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

[Michael Farkas]

Connell didn't hold up very well in the pre-1950 research process before the last list. I dug in hard for him especially, it read like his stats overrated him more than anything. But I'm open to other interpretations of that, as I don't think I'm gonna get a chance to watch him haha

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Or to play for the Jacques Lemaire and Pat Burns Devils.

 

[jigglysquishy]

One of the things I really like about these projects is we use "top", not "best" or "greatest". It's not just about peak. It's not just about longevity. It's not just about accomplishments. We look at everything.

Shouldn't talent evaluation be part of this too? I'm not saying throwing out stats or Vezina finishes or reputation or anything. But actual playing ability should factor in.

We've done a really good job with skaters on parsing through the numbers to get to the players themselves. It's why Richard, with B numbers, is ranked as an A player. Its why St. Louis, with B+ numbers, is ranked as a C player.

I can remember getting into the GAA vs SV% debate in 2001 about Roy and Brodeur. And having my best friend (a goalie) explain why SV% is a better reflection of talent than GAA. We rightfully look at GAA as a C stat.

Maybe it's time we treat SV% as a B stat instead of the A stat Vezina voters treat it as. And maybe we just have to accept that in 2024 goalies don't have an A stat yet.

 

[Professor What]

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.

I guess what I'm wondering right now is how many goalies you have in each tier. I know you've said you've still got to consider the low/no video guys, but I'm having a really hard time seeing how Rinne gets pushed off a list even in a worst case scenario for him. He's a guy that I feel could be streaky, but not as hit or miss as someone like Anderson that we talked about previously. I always felt like Rinne was pretty danged important to Nashville.

Maybe I'm an idiot (wouldn't be the most shocking thing ever), but I've got him around 50 right now. I don't just see him as a guy to make an initial list, but to make the tail end of the final list that we come up with.

Edit: Relatively speaking, I do consider myself to be a lower level poster on this board. I love learning here, and I've learned a lot, but I think there are a lot of historians well beyond me around here. I'm just glad to be a part of it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Or to play for the Jacques Lemaire and Pat Burns Devils.

Precisely. Every situation applies to some degree. I'd think we'd want to try to eliminate that bias as much as possible in we're trying to determine the top goaltenders of all time.

Unless, of course, we have to believe that - say - Rob Brown was a top 10 RWer in the game as a junior-aged player in the late 80s, but was not NHL caliber in his athletic prime. We probably want to take a deeper look at what's actually going on...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I guess what I'm wondering right now is how many goalies you have in each tier. I know you've said you've still got to consider the low/no video guys, but I'm having a really hard time seeing how Rinne gets pushed off a list even in a worst case scenario for him. He's a guy that I feel could be streaky, but not as hit or miss as someone like Anderson that we talked about previously. I always felt like Rinne was pretty danged important to Nashville.

Like with most things, the elite is a small number and then each tier grows successively from there.

My "A" tier has six names right this second - and I'm more or less into the late 70s. Doesn't mean it won't change or I won't go back and add someone to it. I'm "hopeful" that some of the O6 era guys will be around it.

"B" only has eight names right now. I was hoping for more there, maybe I'm being a little too tough.

My C+/C list has 20 names right now.

Then there's a slew of guys on the W list, naturally.

Re: The end of your post. Don't sell yourself short and we're happy you're here.

 

[MXD]

Rinne and Connell are both on my list, and rather close one to another, and bit below the somewhat easy comparables Miikka Kiprusoff and John Ross Roach.

@Michael Farkas , does shortlisting Dwayne Roloson makes any sense to you?

 

[Michael Farkas]

@Michael Farkas , does shortlisting Dwayne Roloson makes any sense to you?

Nah, generic journeyman. He had like one season of notoriety - and it was heavily team-influenced ('03 Wild, possibly the most defensive team in NHL history). I took a look at him for a moment, but he's more or less appropriately rated where he belongs - which is, not.

 

[DN28]

Seth Martin is a difficult goalie to rank. On one hand, he enormously impacted the European goaltending in the 1960s. Top goalies of other nations followed him and took inspiration of his technique. On the other hand, it is possible to criticize Martin’s inclusion due to relative lack of games he played through the 1960s where he focused on non-hockey commitments more. Father Bauer had to repeatedly push Martin into participating at the Championships. At those WHCs, Martin was frequently switching between bench and the crease, he was sitting out a good number of games. While I don’t have any exact quote proving this, I don’t think it was coach‘ decision but rather a Martin’s condition in a sense that he himself had a say when he gets to play and when not.

Martin first played for Canada (= at this point Trail Smoke Eaters, winner of 1960 Allan Cup) at the 1961 WHC. Canada won the tournament and Martin took both best goalie awards (All-Star team voted by the press + Directoriate award decided by the LIHG committee, as today’s IIHF). Czechs surprisingly defeated Soviets at this tournament and finished 2nd. The CSSR goalie, Josef Mikuláš, was held as the biggest contributor. Mikuláš even won a domestic Sportsman of the Year award later in 1961 largely based on his performance in Switzerland.

I’m just mentioning this as a pattern. European hockey experts viewed Martin as the blueprint. It didn’t matter which Euro goalie currently overachieved and how the Canadian team ended. Martin got a recognition.

Martin’s influence on European netminders goes beyond his polished butterfly style. Martin introduced the goalie mask to the European audience at the ‘61 WHC. Czech goalies, Nadrchal and Mikoláš, reached out to Martin during the tournament and copied his mask back home. Nadrchal started to use Martin-style mask (which itself was designed after Jacques Plante’s) immediately afterwards, at the start of 61-62 season.

Martin didn’t participate at the 1962 WHC. Sweden finished 1st with their goalie Lennart Häggroth sweeping the best goalie prizes unanimously. Immediately after, Bruins GM Lynn Patrick invited Häggroth to a Bruins training camp.

Martin won the Directoriate’s best goalie award at the 1963 WHC. Swedish goalie Kjell Svensson won the media vote. Svensson‘s performance earned him a training camp tryout with Toronto Maple Leafs.

Canada repeated a disappointing 4th place at the 1964 Olympics. Yet Martin won both the All-Star vote and Directoriate decision. Martin had the best SV% among starters (6 games / 5 goals allowed / 145 saves / 1.22 GAA / 0.9667). And alternative source has Martin looking even slightly better (6 games / 5 goals allowed / 150 saves / 1.18 GAA / 0.9677).

Martin didn’t play at the 1965 WHC. But it looks like he played nearly full WIHL season; 41 games for Rossland Warriors. Martin then played for the Nelson Maple Leafs in an unsuccessful attempt to win the Allan Cup again. Nelson lost the ‘65 finals. Vladimír Dzurilla dominated all the 1965 WHC goalie awards as well as the statistical sheets.

