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

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

nabby12

Registered User
Nov 11, 2008
1,606
1,367
Winnipeg
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...?

Sawchuk was very down and depressed the entire time he was with Boston. He even retired from hockey due to mononucleosis during the second season which is why Simmons was playing.

Detroit eventually brought him back out of retirement, but the damage was done. The initial trade to Boston was a massive shock and the worst day in his life.

Jack Adams thought that goalies had a short shelf life, and with Glenn Hall waiting in the wings, he decided to trade Sawchuk as he did with Lumley a few years back. Before he died, Adams regretted trading Sawchuk and called it the biggest mistake of his managing career and noted how it cost his team multiple Stanley Cups.
 

ContrarianGoaltender

Registered User
Feb 28, 2007
875
823
tcghockey.com
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...?

I'm reading Todd Denault's book on Jacques Plante right now and just went past that part. Here's his quote straight from Jack Adams himself:

"We let Sawchuk go because we found ourselves with two top goalies. Hall is more advanced now than Sawchuk was when he joined us and all the players insist Glenn has been NHL material for the past year...It was a case of trading one of them and Sawchuk is the established player. Consequently, he brought a better offer."

Just going to also echo a few others here that I think Sawchuk is the most interesting guy this round and the one with the most room to move for me.
 

jigglysquishy

Registered User
Jun 20, 2011
8,171
8,595
Regina, Saskatchewan
Gordie Howe on the trade

"Hall was a terrific goaltender, no question, but trading Sawchuk, who was coming off another Vezina Trophy, was hard to swallow. Most general managers spent their entire career waiting for a goalie like Sawchuk, who they could build a team around, to come along. Not Mr. Adams. When Terry was on his game, it's hard to think of anyone better. He also always seemed to save his best for when the stakes were the highest. An NHL team can't ask for much more than having a goalie who heats up every spring "
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bear of Bad News

TANK200

Registered User
Nov 13, 2007
664
30
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).
Roy's consistent excellence relative to his peers is certainly impressive, but it is important to consider that Hasek was behind the Iron Curtain at the start of his career. Before playing a singly game in the NHL, he had already accomplished the following:
  • World Championship Best Goalie: x2
  • World Championship All-Star Team: x3
  • Czechoslovakia Goalie of the Year: x5 (consecutively)
  • Czechoslovakia Best Player: x2
It's almost certain that he would have dominated the NHL from an earlier age if he was born in North America. And when he eventually came to the NHL, he was battling for a starting position with an already-established Eddie Belfour.
 

MadArcand

Whaletarded
Dec 19, 2006
5,921
464
Seat of the Empire
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?
A random question, but do we have the Devils' shots for and shooting percentage home/road splits for the timeframe as well? And how do they compare to other teams' home/road splits?
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
30,899
19,913
Connecticut
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.

Dryden wasn't an O6 guy. He started after expansion.

That said, Dryden is kind of a Bill Durnan with more rings. Very short career, but very impressive.

Yes, I realize who he played for. But 6 Cups in 8 seasons means he must have done his job for them. Consider the Canadiens didn't win the year before or the year after Dryden played. And they didn't win the year he sat out (1973-74).
 

jigglysquishy

Registered User
Jun 20, 2011
8,171
8,595
Regina, Saskatchewan
Dryden wasn't an O6 guy. He started after expansion.

That said, Dryden is kind of a Bill Durnan with more rings. Very short career, but very impressive.

Yes, I realize who he played for. But 6 Cups in 8 seasons means he must have done his job for them. Consider the Canadiens didn't win the year before or the year after Dryden played. And they didn't win the year he sat out (1973-74).
Ya, the sentence is worded poorly but it's two separate thoughts. Dryden is last of the 8 for me. Plante is ahead of Sawchuk/Hall.
 

ContrarianGoaltender

Registered User
Feb 28, 2007
875
823
tcghockey.com
So we're getting into the weeds again of some well-worn debate territory, but I wanted to bring up some general discussion topics that are not only relevant to the discussion, but might potentially help people think about their rankings and what they value.

First up is something that has changed significantly even since we did the last goalie list on HOH: Goalie Workloads.

