HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 1

[Dr John Carlson]

Procedure

• In this vote, you will be presented with 8 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit eight names in a ranked order, #1 through #8, without ties via PM to both @Dr John Carlson and @Professor What
• Use the same private message thread every week rather than starting a new PM
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top 5 players will be added to the final list (unless a very large break exists at the spot between 4&5, or the break between 5&6 is minimal)
• Lists of players eligible for voting will grow as the project continues
• Voting threads will continue until we have added 60 names to the list, for a total of 12 voting threads

Eligible Voters

• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 80 goaltenders (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the final ranking
• These voters are: @nabby12, @overpass, @frisco, @Professor What, @DN28, @jigglysquishy, @tony d, @rmartin65, @Vilica, @bobholly39, @The Pale King, @blogofmike, @Dr John Carlson, @MXD, @Michael Farkas, @ContrarianGoaltender, @VanIslander, @seventieslord, @Weztex

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Please refrain from excessive use of the 'laughing' reaction to indicate disagreement
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project
• Anybody may participate in the discussion, whether they submitted a list or not

House Rules

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
• Finish your drink when someone mentions that wins are a team stat

REMINDER: This vote has been extended by a full week. Please note the following updated deadlines.

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, October 4th Friday, October 11th at midnight and continue through Sunday, October 6th Sunday, October 13th at 11:59 PM Eastern time. I will release the results of the vote the morning of Monday, October 7th Monday, October 14th, at which point the next voting thread will begin.


Vote 1 Candidates

• Martin Brodeur
• Ken Dryden
• Glenn Hall
• Dominik Hasek
• Jacques Plante
• Patrick Roy
• Terry Sawchuk
• Vladislav Tretiak

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

So I decided a few years ago I slot Patrick Roy above Dominik Hasek for #1.

I'm of the opinion that - you can argue that at his very best, Hasek may have been the best at "stopping the pucks". In fact, he probably has the better regular season between the 2, possibly a few of them, and possibly the best seasons ever by a goalie. But Patrick Roy's playoffs are tremendous. 3 conn smythes - huge impact in 1996 too - most wins/games ever by a goalie in the playoffs by a huge amount.

I'm open to considering Hasek for #1, but I think in the end his NHL career was simply too short, and his NHL playoffs are good, but not great. Is Hasek even top 5 all-time for NHL playoffs as a goalie? How about simply top 10?

 

[The Pale King]

Here we go gang. For some reason I thought this was going to be the 70-80 ranked goalies first. Wasn't prepped to be going in on the big boys from the start. This is probably the vote where we'll see the least change from past projects, still curious to see everyone's methodology here.

Everytime I come back to this tier, I want to include Brodeur closer to the top, it just feels weird to have so many of the 90s guys at the absolute top. My top two are Hasek and Roy, but on certain days... Marty is right there.

I really like Glenn Hall, but other than the 90s guys, Dryden is by far the goalie here I am most familiar with (in terms of footage, quotes, mindset etc).

Side note that you can ignore: I'm probably one of the only folks in this cafe in Zaragoza, Es on my phone on a message board talking about all time ice-hockey goalie rankings, unless that's you across the way drinking a ratafia with the pith helmet, Farkas?

Thanks for the great work so far DJC.

 

[bobholly39]

Here we go gang. For some reason I thought this was going to be the 70-80 ranked goalies first. Wasn't prepped to be going in on the big boys from the start. This is probably the vote where we'll see the least change from past projects, still curious to see everyone's methodology here.

Everytime I come back to this tier, I want to include Brodeur closer to the top, it just feels weird to have so many of the 90s guys at the absolute top. My top two are Hasek and Roy, but on certain days... Marty is right there.

I really like Glenn Hall, but other than the 90s guys, Dryden is by far the goalie here I am most familiar with (in terms of footage, quotes, mindset etc).

Side note that you can ignore: I'm probably one of the only folks in this cafe in Zaragoza, Es on my phone on a message board talking about all time ice-hockey goalie rankings, unless that's you across the way drinking a ratafia with the pith helmet, Farkas?

Thanks for the great work so far DJC.

That whole time the preliminary thread was up, I wanted to make a post/argument as to why Martin Brodeur should be considered for #1. And I thought about it this morning too after this new thread was up.

My problem is - I can't seem to find a rational way to slot him above both Hasek and Roy that makes sense and is logical.

But I think a goalie's job more than anything is to be reliable enough to give your a chance a team to win. A game, a season, in the playoffs...and Martin Brodeur was a reliable #1 goalie for longer than anyone in history. I think that has tremendous value.

I'd be very open to hearing someone's argumennt as to having him leapfrog either/or of Hasek or Roy.

 

[Professor What]

So I decided a few years ago I slot Patrick Roy above Dominik Hasek for #1.

I'm of the opinion that - you can argue that at his very best, Hasek may have been the best at "stopping the pucks". In fact, he probably has the better regular season between the 2, possibly a few of them, and possibly the best seasons ever by a goalie. But Patrick Roy's playoffs are tremendous. 3 conn smythes - huge impact in 1996 too - most wins/games ever by a goalie in the playoffs by a huge amount.

I'm open to considering Hasek for #1, but I think in the end his NHL career was simply too short, and his NHL playoffs are good, but not great. Is Hasek even top 5 all-time for NHL playoffs as a goalie? How about simply top 10?