Czech sports magazine Kopaná-Hokej gave a different account of Martin’s season. In 1965, writer already spoke about Martin quitting hockey:

„Man with the mask, Seth Martin, moves away from the hockey goal! An athlete departures, who in a big way contributed to the Canadian and World hockey with his amazing performances, and who became the most famous Canadian player in Europe. Among other things [contributed or became known for] with his mask which spread accross Europe thanks to him. He injured his knee at the OG in Innsbruck which stopped him from stepping on the ice this season.“

Martin reluctantly agreed to return for the 1966 WHC (it looks like he didn’t want to play in Europe again but David Bauer convinced him). The Ljubljana championship is where a lot of my impressions of Martin are based off. Years ago, I tracked the season including the championship closely in the Czech press. In the middle of season, when the writers speculated about the teams, the participation of Martin was the key question whether Team Canada will be dangerous or not.

Martin played only 4 games, exchanging the games with Ken Broderick like in 1964. Martin’s stats were great (well above 0.90 mark), though he was a bit below Broderick and Konovalenko. But numbers aside, there was a clear consensus who was the best goaltender through the entire Championship. Game reports stress just how great a goalie Martin is. Writers were all the more impressed by Martin due to a notion that he barely played this season, and probably didn’t train much at all before the tournament. Despite low volume of games, Martin took home both the 1966 WHC goalie awards.

Kopaná-Hokej 1966, 3 writers (of whom at least one is a former goalie) provided an analysis according to position right after the ´66 Championship. It's a long article, this is their evaluation of Martin:

„Martin was declared the best Championship goaltender and justifiably so. At the same time, we‘ve seen that his performance was not better than in previous years when we had a chance to observe him. It was like that because, according to his words, he had lower number of opportunities to play and train in the season since his club didn’t continue in its activities, and he was called up to WHC preparation at the last minute. However father Bauer put him against our team and USSR because he knew our players have respect in front him. In both of these games Martin played outstandingly, albeit not without faults. For example in our match, he left the goal too far and let Prýl to score the winning goal too easily. However, his style of play still serves as a model to others and thus deserves the honors.“

Martin came back the last time for the 1967 WHC. This is the only championship where Martin didn’t earn any award. Voters prefered Carl Wetzel for keeping the USA team competitive. But even here, Martin posted respectable 0.9167 over 6 games, and while we don’t have full all-star voting record, we know that Wetzel’s win was a weaker one (receiving a plurality but not majority of votes). Several coaches or writers spoke about Martin in 1967 as still the best goalie of the championship.

When asked about the best players of the ‘67 Championship after the tournament’s last game:

“In the goal – Martin. This Canadian is without a doubt the best goaltender of the last years. I’d name our Konovalenko as the 2nd goalie and as a 3rd one – the American, Wetzel.”
Arkadi Chernyshev

34 y/o Martin finally got to play in the NHL for the Blues in 1968. This part was already nicely covered in this thread by @overpass. I can add to that NHL was being covered in the Czech sports media of the time, and 1968 articles focused on Martin’s play. There was genuine interest in tracking Martin in NHL, although it’s fair to say that any North American goalie playing in Europe, and then in NHL, would have been followed due to his name being recognized among readership.

It also looks that Martin kept playing on amateur level for next few seasons. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but Martin did win another Allan Cup in 1970 playing for Spokane Jets.

Miloslav Charouzd, former 1950s National team member, wrote an article in 1970 Gól magazine called When Seth Martin played:

“Tactics of the goalie game.

The player, that hockey players often praise for saving a game, and you sometimes criticize him for losing it, is a goalie. No other player is responsible for such a small piece of ice as he is, and yet every mistake he makes could mean a goal!

The basic position is crucial for his successful saves. Each goalie has his own individual stance and must develop his own unique catching style. For instance, Nadrchal, Lacký or Konovalenko play in the low stance – on the contrary, in the higher stance – Dzurilla, Holeček or Holmqvist. Canadian Seth Martin is undoubtedly an outstanding goalie in recent years. His style has been a role model for many guardians of the hockey sanctuary. European goalies today achieve some of his qualities, but in summary: none of them have yet achieved his goaltending individuality and consistency in the game.

His style of play in the goal crease was excellent. Like Konovalenko today, he skated skillfuly, had the same good reflexes and quick reaction to the shot. And Martin never stood behind such a solid defense, which blocked a lot of shots and also provided the necessary vigor around the crease, like Konovalenko did. Also, hockey players who tried to succeed with shots directed at his free hand, had almost no hope of success. In this goalie craft, he was as perfect as in his stickhandling which we see in Dzurilla. It is clear that he was vulnerable, like the vast majority of goalies, when facing on-ice shots. But he managed to reduce the angle to the shooter so much that he blocked almost it’s entire width.”

After the 1970 WHC was concluded, Československý sport asked Luděk Bukač (former national team player, current coach) to create the 1960s European All-Star team. Bukač has later become one of the best Czech coaches ever. Coached the Czechs to gold in 1985 and 1996, had numerous offers from NHL to take assistant coach position. I won’t post entire article due to its length but I will post the translation of his thoughts on goalies. Bukač named Vlado Dzurilla the all-star 1960s goalie in Europe but he also considered the volume of games/championships played. Purely skill-wise, Martin may have been his choice.

Bukač: „The sixties era has been marked by mainly two goalkeepers in my opinion — Canadian Seth Martin and our Vlado Dzurilla. They were others though, Konovalenko from the USSR, the Swedes Svensson and Holmqvist, but the first two mentioned truly became famous. their performance represents the peak of immediate goaltending level.“

Writer: „When you say this, you surely take into consideration certain oscillations. For example Martin in the game with Sweden in Vienna, also Dzurilla’s performance in the match with the USSR in Ljubljana 1966.“

Bukač: „Of course. But how much of these significant fluctuations happened? I evaluate both in totality because they didn’t play only in Vienna. Elsewhere they represented the most stable pillars of their teams. Interestingly though, Martin earnt considerable fame in Europe. His European performances helped him to a professional career back home in Canada but that did not turn out as expected.“

Writer: "I'm sure you've also thought about performances of Nadrchal and also of Mikoláš in 1961. However, whom are you going to prefer for the goalie selection of the All-Star team of the 1960s?“

Bukač: „I certainly took Nadrchal into account. It is a netminder with the most balanced performance. Moreover he was always the ideal type of a backup goalie. I’ll put Dzurilla above him though. And as far as Mikoláš, he was really outstanding in 1961. But only in that year. At the time it was unjust that Martin was announced the best goaltender of the championship and not Mikoláš. At least it was sufficiently compensated to him at home when he was honored with the title Sportsman of the Year. But to resolve whether Martin or Dzurilla belong into the 1960s All-Star team. According to my opinion, Dzurilla belongs there. Maybe he didn’t show as much as Martin at some championships. However, he participated in 6 championships and he proved especially in the last 3 years that he’s the goaltender who possesses the best prerequisites to play amateur but also professional hockey.“

In 1997, Martin became 1 of 31 original first class inductees into IIHF Hall of Fame.
______________________________________________________

Overall, I’d have Martin inside the top-60 (3-8 spots below Dzurilla) but think any placement is justified. Outside top-80 entirely as well as higher than top-60. He looks great the more time you spend researching the contemporary accounts. He also often fails with direct goalie vs. goalie comparisons due to relatively low number of championships, games, NHL seasons etc.

