 80 list. Probably around the same spot. It can be argued rinne is among the best players for Nashville in their history.