Braden Holtby and Jonathan Quick started 72 and 71 games in 2014-15. Since then, Cam Talbot in 2016-17 is the only guy with 70 or more starts, and I wonder whether he might just be the last goalie to ever start 70 games in a season in the NHL. In the last two seasons, nobody even played in 65 games. Pretty much everyone in hockey has now come to an agreement on the fact that load management for goalies is the objectively correct decision, and that having a goalie that plays 70 games in a season isn't a virtue, it's a mistake.

Some of the reasons that this is true:

- Playing lots of games increases wear and tear and injury risk

- A starter who plays a lot of games is also necessarily taking a greater share of the easy games, in which he's less likely to have a significant impact on win probability

- There are fatigue effects, especially in the playoffs. There appears to be a pretty strong negative correlation between regular season workload and playoff success. Only two goalies since the 2005 lockout have won the Cup while playing at least 60 regular season games, for example, and many elite goalies have pretty mediocre playoff records in their high-workload seasons.

As a result of this development, I don't see any reason to give goalies credit for a high number of games. In my current evaluation system, I don't give anyone credit for more than 65 games played, because I don't think that represents additional value to a team.

Also, I think we should pay attention to a goalie's workload and how that may have impacted their results, whether it was padding their stats from lots of games, or being someone who was forced to play more games than they should have despite physical concerns, or benefiting from a more optimal usage which helped set them up for success.

2. Non-NHL Value

I think it is very important to consider relevant non-NHL performance. There were some good discussions in the preliminary thread about the difficulty of getting a goalie job in the Original 6 pre-1965, and that shouldn't be forgotten.

Jacques Plante, for example, turned pro with the Montreal Royals in 1949-50 in his age 21 season, and already in that very first year he was getting paid to be the practice goalie for the Montreal Canadiens and was clearly viewed as third in line on their organizational depth chart, behind Durnan and McNeil. I'm quite confident he would have been an NHLer in any post-expansion scenario at that age, but he came up in the one-goalie era on the team with the best goaltending depth in the league at a time when teams completely controlled their players' destinities, and as a result he had to wait 5 years to gain the starting job.

For the sake of comparison:

10 goalies played in the NHL in Terry Sawchuk's first season as a starting goalie.
41 played in Ken Dryden's first season as a starting goalie.
80 played in Martin Brodeur's first season as a starting goalie.

Taking everything into account, it's far from obvious to me that Martin Brodeur has more elite longevity than Jacques Plante.

And has already been pointed out in this thread, comparing Hasek to Roy without factoring in Europe at all is simply an incomplete analysis of the relevant resumes of those two goaltenders.

I'm certainly not saying that everything matters and we should consider ECHL seasons or junior careers or count every time somebody retired to go play semi-pro in Europe. It's fine to have a more exclusive NHL focus after the world opened up and the best talent worldwide had an open door to the NHL (say, anybody starting their careers in the late '90s or later). But if we're trying to fairly compare across eras and adjust for different team environments, we should recognize the relative difficulty of goalie paths to the NHL as well, and give proper credit for those performances.
 

Professor What

Registered User
Sep 16, 2020
2,552
2,216
Gallifrey
So we're getting into the weeds again of some well-worn debate territory, but I wanted to bring up some general discussion topics that are not only relevant to the discussion, but might potentially help people think about their rankings and what they value.

First up is something that has changed significantly even since we did the last goalie list on HOH: Goalie Workloads.

Braden Holtby and Jonathan Quick started 72 and 71 games in 2014-15. Since then, Cam Talbot in 2016-17 is the only guy with 70 or more starts, and I wonder whether he might just be the last goalie to ever start 70 games in a season in the NHL. In the last two seasons, nobody even played in 65 games. Pretty much everyone in hockey has now come to an agreement on the fact that load management for goalies is the objectively correct decision, and that having a goalie that plays 70 games in a season isn't a virtue, it's a mistake.

Some of the reasons that this is true:

- Playing lots of games increases wear and tear and injury risk

- A starter who plays a lot of games is also necessarily taking a greater share of the easy games, in which he's less likely to have a significant impact on win probability

- There are fatigue effects, especially in the playoffs. There appears to be a pretty strong negative correlation between regular season workload and playoff success. Only two goalies since the 2005 lockout have won the Cup while playing at least 60 regular season games, for example, and many elite goalies have pretty mediocre playoff records in their high-workload seasons.