 

[overpass]

George Hainsworth had a long and successful 13 season professional career. It's not so well known that he played senior amateur hockey for 10 seasons before he turned pro, and he may deserve some additional credit for his amateur play.

First off, the NHL website, hockeydb, and hockey-reference list him as having been born in 1895. But wikipedia gives his year of birth as 1893. Per Find a Grave, his gravestone displays 1893-1950. Articles published at his 1936 retirement gave his age as 43, consistent with the 1893 birth. I'm inclined to believe the 1893 date of birth and I'm curious to know why it's listed as 1895.

If 1893 is correct for his year of birth, Hainsworth played junior hockey in Berlin (soon to be renamed Kitchener) until 1912-13. He got into some senior games that year, and played senior hockey for the next 10 years, until 1922-23. The junior/senior transition makes sense with an 1893 date of birth, as he would have played his last junior season at age 19 and played senior full time from age 20 to 29.

Then he played with Saskatoon of the WCHL at ages 30-32, for the Canadiens from age 33-39, and for the Leafs from ages 40-42. Hainsworth retired at 43 in November 1936 after a handful of games in 1936-37, when Conn Smythe released him, saying Turk Broda was just as good and 20 years younger. He then played 4 games for the Canadiens in December of 1936 when Wilf Cude was injured, before retiring for good. One columnist said Hainsworth had half a dozen minor pro offers but was financially secure and had determined to retire when he was done with the National Hockey League.

I have very little information about Hainsworth's play in senior amateur hockey from 1913-1917. Hainsworth was the goalie for the Kitchener Greenshirts when they won the Allan Cup in 1918. Kitchener played a smothering back-checking team game in the final win over Winnipeg Ypres. I'm not sure what Hainsworth's all-star record in the OHA was, but if Doc Stewart's unsourced wikipedia page is correct, Stewart may have had the better all-star record in the OHA, with a first team all star in 1919, 1922, 1923, and 1924, and a second team all star in 1918.

I think the OHA had a very high level of play in the late teens and early 20s, and certainly included some pro quality players. OHA teams won the Allan Cup in 6 of 7 years from 1917 to 1923, only interrupted by the Winnipeg Falcons in 1920. And Southern Ontario players weren't very represented in pro hockey in the 1910s, but then poured into pro hockey in the mid 1920s after American expansion and big money.

Take Hainsworth's final OHA season for an example, 1922-23. I don't have the final standings, but going into the final week, Hainsworth's Kitchener Greenshirts, the Hamilton Tigers, and the Toronto Granites were all tied atop the standings with 8-3 records. Then Hamilton beat Kitchener in the semi-finals before losing to the Toronto Granites in the final. The Granites went on to win the 1923 Allan Cup and to represent Canada in the 1924 Olympics.

Who were the players for those Kitchener, Hamilton, and Toronto clubs?

1922-23 Kitchener
Goal: Hainsworth
Defense: Merrick, Hemphill
Centre: Hiller
Wings: Hillman, Schnarr
Subs: Soloman, Shirk

I believe only Hainsworth and Werner Schnarr made the NHL from this group, and Schnarr only played one season with the Bruins. Hainsworth, Hiller, Soloman, and Shirk had all been on the 1918 Kitchener championship team.

1922-23 Hamilton Tigers
Goal: Charles “Doc” Stewart. Played 10 seasons in OHA senior and 3 for the Boston Bruins. Was the OHA first team all star for this season.
Defense: Hap Day, Jimmy Herbert, Day played 14 NHL seasons and Herbert played 7 NHL seasons.
Centre: John Brackenborough. Played 7 NHL games with the Bruins, likely could have had a longer NHL career if he hadn't lost an eye on the ice in 1923.
Wings: Carson Cooper, Herb Mitchell. Cooper played 8 NHL seasons and was twice top-3 in goals and points. Herb Mitchell played two seasons for the Boston Bruins.

Every single Hamilton starter went on to play in the NHL, most for the Boston Bruins. When Boston finished over 0.500 in the 1925-26 season, 60% of their goals were scored by the Cooper and Herbert forward duo, and Doc Stewart was their goaltender.

1922-23 Toronto Granites
Goal: Jack Cameron. Was offered a contract by Canadiens but he turned it down and went into business.
Defense: Dunc Munro, Beattie Ramsay. Munro played in 8 NHL seasons and was voted a first team all star by the coaches in 1926-27. Ramsay took a year off from his coaching career to play in one NHL season.
Centre: Hooley Smith, had a Hall of Fame NHL career
Wings: Harry Watson, Bert McCaffrey. McCaffrey played 7 NHL seasons. Watson turned down NHL offers and went into business, and is considered one of the best amateur players to never turn pro.

Every Toronto Granites starter went on to play in the NHL, except for Watson and Cameron who turned down NHL offers. Smith had an outstanding Hall of Fame career, and Munro had a great start before he got distracted by his off-ice activities.

Based on those rosters above, it's likely that Hainsworth was often not playing with the best roster during his time in the OHA, at least after 1918.

Did other top NHL goalies of Hainsworth's era have substantial senior amateur or minor league
performances worth considering? I would suggest the following.

Lorne Chabot for his two seasons winning the Allan Cup for Port Arthur.
Roy Worters for his two seasons winning the USAHA championship with Pittsburgh.
Maybe Tiny Thompson for his championship in the AHA.

All of these seasons were at ages 23, 24, or 25, meaning they weren't just out of juniors. Other than that, the best goalies generally made the NHL in their early 20s and I don't think their pre-NHL careers really add anything.

 

[MXD]

All of these seasons were at ages 23, 24, or 25, meaning they weren't just out of juniors. Other than that, the best goalies generally made the NHL in their early 20s and I don't think their pre-NHL careers really add anything.

Well, Worters winning the USAHA championships proved he could win a playoff round, provided he gets a legitimate chance to do it.

 

[overpass]

Lorne Chabot came to the attention of the hockey world in 1925, when he led the Port Arthur Bearcats to the 1925 Allan Cup victory. His performance was praised against Regina and against Coleman, Alberta, and especially in the two game final against the Toronto Varsity team.

The Montreal Gazette wrote: This season marked (Chabot's) first in an Allan Cup series, and in both games against Varsity he was largely responsible for the victory gained by his club in competition for the senior amateur championship of Canada.

Port Arthur had a strong defense, with Chabot in goal and with Bill Brydge and Phat Wilson on defense. Chabot and Brydge went on to play in the NHL for the next decade, and Phat Wilson turned down all NHL offers and made the Hockey Hall of Fame for his amateur play as an offensive defenceman.

Chabot and Port Arthur won again in 1926, but Chabot didn't stand out as much this time.

There was a big scandal in the 1926 Allan Cup finals. Port Arthur was playing the Toronto Varsity squad for the second year in a row, and Conn Smythe was the coach for Toronto's university team. But before the finals, Smythe had already accepted the job of assembling an NHL team for the New York Rangers. The night before the final game, Smythe approached Port Arthur stars Chabot, Brydge, Wilson, and forward Alex Gray, and offered them large professional contracts to play for the Rangers next season. The terms were reported as three year contracts for $5000 a season, plus a $1500 signing bonus. The Port Arthur club protested vigorously, and the players said that of course they could not accept these contracts under the circumstances.

And yet Chabot and Gray signed with the New York Rangers for the next season. So much for the amateur spirit! The controversy continued when Chabot and Gray said they intended to return to amateur play after having accepted signing bonuses from the Rangers, which threatened to breach an agreement between amateur and pro hockey. Chabot was the only one who played for the Rangers in their initial season, as Gray returned to Port Arthur before turning pro later.

Another note about Chabot - it's not hockey related, but I read that he fought in an artillery regiment during the war. But his date of birth was 1900. Is it possible he was actually older than his listed date of birth? It seems Chabot listed his date of birth as 1898 when enlisted, but it's likely that the 1900 date is correct and he lied about his date of birth so he could join up at age 16.

Also, Chabot joined the RCMP after the war in 1919. He met Frank Boucher at RCMP training in Depot, 7 years before they would play together with the Rangers. Neither one lasted long in the RCMP.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

George Hainsworth had a long and successful 13 season professional career. It's not so well known that he played senior amateur hockey for 10 seasons before he turned pro, and he may deserve some additional credit for his amateur play.

First off, the NHL website, hockeydb, and hockey-reference list him as having been born in 1895. But wikipedia gives his year of birth as 1893. Per Find a Grave, his gravestone displays 1893-1950. Articles published at his 1936 retirement gave his age as 43, consistent with the 1893 birth. I'm inclined to believe the 1893 date of birth and I'm curious to know why it's listed as 1895.

If 1893 is correct for his year of birth, Hainsworth played junior hockey in Berlin (soon to be renamed Kitchener) until 1912-13. He got into some senior games that year, and played senior hockey for the next 10 years, until 1922-23. The junior/senior transition makes sense with an 1893 date of birth, as he would have played his last junior season at age 19 and played senior full time from age 20 to 29.

Then he played with Saskatoon of the WCHL at ages 30-32, for the Canadiens from age 33-39, and for the Leafs from ages 40-42. Hainsworth retired at 43 in November 1936 after a handful of games in 1936-37, when Conn Smythe released him, saying Turk Broda was just as good and 20 years younger. He then played 4 games for the Canadiens in December of 1936 when Wilf Cude was injured, before retiring for good. One columnist said Hainsworth had half a dozen minor pro offers but was financially secure and had determined to retire when he was done with the National Hockey League.

I have very little information about Hainsworth's play in senior amateur hockey from 1913-1917. Hainsworth was the goalie for the Kitchener Greenshirts when they won the Allan Cup in 1918. Kitchener played a smothering back-checking team game in the final win over Winnipeg Ypres. I'm not sure what Hainsworth's all-star record in the OHA was, but if Doc Stewart's unsourced wikipedia page is correct, Stewart may have had the better all-star record in the OHA, with a first team all star in 1919, 1922, 1923, and 1924, and a second team all star in 1918.

I think the OHA had a very high level of play in the late teens and early 20s, and certainly included some pro quality players. OHA teams won the Allan Cup in 6 of 7 years from 1917 to 1923, only interrupted by the Winnipeg Falcons in 1920. And Southern Ontario players weren't very represented in pro hockey in the 1910s, but then poured into pro hockey in the mid 1920s after American expansion and big money.

Take Hainsworth's final OHA season for an example, 1922-23. I don't have the final standings, but going into the final week, Hainsworth's Kitchener Greenshirts, the Hamilton Tigers, and the Toronto Granites were all tied atop the standings with 8-3 records. Then Hamilton beat Kitchener in the semi-finals before losing to the Toronto Granites in the final. The Granites went on to win the 1923 Allan Cup and to represent Canada in the 1924 Olympics.

Who were the players for those Kitchener, Hamilton, and Toronto clubs?

1922-23 Kitchener
Goal: Hainsworth
Defense: Merrick, Hemphill
Centre: Hiller
Wings: Hillman, Schnarr
Subs: Soloman, Shirk

I believe only Hainsworth and Werner Schnarr made the NHL from this group, and Schnarr only played one season with the Bruins. Hainsworth, Hiller, Soloman, and Shirk had all been on the 1918 Kitchener championship team.

1922-23 Hamilton Tigers
Goal: Charles “Doc” Stewart. Played 10 seasons in OHA senior and 3 for the Boston Bruins. Was the OHA first team all star for this season.
Defense: Hap Day, Jimmy Herbert, Day played 14 NHL seasons and Herbert played 7 NHL seasons.
Centre: John Brackenborough. Played 7 NHL games with the Bruins, likely could have had a longer NHL career if he hadn't lost an eye on the ice in 1923.
Wings: Carson Cooper, Herb Mitchell. Cooper played 8 NHL seasons and was twice top-3 in goals and points. Herb Mitchell played two seasons for the Boston Bruins.

Every single Hamilton starter went on to play in the NHL, most for the Boston Bruins. When Boston finished over 0.500 in the 1925-26 season, 60% of their goals were scored by the Cooper and Herbert forward duo, and Doc Stewart was their goaltender.

1922-23 Toronto Granites
Goal: Jack Cameron. Was offered a contract by Canadiens but he turned it down and went into business.
Defense: Dunc Munro, Beattie Ramsay. Munro played in 8 NHL seasons and was voted a first team all star by the coaches in 1926-27. Ramsay took a year off from his coaching career to play in one NHL season.
Centre: Hooley Smith, had a Hall of Fame NHL career
Wings: Harry Watson, Bert McCaffrey. McCaffrey played 7 NHL seasons. Watson turned down NHL offers and went into business, and is considered one of the best amateur players to never turn pro.

Every Toronto Granites starter went on to play in the NHL, except for Watson and Cameron who turned down NHL offers. Smith had an outstanding Hall of Fame career, and Munro had a great start before he got distracted by his off-ice activities.

Based on those rosters above, it's likely that Hainsworth was often not playing with the best roster during his time in the OHA, at least after 1918.

Did other top NHL goalies of Hainsworth's era have substantial senior amateur or minor league
performances worth considering? I would suggest the following.

Lorne Chabot for his two seasons winning the Allan Cup for Port Arthur.
Roy Worters for his two seasons winning the USAHA championship with Pittsburgh.
Maybe Tiny Thompson for his championship in the AHA.

All of these seasons were at ages 23, 24, or 25, meaning they weren't just out of juniors. Other than that, the best goalies generally made the NHL in their early 20s and I don't think their pre-NHL careers really add anything.

Charlie Stewart is making my list... he was one of quite a few very good goalers during the late 1910 and early 1920s that popped up in the OHA and its junior league, most of whom swiftly exited to the pros, like John Ross Roach, Roy Worters, Jake Forbes. Tons of great skaters, some of whom were HOFers, and some of whom we could use better profiles of... whenever the next centre project comes along, I'll have something to say on Dr. Bill Carson...

Anyway, the only two great goalies who stayed in the OHA long term were Stewart and Hainsworth, and Stewart was generally considered to be the better of the two. It's tough when Stewart played in Toronto, where the big papers were, and Hainsworth was a few blocks over in Kitchener, but by the early 20s, even the paper in Waterloo had basically conceded Stewart's superiority. And that seems to be reflected in the all-star results, which for the life of me I can't find any trace of in the papers, so for now I have to take the word of what Wikipedia says.

It's a good point about Hainsworth's Kitchener club being worse than some of the big Toronto teams. Kitchener, in its best years, had two stars: Ernie Parkes, who usually played RW and would go on to be a good PCHA player for a brief period of time, and George Hiller, their centre, who I haven't yet looked into what he did after these Kitchener years. Neither can stack up to some of those Toronto forwards, but it is worth mentioning that the Kitchener team was more or less the same year in and year out, with those two star forwards plus Frank Trushinski on defense and a few others, so they knew each other's games inside and out. There was a lot more turnover in the other lineups, with players either moving away, turning pro, or quitting the game. Interesting note - Trushinski is the reason why one-eyed players were barred from playing in the NHL. He lost sight in his right eye in a game versus the Granites in 1921, and later lost sight in his other eye after a skull fracture. The NHL's solution to prevent this from ever happening in their league was to simply ban one-eyed players from stepping foot on the ice, eliminating potential insurance issues.

I don't know what to make of Hainsworth's time in senior hockey. He doesn't really separate himself from the rest of the pack like I figured he might. I'm through the 1921 season and I haven't seen any signs of him being approached by professional teams with offers to play, which you usually do see with the top amateur players. Maybe he did receive some offers and they just weren't reported on, that's totally possible. But... I mean, he's 30 years old by the time he's done in Ontario, and even just in 1921, at 28 years old, I was finding reports about Kitchener having a replacement - some guy named 'Paddy' Farrel - as a contingency plan for when Hainsworth was ready to retire. This was eight years before he was setting records in the NHL! Very strange career.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Are there any goalies that are talked about negatively in any significant way (like, more than a bad game or season...I mean, consistent dogging of play)...?

I'm just wondering what the scale is here? Should we take the absence of constant praise as a big red flag or is there actually "a fire hydrant could have scored 40 goals with Gretzky" or "this goaler is a frivolous punderputz, a really pudgy-faced applejohn, I declare!"

 

[jigglysquishy]

Are there any goalies that are talked about negatively in any significant way (like, more than a bad game or season...I mean, consistent dogging of play)...?

I'm just wondering what the scale is here? Should we take the absence of constant praise as a big red flag or is there actually "a fire hydrant could have scored 40 goals with Gretzky" or "this goaler is a frivolous punderputz, a really pudgy-faced applejohn, I declare!"

Marc Andre Fleury is a pretty big example in the last 20 years of a big name goalie. Cups and longevity have done him well.

But his playoff reputation 2010-2014 was particularly bad.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sorry, I meant pre-film goalies.

 

[bobholly39]

Is anyone else having issues accessing older HF urls lately? Example if I go to the top lists thread - the only link that works for me is the top 60 pre-merger thread and the top 200 - all the older lists have urls that give error messages.

 

[MadArcand]

Is anyone else having issues accessing older HF urls lately? Example if I go to the top lists thread - the only link that works for me is the top 60 pre-merger thread and the top 200 - all the older lists have urls that give error messages.

Replace the hfboards.mandatory.com in the URL with forums.hfboards.com and they'll work.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Can confirm - the mandatory-based URLs are boofing. We're aware but that works. It probably should have happened sooner:

Domain Name, PWA's, Servers

Domain name has been updated to get rid of the "Mandatory". Login credentials have not changed, but the address you have them assigned to has. Progressive Web Apps (PWA's) are enabled. The option to add to home screen on android phones should appear in a few hours. Apple does not participate...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Michael Farkas]

The way to deal with those guys is to compare them against what the expectation was for that period at the time.

Goalies absolutely skated around with the puck (a lot) through 1909. I'm talking to the point where a couple guys made rushes on goal, and even scored (Fred Brophy being the guy that really sticks out- I've got him with 2 goals over 17 games in the CAHL and ECAHA, which is a better rate than quite a few defenders of the time).

Were goalies as refined as puck stoppers back then as they are today? Absolutely not. But I don't think we should be holding that against them in this project, since they didn't have access to the pads, training, and tactics that later goalies had/have. We'd be ignoring a sizeable chunk of hockey history otherwise.

Last night while going to bed, I was watching a late 80's hockey game and thought of an idea to "challenge" this in a slightly different way. I'm going to just "try it" in this thread just to see if it generates any conversation of note...

Skating way out to play the puck and, at times, rush the puck seemed to be en vogue up through the 20's or so, generally speaking.

That seemed to come back in a big way in the 80's with Hextall and Barrasso, then Brodeur made it better. Other goalies also came out to play the puck a lot and were terrible at it - like Hasek, but that's not where I'm going with this exactly.

So, let me throw this out there...was the re-birth of aggressive puck playing by goalies an evolutionary trait to counteract their lack of "refinement as puck stoppers" (paraphrasing from the quoted above)?

Two of the guys that brought it back into the spotlight - Hextall and Barrasso - aren't the most technically skilled puck stoppers I've seen. Fuhr and Vernon were out there [playing] around with it a bunch, etc. Was this their (the 80's goalies) way of counterbalancing the fact that they were just overmatched technically at this point in the league and so they just did....this....

And does it stand to reason, at all, that maybe the guys that were doing this in the pre-consolidation era felt the same way? Or just were the same way, without feeling?

The guys that do the lion's share of this research will know better, but did everyone (or most) goalies do this even? Or did a guy like Clint Benedict, known for his own in-the-crease "antics" tend to stay home?

We're not gonna see these guys play ever, so it's all story and theory. Is there any theory here that holds water?

Relative to the potential arc of the league's (hockey's) history, the 80's goalies are/were really "mistreated" relative to what you'd expect their numbers to be. Most people find them - or, by proxy find them - to be unappealing. Should we be so quick to find so many goalies from the pre-consolidation era appealing then, by proxy?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'll say some things that are less abstract I guess...

- Martin Brodeur won't be my #1. I thought there was a chance he might get there with this method, but not the case. He won't be the #1 goalie from his era.

- Most of my "B" list has not won a Cup, but two of them are dynasty members at the moment.

- Mike Liut should have been good, but he is oddly not square or well positioned on first shots. This tracks through his whole career. The bigger guys from this era seem to be more efficient in their movement...Liut starts from a deficiency and tries to recover. Sigh...

- Pete Peeters is not very mobile or agile, but he's generally well very positioned. (Warren Strelow was a goalie coach in Washington in the mid-80's @Dr John Carlson ). Just when I think I can scratch him off my list, he has a game where I think that's too hasty. I think he'll make my list. Maybe as a "C" guy with the likes of Kolzig and Bouchard.

- I think I had this in the previous project, but I'll definitely take Vanbiesbrouck over Richter. Not sure if the latter will make the list.

- Sean Burke @MadArcand this is a tough one. He showed adaptability. He looks a lot different from New Jersey to Phoenix. He sort of starts out almost as a Sawchuk disciple - with a big hulking style. This was leaving some big holes in his lateral movement that appeared to cause him to give up a lot of five hole and other low goals. Then he sort of morphed into more of a Glenn Hall disciple. Shuffle ability wasn't really a big thing with pads yet, and he still wasn't the most agile skater, but he was able to use his size to make it work if the puck moved across the net. He's a mental game guru these days, so I assume his mental game was strong and not winning a playoff series after his rookie year was more a product of his teams than him. I guess I should check out the 1998 series vs Buffalo - that one sort of sticks out as winnable or at least competitive and it wasn't very close. He's on my W list right now. He's sort of like Liut in some respects, both seem like could have been a little better than they were...which made for some really great games and really meh games...

- I wish Kelly Hrudey could stop low shots...his skates, glove, and blocker are good. The rest of his game is...rough. I don't think he'll make the list.

- EDIT: I forgot @MXD Don Edwards is a really interesting one. He's small and not a very good skater. So, immediately, I'm thinking "this won't work..." but he's actually pretty good. One, he has terrific reflexes. And his crouch and save process and I don't know, maybe his lack of skating, help him direct rebounds well. He's surprisingly under control and surprisingly compact, but still effective. I can't even find a comparable for him in my head. He's like a smaller, worse skating Tretiak...but that gives him too much credit in terms of talent and career, but just stylistically. He'll likely be on my list in the C maybe C+ area. I want to see if I can figure out why the wheels fell off in Calgary besides having to face prime Gretzky.

Jacques Plante likes him too. So, that's a plus. That's one opinion that I'd really respect but a phone number that won't do me much good these days...

Also, re: Edwards - his parents were murdered in the early 90's?!?! Lord...

 

[rmartin65]

Are there any goalies that are talked about negatively in any significant way (like, more than a bad game or season...I mean, consistent dogging of play)...?

I'm just wondering what the scale is here? Should we take the absence of constant praise as a big red flag or is there actually "a fire hydrant could have scored 40 goals with Gretzky" or "this goaler is a frivolous punderputz, a really pudgy-faced applejohn, I declare!"

I can't speak for all the papers or for the entire pre-consolidation time period, but from what I have seen, generally the answer is no. You'll get players called out for bad games or, more often, bad plays, but repeated criticism over an extended period of time is uncommon. I find that players who were more-often criticized usually ended up being replaced after a game or season or two.

I read the absence of regular praise as a red flag. The best players were talked about in glowing terms on a very regular basis. Even when a good player had a bad game, the papers would says something like "player X was off colour and didn't play his usual game last night".

In other words, when @Dr John Carlson 's research indicates that Hainsworth wasn't receiving a bunch of praise in comparison to his peers, I think that means Hainsworth wasn't as good as those peers, at least at those moments in time.

I could definitely be wrong; I'll never pretend that I have all the answers or that most of this is just (hopefully educated) guesswork. But it's where I am at right now.

Last night while going to bed, I was watching a late 80's hockey game and thought of an idea to "challenge" this in a slightly different way. I'm going to just "try it" in this thread just to see if it generates any conversation of note...

Skating way out to play the puck and, at times, rush the puck seemed to be en vogue up through the 20's or so, generally speaking.

That seemed to come back in a big way in the 80's with Hextall and Barrasso, then Brodeur made it better. Other goalies also came out to play the puck a lot and were terrible at it - like Hasek, but that's not where I'm going with this exactly.

So, let me throw this out there...was the re-birth of aggressive puck playing by goalies an evolutionary trait to counteract their lack of "refinement as puck stoppers" (paraphrasing from the quoted above)?

Two of the guys that brought it back into the spotlight - Hextall and Barrasso - aren't the most technically skilled puck stoppers I've seen. Fuhr and Vernon were out there [playing] around with it a bunch, etc. Was this their (the 80's goalies) way of counterbalancing the fact that they were just overmatched technically at this point in the league and so they just did....this....

And does it stand to reason, at all, that maybe the guys that were doing this in the pre-consolidation era felt the same way? Or just were the same way, without feeling?

The guys that do the lion's share of this research will know better, but did everyone (or most) goalies do this even? Or did a guy like Clint Benedict, known for his own in-the-crease "antics" tend to stay home?

We're not gonna see these guys play ever, so it's all story and theory. Is there any theory here that holds water?

Relative to the potential arc of the league's (hockey's) history, the 80's goalies are/were really "mistreated" relative to what you'd expect their numbers to be. Most people find them - or, by proxy find them - to be unappealing. Should we be so quick to find so many goalies from the pre-consolidation era appealing then, by proxy?

I think this is a really interesting line of thought, and I hope we see some discussion around it. I'll throw out my thoughts-

Through 1909, at least, I think goalies were thought of as defensive players. While today I think we separate teams into forwards/defense/goal, the papers of the day make me believe that it was just forwards/defense. And the roles shifted immensely; initially I feel like we can kind of set up concentric circles from the flags, with the goalkeepers having the smallest radius, then the points, then the covers with a lot of leeway to take the puck up ice. But by, I don't know, 1903-05, we see a shift. Lifting falls out of favor. You start to see teams putting guys like Lester Patrick, Frank Patrick, Art Ross, and Cyclone Taylor at point. One paper (I think from 1908) noted that the cover was responsible for playing the man, while the point would skate the puck up ice.

As the point and cover point positions evolved, so too did the goalies. With better skaters in front of them, I think their need to jump out check a guy or play the puck/start a rush fell. It was still done occasionally, but I feel like I notice those types of comments a lot less. And when it is mentioned, it feels like an unusual event, which is probably why the author of the summary noted it.

I'd wager that the lack of substitutions and the illegality of forward passing also changed things. If a goalie got the puck, he couldn't just send it up to a teammate. And if the other players on the ice were more tired because they had been skating more, maybe it was a good idea for the goalie to go on a bit of a run at times.

So... were they overmatched? I don't think so. I think the game was still figuring out what all the players on the ice should be doing, and that led to some pretty weird things at times. But, as I've said, it is all speculation at this point.

A counterpoint that I'd offer is that games were often quite high-scoring. That would at least suggest that the goalies (or defensive units) were overmatched.

Hopefully others have some thoughts as well.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I can't speak for all the papers or for the entire pre-consolidation time period, but from what I have seen, generally the answer is no. You'll get players called out for bad games or, more often, bad plays, but repeated criticism over an extended period of time is uncommon. I find that players who were more-often criticized usually ended up being replaced after a game or season or two.

I read the absence of regular praise as a red flag. The best players were talked about in glowing terms on a very regular basis. Even when a good player had a bad game, the papers would says something like "player X was off colour and didn't play his usual game last night".

In other words, when @Dr John Carlson 's research indicates that Hainsworth wasn't receiving a bunch of praise in comparison to his peers, I think that means Hainsworth wasn't as good as those peers, at least at those moments in time.

I could definitely be wrong; I'll never pretend that I have all the answers or that most of this is just (hopefully educated) guesswork. But it's where I am at right now.

Agreed with all of this. You do see bad goals or bad games being called out but guys don't just get ragged on - if they did, we wouldn't see their names in the lineups for very long.

I think this is a really interesting line of thought, and I hope we see some discussion around it. I'll throw out my thoughts-

Through 1909, at least, I think goalies were thought of as defensive players. While today I think we separate teams into forwards/defense/goal, the papers of the day make me believe that it was just forwards/defense. And the roles shifted immensely; initially I feel like we can kind of set up concentric circles from the flags, with the goalkeepers having the smallest radius, then the points, then the covers with a lot of leeway to take the puck up ice. But by, I don't know, 1903-05, we see a shift. Lifting falls out of favor. You start to see teams putting guys like Lester Patrick, Frank Patrick, Art Ross, and Cyclone Taylor at point. One paper (I think from 1908) noted that the cover was responsible for playing the man, while the point would skate the puck up ice.

As the point and cover point positions evolved, so too did the goalies. With better skaters in front of them, I think their need to jump out check a guy or play the puck/start a rush fell. It was still done occasionally, but I feel like I notice those types of comments a lot less. And when it is mentioned, it feels like an unusual event, which is probably why the author of the summary noted it.

I'd wager that the lack of substitutions and the illegality of forward passing also changed things. If a goalie got the puck, he couldn't just send it up to a teammate. And if the other players on the ice were more tired because they had been skating more, maybe it was a good idea for the goalie to go on a bit of a run at times.

So... were they overmatched? I don't think so. I think the game was still figuring out what all the players on the ice should be doing, and that led to some pretty weird things at times. But, as I've said, it is all speculation at this point.

A counterpoint that I'd offer is that games were often quite high-scoring. That would at least suggest that the goalies (or defensive units) were overmatched.

Hopefully others have some thoughts as well.

It is an interesting line of thought. Goalies were definitely more prone to moving out from the net, whether to play the puck or to make a stop. The specifics of these moves are difficult to come by, too. Here's one relevant passage:

The Kitchener net guardian made some seemingly impossible stops slashing them into the corners with his stick, jumping into the air to catch them on his chest pad and cutting high shots to the ice with his gloved hand in a manner that was really sensational. On one occasion Hainsworth came 10 feet out of the net to stop Jerry Laflamme, when the Dental leader had beaten both Karges and Trushinski. He prevented a score but was penalized for so doing.

There's a lot going on here, but it's interesting that the editor specifies Hainsworth came out 10 feet, which makes me think that was an unusually long distance to trek out of the net if they felt the need to note. And, I could be wrong, but I believe he would've been penalized not for coming out to play the puck, but because he must've fell to the ice to make the stop, which was a penalty in the OHA at the time.

Now, contrast that with this retrospective opinion:

George [Hainsworth] was consistent. He, like many of the old timers you can recall, were rarely moved if at all. Looking over the past, one recalls that the great goalies who were consistent stayed in their nets. They came out to outguess many solo attempts but liked the plan of making the opponent make the first move... Lorne Chabot was a goalie who moved around in the goal area.

Does the 'came out to outguess' line include coming out 10 feet to stop a rush, such as in the quote beforehand? If so, would it then follow that the poor goalies were ones who strayed even further out, and then got themselves into trouble? Maybe.

Definitely agreed that no forward passing would make goalies much more likely to rush the shooter. That was the meta, that was how the goalies responded, and clearly it worked for them - all the goals allowed records were set in the last few seasons before forward passing was allowed. Before that time, back in the earliest days... I'm a lot less certain about the position.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Boys, I'm so sorry to do this...

I really do not like (I won't say "hate", but maybe...) Tony Esposito.

That brings me to this unfortunateness...

The Art of In Goaltending

I was at the Armory - a prominent (formerly, more prominent) New York City art fair - last weekend. At one of the booths, I took note of a large abstract-inspired piece that was clearly intended to be Vladislav Tretiak. So I spoke to the gallerist there and I told him as much about the subject matter of some of the other goalies that were painted as he told me about the art and the artist.