Where I agree with you: I think Hasek was the best at stopping pucks. Looked weird doing it at times, but it got the job done, and better than anyone else, imo.

Also, I agree that I'd take Hasek for regular season and Roy for playoffs. I believe I've probably said that on this board in the past.

Where I disagree: Hasek's NHL career was too short? At the most critical we can get, it lasted 13 seasons. And that's disregarding a couple of seasons where, while backing up Belfour, he played 20+ games. Btw, having a choice between Belfour and Hasek is a rich man's choice, and losing out early on to Belfour isn't the worst thing ever. He's 25 in games played in NHL history among goalies and 17th in wins. Those should show that he had long enough longevity without his Czechoslovakian career, where he was already considered quite good (danged Iron Curtain!)

Also, I think we have to consider team quality when we talk about the playoffs. As I said, I take Roy for the playoffs. There's no arguing with 3 Conn Smythes. But I think it would be a bit closer if they both had the same team quality. Hasek simply didn't have that until he got to Detroit.

Anyway, I'll have some more coming on these guys in general later. Glad to see we're moving on to this stage though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

As one of the biggest Brodeur backers here, I can't justify him being #1. I've tried to figure a way to get him there, I can't get him there.

This is probably the first and last time the available goalies will largely line up with my original list. The only player that's a little too far out there for me is Dryden - who was 15th on my list.

The recent guys for me go:
Roy
Brodeur
Hasek

The O6 guys go:
Plante
Sawchuk
Hall

But they're all fairly close. I was pleasantly surprised by Sawchuk. Even late career.

But when you're way up here, there's basically a case for any order. Everyone here basically did their own thing too.

Hall was an early butterfly guy...eventually Roy took that to another level.
Plante really took the position to another place, he really played the angles well, he challenged guys, he was playing the puck. Eventually those principles ended up with Brodeur - who was one of the few legit hybrid goalies out there. These two are probably the two smartest goalies in history too.

Sawchuk had that low crouch as a way to find pucks. Sort of bigger, looming figure. Even though I don't think his vitals suggest it, he played like a big goalie.

Hasek sort of did his own thing, but there was a method to it. He stopped guys from low angles better than some guys who remained upright. He really understood vertical angles and attacked the puck in a very unique way.

My previous post on Tretiak vs Dryden:

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.

Tretiak did make my A list. Dryden did not.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Very excited to get this project started.

The first 8 up is the "canon" 8. How confident are we that the top 8 should be the same top 8 as 12 years ago? It's 6 birthyears representing 3 eras. I guess we will wait until another name comes up.

The only things I'm confident on are Dryden last and Plante first of the O6 guys. Other than that I'm open to arguments for anything.

I'll be voting Hasek first, but I think it'll be close.

Going strictly by contemporary opinion, Hasek is king. That multiyear run where the public consensus was that he was the best player in the world (or close to it) is hard to beat.

I recently rewatched the CSSR/Canada semi final game from 1987. Hasek is a baby but does a good job of dealing with the Canadian onslaught. For being 7 years pre NHL, he looks really good.

 

[MXD]

I'm curious how this top-8 was "unanimous" in Round 1. I know I personally didn't have that Top-8.

I'm totally willing to entertain the Brodeur > Hasek argument.

 

[MXD]

@Dr John Carlson

• The top 5 players will be added to the final list (unless a very large break exists at the spot between 4&5 or 5&6)

Erhmmm... Are you sure you didn't mean something like this instead?

• The top 5 players will be added to the final list (unless a very large break exists at the spot between 4&5, or unless the break between 5&6 is minuscule/inexistent)

 

[Professor What]

So, in my opinion, these guys fall into three groups, though close groups.

Hasek and Roy are in the first tier. To me they just stand above the others, even as good as everybody on this list is. I slightly prefer Hasek, myself.

I could see an argument for Broduer, Hall, Plante, and Sawchuk in just about any order. I think the original six trio is really tight and that Brodeur fits in nicely with them.

Dryden and Tretiak are certainly good enough to compete with these guys head to head, though I do think they make up the third tier. I went back and forth several times on them. I'm really not willing to push either of them ahead of the other. This is a case where I wish we could have ties on our ballots.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Quoting myself on Hasek vs Roy:

Here's how Roy and Hasek rank in Goals Versus Average (which combines save percentage with workload):

• Roy - 1st (1989), 1st (1990), 1st (1992), 2nd (1988), 2nd (1991), 2nd (2002), 3rd (1987), 3rd (1994), 3rd (1997), 5th (1998), 6th (2000), 6th (2003), 7th (1993), 7th (1996), 7th (1999), 10th (1995)
• Hasek - 1st (1995), 1st (1996), 1st (1997), 1st (1998), 1st (1999), 2nd (2001), 2nd (1994), 7th (2006), 8th (2000), 10th (2002)

If we cancel out similar finishes (and I'll also cancel out a 7th for Roy with an 8th for Hasek), and we're left with:

• Roy - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
• Hasek - 1st, 1st

There's a much wider range in how goalies perform from year to year, compared to skaters. Roy brought enormous value to his teams by being consistently excellent year after year. From 1987 to 2003 (a span of 17 seasons), he placed lower than 7th in GVA only twice. I'm not saying that's the same as Gordie Howe with 20 straight years in the top five in scoring, or Ray Bourque with 19 out of 22 seasons placing in the top five in Norris voting - but it's not far off either. Would you trade someone with two scoring titles and little else (ie Dickie Moore) for someone who was a top 7 scorer eight times (ie Joe Sakic)?

Just to show Roy's consistency. From 1980 to 2022, here's how many times each goalie placed 7th or higher in GVA (granted an arbitrary cutoff) - Roy did it 15 times. Hasek and Luongo are next at 8 times. Lundqvist and Vanbiesbrouck did it 7 times. Brodeur 6 times. Then Joseph, Barrasso, Hrudey and Moog five times each. It's a very tough standard (Belfour and Price don't even qualify).

You can say I'm being disingenuous because Hasek clearly peaked higher. And that's true. Hasek has all five of the highest seasons in GVA between them (then Roy has 9 of the next 12). Can you argue that Hasek's peak trumps anything Roy ever did? Possibly. If the question is who's the "better" or more naturally talented goalie, I think it's almost impossible to choose Roy.

But if the question is "greatest" (which is generally how we make our top X lists), I'd go with Roy. Hasek has the higher peak, but Roy ends up ahead in career GVA. He was much more consistent from year to year (which is rare for a goalie). He still led the league in GVA three times (so he wasn't a compiler - and nobody else from 1980 onwards has done this more than twice). And Roy's playoff resume is vastly superior (where, adjusted for era, he stopped the puck more effectively than Hasek, over a much larger number of games).

 

[jigglysquishy]

Quoting myself on Hasek vs Roy:

Here's how Roy and Hasek rank in Goals Versus Average (which combines save percentage with workload):

• Roy - 1st (1989), 1st (1990), 1st (1992), 2nd (1988), 2nd (1991), 2nd (2002), 3rd (1987), 3rd (1994), 3rd (1997), 5th (1998), 6th (2000), 6th (2003), 7th (1993), 7th (1996), 7th (1999), 10th (1995)
• Hasek - 1st (1995), 1st (1996), 1st (1997), 1st (1998), 1st (1999), 2nd (2001), 2nd (1994), 7th (2006), 8th (2000), 10th (2002)

If we cancel out similar finishes (and I'll also cancel out a 7th for Roy with an 8th for Hasek), and we're left with:

• Roy - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
• Hasek - 1st, 1st

There's a much wider range in how goalies perform from year to year, compared to skaters. Roy brought enormous value to his teams by being consistently excellent year after year. From 1987 to 2003 (a span of 17 seasons), he placed lower than 7th in GVA only twice. I'm not saying that's the same as Gordie Howe with 20 straight years in the top five in scoring, or Ray Bourque with 19 out of 22 seasons placing in the top five in Norris voting - but it's not far off either. Would you trade someone with two scoring titles and little else (ie Dickie Moore) for someone who was a top 7 scorer eight times (ie Joe Sakic)?

Just to show Roy's consistency. From 1980 to 2022, here's how many times each goalie placed 7th or higher in GVA (granted an arbitrary cutoff) - Roy did it 15 times. Hasek and Luongo are next at 8 times. Lundqvist and Vanbiesbrouck did it 7 times. Brodeur 6 times. Then Joseph, Barrasso, Hrudey and Moog five times each. It's a very tough standard (Belfour and Price don't even qualify).

You can say I'm being disingenuous because Hasek clearly peaked higher. And that's true. Hasek has all five of the highest seasons in GVA between them (then Roy has 9 of the next 12). Can you argue that Hasek's peak trumps anything Roy ever did? Possibly. If the question is who's the "better" or more naturally talented goalie, I think it's almost impossible to choose Roy.

But if the question is "greatest" (which is generally how we make our top X lists), I'd go with Roy. Hasek has the higher peak, but Roy ends up ahead in career GVA. He was much more consistent from year to year (which is rare for a goalie). He still led the league in GVA three times (so he wasn't a compiler - and nobody else from 1980 onwards has done this more than twice). And Roy's playoff resume is vastly superior (where, adjusted for era, he stopped the puck more effectively than Hasek, over a much larger number of games).

You should have submitted a list! We can use your expertise.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Quoting myself on whether Sawchuk is overrated:

For what it's worth, this is one of the first major "contrarian" takes I had when I started getting serious about hockey history. I'm certain I wrote an article about this for a long-defunct blog, but I can't find it.

The answers I got (in trying to reconcile his reputation with the last 15 years of his career) are basically: 1) he was so good at his peak that it doesn't matter what he did after and 2) everyone who saw him rates him highly.

I'm not sure what to make of the first point. The closest parallel I can find to Sawchuk is Guy Lafleur (who might have the best six-year peak after the Big Four, but was otherwise surprisingly mediocre). I'm not convinced that Sawchuk's peak was any better than Lafleur's; it was a year shorter; and although Lafleur struggled with injuries, in his first three years after his peak, he was still 13th in points per game - Sawchuk's decline was much sharper. Even if we pretend that Lafleur and Sawchuk are identical cases, Lafleur always gets penalized for his lack of longevity (HOH rated him 23rd - 6th among wingers; the recent Hockey News list has him 18th - 5th among wingers). I'm not saying we knock Sawchuk out of the top 50, but if Lafleur gets downgraded under similar circumstances, so should Sawchuk.