As a result of this development, I don't see any reason to give goalies credit for a high number of games. In my current evaluation system, I don't give anyone credit for more than 65 games played, because I don't think that represents additional value to a team.

Also, I think we should pay attention to a goalie's workload and how that may have impacted their results, whether it was padding their stats from lots of games, or being someone who was forced to play more games than they should have despite physical concerns, or benefiting from a more optimal usage which helped set them up for success.
I think I agree with this for the most part, but I think there are exceptions. Martin Brodeur is one that comes to mind. To me, he's better than his numbers say, and one big reason is that you could ride that horse all season long and into the playoffs, and he didn't break down. A guy that can handle that kind of workload without the ill effects and still be a key contributor to Cup wins deserves credit for that. A guy that breaks down and has limited playoff success after a heavy workload, much less so. That's one of the big differences between Brodeur and Esposito for me. Esposito would play almost all the games, but then one can't help but wonder if his playoff record would be better had he been platooned.
 

Dr John Carlson

Registered User
Dec 21, 2011
9,958
4,334
Nova Scotia
So we're getting into the weeds again of some well-worn debate territory, but I wanted to bring up some general discussion topics that are not only relevant to the discussion, but might potentially help people think about their rankings and what they value.

First up is something that has changed significantly even since we did the last goalie list on HOH: Goalie Workloads.

Braden Holtby and Jonathan Quick started 72 and 71 games in 2014-15. Since then, Cam Talbot in 2016-17 is the only guy with 70 or more starts, and I wonder whether he might just be the last goalie to ever start 70 games in a season in the NHL. In the last two seasons, nobody even played in 65 games. Pretty much everyone in hockey has now come to an agreement on the fact that load management for goalies is the objectively correct decision, and that having a goalie that plays 70 games in a season isn't a virtue, it's a mistake.

Some of the reasons that this is true:

- Playing lots of games increases wear and tear and injury risk

- A starter who plays a lot of games is also necessarily taking a greater share of the easy games, in which he's less likely to have a significant impact on win probability

- There are fatigue effects, especially in the playoffs. There appears to be a pretty strong negative correlation between regular season workload and playoff success. Only two goalies since the 2005 lockout have won the Cup while playing at least 60 regular season games, for example, and many elite goalies have pretty mediocre playoff records in their high-workload seasons.

As a result of this development, I don't see any reason to give goalies credit for a high number of games. In my current evaluation system, I don't give anyone credit for more than 65 games played, because I don't think that represents additional value to a team.

Also, I think we should pay attention to a goalie's workload and how that may have impacted their results, whether it was padding their stats from lots of games, or being someone who was forced to play more games than they should have despite physical concerns, or benefiting from a more optimal usage which helped set them up for success.
That's definitely something I had to wrestle with on my initial list, and will become an even bigger factor once we start getting into tandem goalies.

I've sort of reevaluated how I consider award voting for goalies, particularly Hart voting, when taking into consideration games played. Jacques Plante led the league in GP a single time - coincidentally, his Hart season. Terry Sawchuk led in GP a few more times, and received a bit more Hart consideration. And then Glenn Hall routinely led the league in GP, and basically lived on the Hart ballot.

I wonder if there's something to be done in looking at a ratio of games played to Hart voting. Which guys' MVP support is tied closely to games played, and which are tied less closely? Patrick Roy had top-5 Hart finishes in years in which he had the 15th and 12th most games played among goalies... Hasek nearly won in a year where he finished 14th in games played, not bad... obviously the O6 goalies wouldn't be able to finish that low in GP, but still, there's surely a way to account for era here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy

ContrarianGoaltender

Registered User
Feb 28, 2007
875
823
tcghockey.com
3. Goalie Talent Pool

We should think in a serious way about the depth of talent pools, sources of talent, and how that has impacted goaltending over the years.