The artist's name is Rob Ober - a 60's born West German man - who attended games in his youth, apparently. I haven't met him yet, but I apparently have a fairly close connect. I'd link his instagram here, but it contains depictions that I don't think are within the rules of the board, so I'll play it safe and not...I don't get any commission anyway haha

So what the hell am I talking about?

Great question.

Artists are not ranked in order of their stroke or use of color. There are no bonus points for mixed material pieces (in fact, I think quite the opposite, but that's another story).

Certainly technique is a factor. But there's more than just that...there's also timing and innovation.

There's nothing particularly novel about a soup can. But the timing and innovation started a movement.

I look at my "A" list of goaltenders (again, not having looked deeply at the O6 yet)...

Dominik Hasek - unique in his use of vertical angles backed by freakish athleticism and reflexes. He aggressively played the percentages in the highest danger areas like no one dared to before. Innovator.

Martin Brodeur - Mastered the art of stickhandling. Turned rebounds into breakout passes. Had unreal anticipation for the game to the point that he baited shooters into shots he was already ready for. A hybrid style that strayed away from the butterfly in Quebec. Innovator.

Patrick Roy - The aforementioned butterfly, but combined with skating and a competitive fire that took it to another level from Glenn Hall. Innovator, or at least, mastered the innovation and brought it to the forefront (Warhol wasn't the first kitschy pop art guy...he was just the first to really know how to market it and live the lifestyle...Roy may be Warhol).

Jacq.........................wait a minute. Glenn Hall ---> Patrick Roy. Someone very prominent is missing in the butterfly timeline.

Tony Esposito

Why is he missing?

Because he wasn't that good at it. He didn't advent or advance the butterfly...he stole it as part of a patchwork of guessing and poor technique. Maybe I'll lose the art references here in case someone knows who Elaine Sturtevant is...you ever tell a joke from a comedian whose timing and rhythm you can't match? That's Tony Esposito for me. He just took what the last Blackhawks goalie did and tried to mimic it.

He's not the best skater. He's so unbelievably impatient and unpoised. He makes the first move every single time and cannot account for it with his skill. Rebounds are a mess. Second save process is a mess. I don't know if we have the data, but I bet if you did an ELO ranking of shooters, I'd wager that Tony O gets beat by the upper tier more often than any other. The bad players might not have had the skill to figure out how to deal with him kneeling and sliding out at them, but the skilled players had no trouble at all.

Enter: His playoff record. Where you're normally playing better players on the whole. I mean, who loses 18 out of 19 playoff games? He won 12 of his last 46.

Watch the splits...

1970 - He's new on the scene. No one knows what to make of it. Tony Esposito 1969-70 Splits | Hockey-Reference.com

1971 - The O6 teams with talent - Montreal, Boston, New York. They killed him. They're getting two extra goals per game on him, effectively.

1972 - The Hawks generally try to hide him from these teams. Giving Gary Smith Boston four times, Montreal three times, New York twice.

1973 - Doesn't play the full slate, but not a low amount either. He has a good year. Adds a half a goal per game in the playoffs. But it's really more than that, because that number is fluffed by the hapless Blues in the first round.

1974 - Same basic deal. He has a good year. Adds a whole goal in the playoffs. Again, fluffed by playing pre-Triple Crown Los Angeles in the first round. He gets slaughtered by Boston.

1975 and on...I think everyone basically figured it out that could.

Tony Esposito 1974-75 Splits | Hockey-Reference.com

Scoring Stat Splits for Tony Esposito for 1974-75

www.hockey-reference.com

The splits are stark:
sub-2 GAAs against Atlanta Kansas City, California, Washington, Minnesota, etc.

3+ against Boston and Buffalo
4's and 5's (!) against Montreal, Pittsburgh, and New York.

And I know that bad teams are bad and good teams are good. And I looked at other goalies around this time and this effect does exist, but it doesn't appear to be quite as stark of a difference. Plus...the unscionably bad playoff record makes a lot of sense now.

The smartest team had a sense too. They left Esposito exposed in, effectively, a waiver draft in 1969 after giving him a shot in the NHL.

He was a guesser, he had poor anchoring, poor rebound control, he was not in control of the game. And the H-R page on him makes it look like he was elite or near elite for his whole career, but he wasn't...those AS-5 and AS-6's or whatever are just discount rack atta-boys for a player that played 15-20 more games than any other goalie in the league. They're largely irrelevant and way off the lead.

And yes, given the state of things at the time and his penchant for playing the majority of games (meaning, more expansion teams and dumpster fires) his save pct. from 1974 to 1980 is 4th in the NHL. But his pocket-sized backup Mike Veisor's is 7th - and that includes him having to stay in for 12 goals on 36 shots vs. Montreal in 1975. If Esposito got that game, Veisor would be 5th, right next to Espo.

I'm not asking you not to put him on your lists...I'm not saying he won't be on mine....somewhere...lower than you have him certainly. But where ever he was at on the top 40 list last time is way too high. Whatever the number he's ranked at, I'd say double it...

It's unpopular, I'm an idiot, he's in the HOF, he's won Vezinas...I know. I'm aware. Whatever research you do for this, dig a little deeper here...don't give him a free pass. Don't ignore the massive playoff red flag. Don't ignore that Montreal chose Rogie Vachon and 40 year old Gump Worsley over him for their protected slots in the waiver draft or that no one was willing to pony up an asset to trade for him. Or that the very farm team he was with before the NHL chose Phil Myre over him for the playoffs. Or that he switched to represent the United States in order to get playing time in the 1981 Canada Cup. Or that he had to wear a hammock between his legs to cheat his way through bad technique.

He's Phil's little brother that happened to play a lot of games for an iconic franchise that was relevant for a bit with his goofball antics and their Original Six relics.

Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final - up 2-0 with 25 minutes left. And this is what you come up with?



There's a reason he didn't win.

 

[rmartin65]

Are there any goalies that are talked about negatively in any significant way (like, more than a bad game or season...I mean, consistent dogging of play)...?

Agreed with all of this. You do see bad goals or bad games being called out but guys don't just get ragged on - if they did, we wouldn't see their names in the lineups for very long.

This is quite a coincidence, but I'm doing some last minute research into Jack Winchester to see if he is worthy of consideration. I came across an article titled "Winchester Departs" from the Winnipeg Tribune (1 February 1909 page 6) that is a nice example of what we are talking about-

Few more popular players, both on the ice and off, than Winchester ever appeared in Winnipeg. The fans took to him in the first game he played with the Strathconas last season and none of his popularity has been lost. As a goal minder "Whinney" has given some rare exhibitions in the west. While poor form was shown in a few games this is only the lot that befalls every player. Winchester's work during his two seasons in the west has been gilt-edged and of consistent class rather than the spasmodic.

Some poor play is acknowledged, but so is his overall ability.