The second point is also tough, because it's not consistent with what seems to have happened. During Sawchuk's five-year peak, he was named the best goalie in the league (ie, year-end first-team all-star) three times. Okay, great - that's a good start. But he never got that distinction the rest of his career (spanning 626 games). He got two second-team all-star selections in his last fifteen years (but he was ranked 5th and 6th out of six starting goalies in save percentage those years). Not that the NHL awards are perfect, but the people who watched his career unfold had him ranked 2nd at his position twice from age 26 to 40. That doesn't vindicate the "trust those who watched him play" crowd.

I think Sawchuk gets overrated for the same reason Martin Brodeur did. It's hard to evaluate goalies with statistics. The best one (although still flawed) is save percentage, and that wasn't compiled until more than two decades after he retired. Before that, we were left with metrics like wins and shutouts - Sawchuk was the all-time leader in both categories for many decades, even though it's pretty obvious why neither tells you very much about how a goalie does. (Another factor that perhaps led to Sawchuk being overrated is he was excellent in the 1967 playoffs which helped the Leafs win their last Stanley Cup. Sometimes people think that the player's late-career surge was indicative of how they played their whole career - Scott Niedermayer is an example). The fact that Sawchuk's play deteriorated right after he left the Red Wings (one of the greatest teams of all-time) raises further questions.

I'm not disputing that Sawchuk is one of the greatest goalies of all-time. His five year peak (carried into the playoffs) is extraordinary, and there's value in being an average (or even slightly below average) goalie for a long period of time after that. But I don't think there's any credible argument for ranking him first.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'll add one more old post here. I'm not trying to dominate the discussion, but I have time to dig these up now, and likely won't later in the week. This is a very long discussion about why I used to think Brodeur was overrated, and why I changed my mind:

I joined HFBoards in January 2005. At the time, I was convinced that Brodeur was a fraud. (No - I didn't create that website, but I agreed with most of the content). I'm pretty sure I joined HFBoards specifically to argue with people on that point.

Nobody disputes that Brodeur was great during the first five years of his career (1994 to 1998). Here's the case against Brodeur from 1999 to 2004 (a span of six seasons, spanning ages 26 to 31):

• First, so I don't get flamed by Devils fans - I'm not saying I agree with all this today. But this would have been my position at the time.
• Save percentage isn't perfect, but it's the best single measurement of how effectively a goalie stops the puck. During this period, Brodeur was barely above the league average. Across those six years, Brodeur's save percentage was 91.0%, compared to the league average of 90.7%. Brodeur didn't place in the top ten in save percentage in any of those six seasons. Yet, somehow, he walked away with two Vezina trophies, six straight years in the top five, and two years as a Hart trophy finalist. There was a massive disconnect between his performance, and how he was perceived.
• This was true in the playoffs too. During these six seasons, 12 goalies played in thirty or more games. Ten of them had save percentages over 92%. The only exceptions were Brodeur, and Osgood - another goalie who wasn't as good as his numbers suggested.
• Brodeur had a big advantage by playing in New Jersey. He was playing in front of two Hall of Fame defenseman and a multiple Selke trophy winner. More importantly, it was about the "system". The Devils were (probably) the most disciplined and most defensively sound team in the NHL. The Devils took by far the least penalty minutes (per game) during this span. Only one team (the Blues) allowed fewer shots per game. It was obvious from watching them play that the Devils were a suffocating defensive team. He was much less busy than Hasek, Joseph, and many others.
• Yes, Brodeur won a lot of games, but that's largely because he played a lot of games (he was also near the top of the list in terms of losses), and also because he was behind such a strong team. During these six years, statistically, Brodeur was only slightly better than his mediocre collection of backup goalies. (At the time, I found this point particularly persuasive).
• A study was published in 2004 where save percentage was adjusted to take shot quality into account (ie was it a breakway or from the point? one-time or slap shot? PP or ES?). This was the early days of hockey analytics, but the conclusion made sense ("It came as no surprise to me that New Jersey lead the league in this metric, allowing 8.5% fewer goals than an average team because of its ability to minimize shot quality"). This was statistical evidence for the advantage of the Devils' system.
• Some people pointed to Brodeur winning the gold medal in 2002 as proof that he didn't need "the system" in New Jersey. This was never a convincing argument. No shit, Brodeur was able to win four games (two of which were against Belarus and Germany) playing with 12 HOF teammates. This is supposed to be evidence that Brodeur didn't need a stacked team to win?
• Brodeur played a lot of games, and that's beneficial to his team. But it isn't clear if a slightly above average goalie playing 70+ games is necessarily better than an excellent goalie playing 60+ games. (Goals versus average tries to summarize a goalie's impact into one number, taking into account their workload and performance. By that metric, Brodeur looked good, but he was clearly behind Hasek, Roy and Belfour, despite them all playing in fewer games. And he didn't even separate himself from the next tier of goalies, like Luongo, Joseph, Khabibulin, Nabokov, etc). A goalie who plays 70+ games on a strong team will get a lot of wins, but he hasn't necessarily contributed more than someone who places 10 fewer games per year, but at a higher level.
• A lot of people argued that Brodeur's puckhandling hurt his save percentage (because he doesn't get credit for a save if he clears the puck on his own - and once you factor that in, his save percentage would be much higher). That argument was never persuasive. First, several goalies from this era were equally good at puckhandling, and many of them had save percentages that were vastly higher - Marty Turco being the best example. Second, if you look at the number of shots that Brodeur faced per game, and compare it to his backup - there was minimal difference. From what I recall, if we attribute all of the difference in shots faced to Brodeur's puckhandling, it worked out to about one shot per game. Factor that in and his save percentage jumps a bit, but he was still far from the Hasek/Roy level.

That was my opinion at the time. I now rank Brodeur 5th all-time among goalies. What's changed? Brodeur's performance after the lockout has done a lot to prove to me that he wasn't just a product of "the system". Specifically:

• After the lockout, Brodeur (apparently) became much better at stopping the puck. Yes, he trailed off after 2010, but in the first five years after the lockout, he ranked 5th in save percentage, out of the 32 goalies who played in 150+ games. (That made me question - how likely was it that Brodeur, from ages 33 to 37, suddenly learned how to stop the puck again? Were there systematic issues that deflated his save percentage pre-lockout?)
• He had an all-time great season in 2007. (I thought Luongo was more deserving of the Vezina, but both had very strong years). The Devils still had some big names from the dynasty years, but Stevens and Niedermayer were gone. The Devils allowed 28.4 shots per game (slightly better than average, but not much). This was a strong Vezina win by historical standards.
• His playoff run in 2012 was excellent. This edition of the Devils wasn't particularly disciplined or responsible defensively. Their top defenseman was Marek Zidlicky, who was a defensive black hole. Their top forward was Ilya Kovalchuk, who got credit for being semi-responsible defensively for the first time in his life. This helped convince me that Brodeur could carry a (relatively) weak team to the Stanley Cup finals.
• The study that I mentioned before about shot quality was "recalled". Unfortuantely, the recall notice appears to be down, but the conclusion was that the shot quality that Brodeur (and other Devils goalies) faced, wasn't quite as easy as we first thought. (This is what a reasonable person should do - revisit their previously-held opinions in light of new evidence).
• The final point is probably the most important, though it's also the most philosophical. The problem with using a stat like "goals versus average", is that it treats a goalie who plays 70+ games at the league-average level as having (essentially) zero impact. Looking at how GM's award contracts - they clearly don't agree with that idea. And there's definitely value in a goalie playing a lot of games, even if it's only at the league-average level. If nothing else, it means the team is spared from having to play a backup-calibre goalie. (Simply being a top 15-20 goalie in the world is a hugely impressive accomplishment). From 1999 to 2004, Brodeur ranked 4th in "goals versus threshold" - which is still lower than his reputation suggests, but it's a much smaller disconnect.
• Building on the above point, my own research shows that Brodeur ranks 4th in NHL history (going back to the mid 1950's, based on GVT). Who am I to argue with myself?

This has turned into a much longer response than I intended. Ultimately, I think Brodeur was overrated during the period from 1998 to 2004, and there are legitimate criticisms that can be made. That clearly knocks him below Hasek, Roy and Plante on any all-time ranking. But his performance after the lockout was great, and it leads me to conclude that I was probably too harsh on him back when I first joined HFBoards.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

You should have submitted a list! We can use your expertise.

Thanks! I wish I had time, but 2024 has been an incredibly busy (but very good) year. I've had to scale back on several things I enjoy (including HFBoards). I'll drop by and post when I can (either new content, or at least quoting old material that's relevant). Regardless, the project is in good hands.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Re: contemporary opinion of Sawchuk

I've poured over everything I can find written about Sawchuk during his career. High praise during the dynasty. Very little outside that. And then the high praise doesn't start up again until the mid 1980s.

Can anyone point to accounts from 1960-1980 that claim Sawchuk as the GOAT? There's so many examples 1985-2000. Why not during and immediately after his career?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Re: contemporary opinion of Sawchuk

I've poured over everything I can find written about Sawchuk during his career. High praise during the dynasty. Very little outside that. And then the high praise doesn't start up again until the mid 1980s.

Can anyone point to accounts from 1960-1980 that claim Sawchuk as the GOAT? There's so many examples 1985-2000. Why not during and immediately after his career?

Here's a few:

Ken Fidlin in the Kingston Whig-Standard, January 15, 1974:

Emile Francis' opinion in a Stan Fischler article around Sawchuk's death (Toronto Star, June 1, 1970):

(Bonus trade gossip included - I wonder who was going from Toronto to the Rangers - Bruce Gamble?)

Gerald Eskenazi article on Ron Stewart's Rangers hiring, Intelligencer Journal, May 19, 1975:

 

[Professor What]

Here's a few:

Ken Fidlin in the Kingston Whig-Standard, January 15, 1974:
View attachment 911022

Emile Francis' opinion in a Stan Fischler article around Sawchuk's death (Toronto Star, June 1, 1970):

View attachment 911024

(Bonus trade gossip included)

Gerald Eskenazi article on Ron Stewart's Rangers hiring, Intelligencer Journal, May 19, 1975:

View attachment 911025

That's interesting. The gap in praise for Sawchuk ended up making me decide to put him third of the O6 big three. This kind of throws a wrench into that.

 

[CuuuJooo]

To me (a non-voter), Plante and Sawchuk are hard to separate in a lot of ways. Incredible peak; long decline.

 

[overpass]

Quoting myself on whether Sawchuk is overrated:

For what it's worth, this is one of the first major "contrarian" takes I had when I started getting serious about hockey history. I'm certain I wrote an article about this for a long-defunct blog, but I can't find it.

The answers I got (in trying to reconcile his reputation with the last 15 years of his career) are basically: 1) he was so good at his peak that it doesn't matter what he did after and 2) everyone who saw him rates him highly.

I'm not sure what to make of the first point. The closest parallel I can find to Sawchuk is Guy Lafleur (who might have the best six-year peak after the Big Four, but was otherwise surprisingly mediocre). I'm not convinced that Sawchuk's peak was any better than Lafleur's; it was a year shorter; and although Lafleur struggled with injuries, in his first three years after his peak, he was still 13th in points per game - Sawchuk's decline was much sharper. Even if we pretend that Lafleur and Sawchuk are identical cases, Lafleur always gets penalized for his lack of longevity (HOH rated him 23rd - 6th among wingers; the recent Hockey News list has him 18th - 5th among wingers). I'm not saying we knock Sawchuk out of the top 50, but if Lafleur gets downgraded under similar circumstances, so should Sawchuk.

The second point is also tough, because it's not consistent with what seems to have happened. During Sawchuk's five-year peak, he was named the best goalie in the league (ie, year-end first-team all-star) three times. Okay, great - that's a good start. But he never got that distinction the rest of his career (spanning 626 games). He got two second-team all-star selections in his last fifteen years (but he was ranked 5th and 6th out of six starting goalies in save percentage those years). Not that the NHL awards are perfect, but the people who watched his career unfold had him ranked 2nd at his position twice from age 26 to 40. That doesn't vindicate the "trust those who watched him play" crowd.

I think Sawchuk gets overrated for the same reason Martin Brodeur did. It's hard to evaluate goalies with statistics. The best one (although still flawed) is save percentage, and that wasn't compiled until more than two decades after he retired. Before that, we were left with metrics like wins and shutouts - Sawchuk was the all-time leader in both categories for many decades, even though it's pretty obvious why neither tells you very much about how a goalie does. (Another factor that perhaps led to Sawchuk being overrated is he was excellent in the 1967 playoffs which helped the Leafs win their last Stanley Cup. Sometimes people think that the player's late-career surge was indicative of how they played their whole career - Scott Niedermayer is an example). The fact that Sawchuk's play deteriorated right after he left the Red Wings (one of the greatest teams of all-time) raises further questions.

I'm not disputing that Sawchuk is one of the greatest goalies of all-time. His five year peak (carried into the playoffs) is extraordinary, and there's value in being an average (or even slightly below average) goalie for a long period of time after that. But I don't think there's any credible argument for ranking him first.

I've also been thinking about Sawchuk's reputation and how to reconcile his peak with the rest of his career.

We actually have some save percentage stats from his peak. @Doctor No has save percentages on his website starting in 1952-53.

Terry Sawchuk

Terry Sawchuk, regular season

Season	W	L	T	GAA	SV%	S/60
1952-53	32​	15​	16​	1.90​	0.929​	26.7​
1953-54	35​	19​	13​	1.93​	0.933​	28.9​
1954-55	40​	17​	11​	1.96​	0.926​	26.5​

And I've posted Sawchuk's playoff save percentages for his five year peak here.

Playoff goaltending in the 40s and early 50s - save percentages

I posted this earlier in the goalie project thread. I'm going to put it in it's own thread as well, where I can update it if/when I get additional information. I've already added some missing games from the Boston Globe and other papers, and the playoff shot totals from 1943-44 through 1954-55...

forums.hfboards.com

0.929 SV% in 43 playoff games from 1951 to 1955.

Detroit was a great defensive team by reputation, but they weren't an outlier at keeping low shots against. So Sawchuk's save percentages were actually very good at his peak. We don't know his shot quality, but we know that Glenn Hall came in and his save percentages in his two Detroit seasons were also very good but not quite as good as Sawchuk's (0.925 and 0.928 in two regular seasons, 0.902 in 15 playoff games). Of course Hall was also a great goaltender. I think the save percentage stats are consistent with Sawchuk's peak being all-time great.

What happened to Sawchuk after his peak? He had a lot of health problems. One impact was that he played at 210 pounds or even higher during his five year peak, but then dropped as much as 40 pounds in later seasons. I'm not a doctor but I can read the numbers, and I think his health problems show up in his first half / second half splits. From 1958-59 to 1962-63, a five year period, his goals against numbers were much worse in the second half each season.

Sawchuk GAA

Season	Oct-Dec	Jan-Apr
1950-51​	1.94​	2.00​
1951-52​	1.80​	2.00​
1952-53​	1.97​	1.81​
1953-54​	1.92​	1.94​
1954-55​	1.94​	1.98​
1955-56​	2.83​	2.35​
1956-57​	2.25​	3.00​
1957-58​	2.94​	2.94​
1958-59​	2.51​	3.72​
1959-60​	2.44​	2.92​
1960-61​	2.84​	3.45​
1961-62​	3.14​	3.53​
1962-63​	2.27​	3.08​
1963-64​	2.84​	2.47​
1964-65​	2.33​	2.78​
1965-66​	3.08​	3.24​
1966-67​	2.39​	3.26​
1967-68​	3.79​	2.74​

Sawchuk was very consistent at his peak. His numbers started fluctuating when he went to Boston in 55-56 and 56-57, and he started to break down at that time. Then in his next five seasons, when he returned to Detroit from 58-59 to 62-63, he was consistently much worse in the second half. The difference is striking. I think he must have been breaking down later in the season due to all his health problems.

To me, finding a reason for Sawchuk's later breakdown helps validate that his peak could really have been the very best of all time, or close to it. And I think his peers viewed him in the same way. Everyone knew about his many struggles after his initial peak, and knew that his performance didn't always reflect his talent.

But then it's hard to rate him above more consistent goaltenders like Roy, Plante, Hall, even Brodeur. Unless his peak really was the greatest of all time, and I don't know if I can get there.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Those season splits are really illuminating. He was playing at a Vezina (statistical) level until the new year fairly consistently. And then getting lit up in the back half.

I'm struggling to think of a comparable. It's like putting up 1.5 PPG for the first half of the season then playing at 0.5 PPG for the back half.

It's just really hard to read.

 

[nabby12]

Anybody who actually physically watched Sawchuk play in the 1950s and 1960s would tell you that he's the GOAT. Many players of his era all saw Hasek/Roy/Brodeur play later on and still say Sawchuk was the best. I think some of that is more "legend/legacy status" than how good he actually was, but it's worth noting nonetheless.

With that said, Sawchuk was definitely the GOAT of his era at the very least. Plante has admitted it in the past. As did Glenn Hall when I asked him a few years back who the greatest goalie of all time was in his eyes. After seeing Roy/Brodeur/Hasek, he still goes with Sawchuk. Johnny Bower told me the same thing.

Basically any non-Montreal Canadiens player from that era would have told you that Sawchuk was better than Plante.

I like this bitter-sounding quote from Jacques Plante when he was asked when the mask was finally accepted: "It wasn't until Sawchuk put on the mask that the Canadiens and the NHL really accepted it. He was the best and if he wore one, it had to be all right."

After all the success and Stanley Cups Plante had won by the time Andy Bathgate had hit him in the face with that shot on November 1, 1959. You would think that if Plante wanted to wear a mask that he knows what's best and that it's a good idea. But no. It was flat-out refused.

Meanwhile Sawchuk, who had certainly regressed by this point and was nowhere near his peak, was still considered the king of the net by everyone in hockey. When he wore the mask, it was cemented as a good idea for goalies.

 

[Professor What]

You guys are really making a case for Sawchuk to be third to me. I thought Plante had that locked up.

 

[BM67]

I'll add one more old post here. I'm not trying to dominate the discussion, but I have time to dig these up now, and likely won't later in the week. This is a very long discussion about why I used to think Brodeur was overrated, and why I changed my mind:

I joined HFBoards in January 2005. At the time, I was convinced that Brodeur was a fraud. (No - I didn't create that website, but I agreed with most of the content). I'm pretty sure I joined HFBoards specifically to argue with people on that point.

Nobody disputes that Brodeur was great during the first five years of his career (1994 to 1998). Here's the case against Brodeur from 1999 to 2004 (a span of six seasons, spanning ages 26 to 31):

• First, so I don't get flamed by Devils fans - I'm not saying I agree with all this today. But this would have been my position at the time.
• Save percentage isn't perfect, but it's the best single measurement of how effectively a goalie stops the puck. During this period, Brodeur was barely above the league average. Across those six years, Brodeur's save percentage was 91.0%, compared to the league average of 90.7%. Brodeur didn't place in the top ten in save percentage in any of those six seasons. Yet, somehow, he walked away with two Vezina trophies, six straight years in the top five, and two years as a Hart trophy finalist. There was a massive disconnect between his performance, and how he was perceived.
• This was true in the playoffs too. During these six seasons, 12 goalies played in thirty or more games. Ten of them had save percentages over 92%. The only exceptions were Brodeur, and Osgood - another goalie who wasn't as good as his numbers suggested.
• Brodeur had a big advantage by playing in New Jersey. He was playing in front of two Hall of Fame defenseman and a multiple Selke trophy winner. More importantly, it was about the "system". The Devils were (probably) the most disciplined and most defensively sound team in the NHL. The Devils took by far the least penalty minutes (per game) during this span. Only one team (the Blues) allowed fewer shots per game. It was obvious from watching them play that the Devils were a suffocating defensive team. He was much less busy than Hasek, Joseph, and many others.
• Yes, Brodeur won a lot of games, but that's largely because he played a lot of games (he was also near the top of the list in terms of losses), and also because he was behind such a strong team. During these six years, statistically, Brodeur was only slightly better than his mediocre collection of backup goalies. (At the time, I found this point particularly persuasive).
• A study was published in 2004 where save percentage was adjusted to take shot quality into account (ie was it a breakway or from the point? one-time or slap shot? PP or ES?). This was the early days of hockey analytics, but the conclusion made sense ("It came as no surprise to me that New Jersey lead the league in this metric, allowing 8.5% fewer goals than an average team because of its ability to minimize shot quality"). This was statistical evidence for the advantage of the Devils' system.
• Some people pointed to Brodeur winning the gold medal in 2002 as proof that he didn't need "the system" in New Jersey. This was never a convincing argument. No shit, Brodeur was able to win four games (two of which were against Belarus and Germany) playing with 12 HOF teammates. This is supposed to be evidence that Brodeur didn't need a stacked team to win?
• Brodeur played a lot of games, and that's beneficial to his team. But it isn't clear if a slightly above average goalie playing 70+ games is necessarily better than an excellent goalie playing 60+ games. (Goals versus average tries to summarize a goalie's impact into one number, taking into account their workload and performance. By that metric, Brodeur looked good, but he was clearly behind Hasek, Roy and Belfour, despite them all playing in fewer games. And he didn't even separate himself from the next tier of goalies, like Luongo, Joseph, Khabibulin, Nabokov, etc). A goalie who plays 70+ games on a strong team will get a lot of wins, but he hasn't necessarily contributed more than someone who places 10 fewer games per year, but at a higher level.
• A lot of people argued that Brodeur's puckhandling hurt his save percentage (because he doesn't get credit for a save if he clears the puck on his own - and once you factor that in, his save percentage would be much higher). That argument was never persuasive. First, several goalies from this era were equally good at puckhandling, and many of them had save percentages that were vastly higher - Marty Turco being the best example. Second, if you look at the number of shots that Brodeur faced per game, and compare it to his backup - there was minimal difference. From what I recall, if we attribute all of the difference in shots faced to Brodeur's puckhandling, it worked out to about one shot per game. Factor that in and his save percentage jumps a bit, but he was still far from the Hasek/Roy level.

That was my opinion at the time. I now rank Brodeur 5th all-time among goalies. What's changed? Brodeur's performance after the lockout has done a lot to prove to me that he wasn't just a product of "the system". Specifically:

• After the lockout, Brodeur (apparently) became much better at stopping the puck. Yes, he trailed off after 2010, but in the first five years after the lockout, he ranked 5th in save percentage, out of the 32 goalies who played in 150+ games. (That made me question - how likely was it that Brodeur, from ages 33 to 37, suddenly learned how to stop the puck again? Were there systematic issues that deflated his save percentage pre-lockout?)
• He had an all-time great season in 2007. (I thought Luongo was more deserving of the Vezina, but both had very strong years). The Devils still had some big names from the dynasty years, but Stevens and Niedermayer were gone. The Devils allowed 28.4 shots per game (slightly better than average, but not much). This was a strong Vezina win by historical standards.
• His playoff run in 2012 was excellent. This edition of the Devils wasn't particularly disciplined or responsible defensively. Their top defenseman was Marek Zidlicky, who was a defensive black hole. Their top forward was Ilya Kovalchuk, who got credit for being semi-responsible defensively for the first time in his life. This helped convince me that Brodeur could carry a (relatively) weak team to the Stanley Cup finals.
• The study that I mentioned before about shot quality was "recalled". Unfortuantely, the recall notice appears to be down, but the conclusion was that the shot quality that Brodeur (and other Devils goalies) faced, wasn't quite as easy as we first thought. (This is what a reasonable person should do - revisit their previously-held opinions in light of new evidence).
• The final point is probably the most important, though it's also the most philosophical. The problem with using a stat like "goals versus average", is that it treats a goalie who plays 70+ games at the league-average level as having (essentially) zero impact. Looking at how GM's award contracts - they clearly don't agree with that idea. And there's definitely value in a goalie playing a lot of games, even if it's only at the league-average level. If nothing else, it means the team is spared from having to play a backup-calibre goalie. (Simply being a top 15-20 goalie in the world is a hugely impressive accomplishment). From 1999 to 2004, Brodeur ranked 4th in "goals versus threshold" - which is still lower than his reputation suggests, but it's a much smaller disconnect.
• Building on the above point, my own research shows that Brodeur ranks 4th in NHL history (going back to the mid 1950's, based on GVT). Who am I to argue with myself?

This has turned into a much longer response than I intended. Ultimately, I think Brodeur was overrated during the period from 1998 to 2004, and there are legitimate criticisms that can be made. That clearly knocks him below Hasek, Roy and Plante on any all-time ranking. But his performance after the lockout was great, and it leads me to conclude that I was probably too harsh on him back when I first joined HFBoards.

Shot undercounting at Devils' home games plays a large part in the SV% data. Brodeur's H/R split from 1999-2004 is .904/.914 in the RS and .913/.920 in the PO. There were 3.83 fewer shots in Devils' RS home games than in their road games over the time span, and it actually climbs to 5.63 in the PO. S% H/R splits for both teams combined are 9.75/8.85 RS and 9.02/8.04 PO.

Adding 410 shots/saves (3.83/2*215) to Brodeur's home totals raises his SV% to.912 at home and .913 overall.

Roy played with 2 Hart winners, 3 Selke winners, and 3 1st team all-star defensemen in his career. Brodeur played with 2 1st team all-star defensemen and 1 Selke winner in his career. Why is Brodeur the one knocked for playing on a stacked team?

 

[Michael Farkas]

The addition of Terry Sawchuk to the Bruins will transform the Boston club into a title contender according to Lynn Patrick.

The acquisition of forwards Marcel Bonin and Vic Stasiuk along with Sawchuk in the nine player trade with Detroit plus the addition of sharpshooting Orval Tessier drafted from the Montreal Royals will make the Bruins one of the most colorful teams in the league enthused the Boston general manager.

“Sawchuk will transform the Bruins from a club fighting desperately for a playoff position the last few years into a title contender,” declared Patrick. “In my book he is one of three great alltime goaltenders along with Frankie Brimsek and Bill Durnan.”

In his first and only full season with Boston they didn't make the playoffs. The next year I guess he got hurt and the unreliable Don Simmons put up similar numbers and somehow got them to the Final (losing to Montreal).

I guess one guy that might think a little less of Sawchuk is Jack Adams or whoever was running the Wings in '55. Is it well known why that deal (blockbuster as it was) actually went down...?