Here's how the number of goalies in the league hitting various games played cutoffs and the percentage of them that were born in Canada changed over time (picking years ending in 9 rather than a nice round 0, just because that gives us Dryden's last season, a Roy peak season, a Hasek peak season, and just misses Brodeur's last Vezina):


Year
1979​
1979​
1989​
1989​
1999​
1999​
2009​
2009​
Games PlayedAllCanadaAllCanadaAllCanadaAllCanada
>=1 GP
50​
49​
68​
59​
85​
62​
89​
43​
20+ GP
32​
32​
35​
41​
46​
29​
53​
25​
40+ GP
14​
14​
20​
16​
25​
12​
33​
15​

Converting everything to percentages:

1979​
1989​
1999​
2009​
Games Played% Canadian% Canadian% Canadian% Canadian
>=1 GP
98%​
87%​
73%​
48%​
20+ GP
100%​
85%​
63%​
47%​
40+ GP
100%​
80%​
48%​
45%​


I think the competitive environment changed a whole lot over those 40 years, and the international goalie talent pool in particular exploded. I tried to adjust for this in putting together my list, but I think if anything I didn't go heavy enough on modern guys. This is one of the reasons why Ken Dryden didn't make the top 8 on my initial list for this project, and why I continue to argue that Hasek had the best peak in goaltending history. It is also why you should be very careful with comparing league averages across time.

I think the current terrible state of Canadian goaltending is also an interesting point to consider. Canadian goalies have combined for one Vezina third-place vote in the last three seasons combined, but if there were only Canadian goalies in the league, one of them would be winning the Vezina. I think it also shows that talent pools can swing pretty widely, especially if we're only looking at the top end at one fairly niche position like goaltending (and for much of history, it was also mostly one country supplying all the relevant talent).

4. Coaching Effects

One factor that I'm really focusing on this time around is coaching. I'm looking at the career defensive stats for coaches to try to determine which ones had the largest impact on their netminders' success, and using that as part of my estimate of the team effects on each goalie's numbers.

It's also interesting to note goalies who had standout success for one coach vs. many. Obviously everyone in this round was elite for the vast majority of their careers, but not all of them were able to win awards for multiple coaches. For example, here's the current pool (Tretiak excluded) with the number of different coaches they have had for a 1AST team (pre-1982) or Vezina (post-1982) season:

Glenn Hall (4): Jimmy Skinner, Rudy Pilous*, Billy Reay, Scotty Bowman
Dominik Hasek (3): John Muckler, Ted Nolan, Lindy Ruff
Martin Brodeur (3): Pat Burns, Jacques Lemaire, Brent Sutter
Ken Dryden (1): Scotty Bowman
Patrick Roy (1): Pat Burns
Terry Sawchuk (1): Tommy Ivan
Jacques Plante (1): Toe Blake

(*-Hall had the 1957-58 season that was split between Pilous and Tommy Ivan, but I'm only counting the coach with the most games in each season for simplicity's sake)

The top three on that list had success in a few different coaching environments, although Hall was the only one to accomplish this for different franchises (and he impressively did it for 3 of them). Everybody knows about Sawchuk's five-year peak which came in one consistent coaching environment, while Dryden and Plante both had one coach for almost their entire tenures in Montreal. Roy is the one that really stands out here, given that he had Pat Burns for only 4 of his 19 seasons, but those 4 years accounted for all 3 of his Vezinas and one of his Vezina runner-up finishes, while he went 2-3-3-4-5-5 in Vezina voting over the rest of his career. Which raises the obvious question, how much of that great 1989-1992 run was Roy peaking, and how much of it was Burns?

Similarly, how many of these guys faced coaching situations which might have negatively impacted their stats, awards, or team success? For this round, I'm particularly interested in trying to get a good defensive estimate for Sawchuk's Boston and Detroit 2.0 years.
 

Michael Farkas

Celebrate 68
Jun 28, 2006
14,447
9,708
NYC
www.youtube.com
There are fatigue effects, especially in the playoffs.
Porting this over from the round 1 discussion...

Guys that won often/a lot:
Plante
Bower
Sawchuk

Parent
Smith
Dryden

Guys that famously did not win often/a lot:
Hall
Vachon
Giacomin
Esposito
Crozier
Worsley until he was in his late 30's on a wagon Habs team that leaked into the expansion era

Very clear divide here. The bottom group were butterfly guys and/or guys that threw themselves all over the floor indiscriminately.

Brodeur made the Final with 73, 72, 40 of 48 (~69 normalized to 82), etc. games played. Not a butterfly guy, not a nonsense goalie.

Hasek maxed at 64 and 65 to make the Final. Roy: 62, 61, 62. Above that, it's two first round losses and a second round sweep.

So maybe there's smoke here in terms of the workload and the style. Given how popular the butterfly is these days, we see that maybe there's something to limiting games...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad