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

[Dennis Bonvie]

Why does it always seem like being in position and not having to make a great save is somehow not good goaltending?

Right.

He makes it look easy because of his great positioning.

Heard that a million times. I'm not buying it. Especially in this case.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right.

He makes it look easy because of his great positioning.

Heard that a million times. I'm not buying it. Especially in this case.

So, very likely the smartest goalie with maybe the best anticipation of all time...was generally out of position? Or, at least, not great at positioning.

Let's go to the tape, I've cut it down so that it's only shot attempts, so no one can complain about having to watch games...



Let's break it down, where are the positioning issues...?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So, very likely the smartest goalie with maybe the best anticipation of all time...was generally out of position? Or, at least, not great at positioning.

Let's go to the tape, I've cut it down so that it's only shot attempts, so no one can complain about having to watch games...



Let's break it down, where are the positioning issues...?

You misinterpreted my response. Or I wasn't clear.

Didn't say his positioning was bad. Just saying he didn't make a lot of great saves for the Devils because he didn't have to. It wasn't because he made it look easy with his positioning.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You misinterpreted my response. Or I wasn't clear.

Didn't say his positioning was bad. Just saying he didn't make a lot of great saves for the Devils because he didn't have to. It wasn't because he made it look easy with his positioning.

Ok, fair enough. But for his whole career - which spans multiple distinct eras - does he have a significantly greater "advantage" in terms of team tactics over everyone else?

And if so, how large is that advantage?

If Brodeur is a 10 in terms of tactical advantage...what is Plante? Dryden? Roy? Roughly...obviously, this is no exact science. That is, of course, assuming that Brodeur is at the top of this advantage. He shouldn't be, but it sounds like he is...

 

[Staniowski]

I flipped through the Game by Dryden to see if there was anything relevant.

"For me, the greatest goalies must always be Hall, Sawchuk, Plante, and Bower."

I know Dryden grew up in the Toronto area, but it's interesting that Bower is included in the former group.

LOL....

Dryden isn't saying he believes Hall, Sawchuk, Plante, and Bower are the greatest goalies. He's saying they are his four goaltending heroes, and he forever looks at them through the eyes of his childhood. And therefore he will always see them as the best.

He is being critical of his perspective, and similarly the perspectives of most people.

He's implying that he knows his childhood heroes are not actually the greatest; that hockey has improved, that goaltenders have improved. And he realizes that the current young generations look at him the same way he looked at his goaltending heroes.

 

[jigglysquishy]

LOL....

Dryden isn't saying he believes Hall, Sawchuk, Plante, and Bower are the greatest goalies. He's saying they are his four goaltending heroes, and he forever looks at them through the eyes of his childhood. And therefore he will always see them as the best.

He is being critical of his perspective, and similarly the perspectives of most people.

He's implying that he knows his childhood heroes are not actually the greatest; that hockey has improved, that goaltenders have improved. And he realizes that the current young generations look at him the same way he looked at his goaltending heroes.

You'd get a lot more traction if you weren't [mod edit: condescending]

If your point is that the "perspectives of most people" are wrong and that the old goalies are "not actually the greatest," then maybe this discussion isn't for you.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He's implying that he knows his childhood heroes are not actually the greatest; that hockey has improved, that goaltenders have improved

Not a loaded question, you think the position of goaltender was better in the 70s than the 60s...?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ok, so bad goals do matter even if you're clearly an elite puck stopper by the stats, right? Because sometimes that doesn't matter, or so I've read.

Brodeur is top 10 all time in GAA. And that's the name of the game, right? Not allowing goals.

Also, it's a common misconception that Brodeur always played for a defensive juggernaut. Even in the DPE.

Yes, the Lemaire Devils were a very conservative bunch. But any more of a "defensive juggernaut" than Pat Burns with Patrick Roy? Or Toe Blake with Jacques Plante? Or...

The Robbie Ftorek Devils were much different. They were more aggressive. Just a sampling can be gleaned here, because I don't think anyone wants to sit through a complete tactical breakdown because I'm not gonna break buzzword-led stereotypes in this post...



I mean, look at this mess from NJ. There isn't five guys on a screen, sometimes there's only two. There's guys diving all over the floor, not a staple of Devils hockey, odd-man rushes. These Devils teams were 2-men up. They attacked defenders at the breakout level as opposed to sitting back and attacking forwards at the center and defensive blue.

As a result, they lost to a more defensive Penguins team in 1999 to save their franchise...ironically enough.

Obviously, Brodeur transitioned out of the DPE into a wide open lockout era where he couldn't necessarily have had a "defensive juggernaut". He proceeds to win multiple Vezinas, finish near the top for others, was a prime candidate in the Hart discussion, etc. Oh and MOST IMPORTANTLY (sonk) .920 save percentages! Hooray!

With Colin White's giant brain playing 22+ minutes on this "juggernaut", you know things are air tight haha

That's NJ...25 years of pure stalwart hockey...including the three-man aggressive forecheck and cycling game led by Ilya Kovalchuk and backed by #1 d-man Marek Zidlicky that got to the Final.

Ken Dryden...yeah, now, that's a guy that was really fighting it. 7 years with a roster three tiers better than everyone else, behind the guy that famously brought defensive cohesion everywhere he went, on a team with three #1 d-men, some of the best checkers of all time, in an unbalanced league...

Not Patrick Roy, on a team that carried on the legend of being a defensive team, with famously great checkers and defensive coaches...

Let's check out the 1986 Habs...you'll eventually see them on the screen against this Whaler breakout.



Look, I'm not saying that Brodeur didn't benefit from the trap (well, in a real sense...but in a faulty save pct.-led sense, probably not...his reputation seems irreparably damaged by something that he played behind for about five years of his 20 year career). I just never understand why it's applied so heavily to Brodeur and so lightly to every other goalie. As if everyone else was a disciple of the 1985 Oilers or something haha

These goalies are up here because they played for defensive teams for most of their careers. Otherwise, they wouldn't be recognized in the first place.

I'll be back to talk about the "bad goals theory"...

And Robbie Ftorek didn't finish his 2nd season with the Devils, he was fired.

With Ftorek at the helm Brodeur also had two of his worst seasons, while in his prime. Alo his worst playoff performance ever.

Seems to me the Ftorek example makes my point, not yours.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And Robbie Ftorek didn't finish his 2nd season with the Devils, he was fired.

With Ftorek at the helm Brodeur also had two of his worst seasons, while in his prime. Alo his worst playoff performance ever.

Seems to me the Ftorek example makes my point, not yours.

That's fine. I don't mind that at all. I'll argue both sides for a while because I just want to get going in the right direction overall. Those two top-5 Vezina seasons are notably two of the seasons where folks don't point to "look at his backup! Anyone could do it!"

So, we're basically at:
- It's the system! Look, even his backups do the same in the 9 minutes they play!
"Well, not always...what about these years in the DPE when they didn't really play like that? Even if we ignore the rest of his career for some reason..."
- See! It was the system!
"Well...now he's put distance between him and his backups statistically...which people love to take at face value.
- He had the worst playoffs of his career because the coach didn't play Lemaire's trap!
"That's probably not true. But even if it was, then that means we can put the 'constant defensive juggernaut' nonsense to bed, right?"
- ...

So, I have a whole bunch more post there that I think is more pertinent than this Abbott and...Abbott routine that I'm doing here...

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Arguing both sides is a good skill to develop - I'm pretty good at poking holes in my own arguments, especially about goaltenders.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's something I used to do with one hockey friend group versus another just to keep myself sharp haha

But more to the point here, this is reason #1,001 that proper talent evaluation is so important because this whole thing, this whole argument is just flapping in the breeze right now...

It's the system.
He didn't play the system in the following seasons.
...see!

Is just not a principled path. Don't you think it sucks for me that Brodeur is great? I'm really keen about trying to pick off goalies that were propped by their defensive structure (categorically), this would be such an easy one...it's literally the thing that comes to mind in one's mental rolodex when you say "trap" or "defensive hockey" or whatever...it'd be the easiest thing in the world to go along with that...

Instead..........we really have to recognize what a great talent this player was.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

So, very likely the smartest goalie with maybe the best anticipation of all time...was generally out of position? Or, at least, not great at positioning.

Let's go to the tape, I've cut it down so that it's only shot attempts, so no one can complain about having to watch games...



Let's break it down, where are the positioning issues...?

Do you know if it's a common belief that Brodeur is "very likely the smartest goalie of all time"? Any cites/evidence on that one? Honestly curious, because I just finished reading a biography of Jacques Plante, and the entire hockey world was basically lining up at his doorstep for goaltending advice during the back half of his career, and it seems hard for me to even see a plausible case for ranking Brodeur ahead of Plante in that particular category. Not to mention a few other guys I might potentially bring up in that discussion as well.

Ok, fair enough. But for his whole career - which spans multiple distinct eras - does he have a significantly greater "advantage" in terms of team tactics over everyone else?

And if so, how large is that advantage?

If Brodeur is a 10 in terms of tactical advantage...what is Plante? Dryden? Roy? Roughly...obviously, this is no exact science. That is, of course, assuming that Brodeur is at the top of this advantage. He shouldn't be, but it sounds like he is...

I'm working on a more complete analysis of coaching impacts which I hope to post by the end of the day, in an attempt to answer your earlier question of if Brodeur is a 10, where do we rank Roy, Dryden, etc. Brodeur is definitely not at the top of team advantage, fully agree with you on that.

With respect to the recent discussion in this thread, I agree that "He played his whole career behind the trap!" is an oversimplified argument and can be easily shot down by pointing out the changes in New Jersey scheme, coaching staff, etc.. But that certainly doesn't mean that Brodeur didn't strongly benefit from his team environment for large portions of his career.

Here's my best attempt to make that case as neatly and concisely as I can, using the metrics you're most likely to put the most weight on. You hate small sample size backups stats, you hate shot counting, fine. Let's take all that out of the equation (and as a bonus also neatly sidestep the ancillary debates on shot counting bias and shot prevention), and focus on goals, shall we?

Martin Brodeur playing for Jacques Lemaire, Pat Burns or Claude Julien (10 seasons*):

Rank in GAA: 1-2-2-3-3-4-4-5-10

Outside the top 10: 1 time in 10 seasons (age 38)

Martin Brodeur playing for every other coach in his career (10 seasons*):

Rank in GAA: 5-6-8-9-10

Outside the top 10: 5 times in 10 seasons (age 26, 28, 39, 40, 41)

(*-Only counting seasons where the player qualified for the GAA rankings as per Hockey Reference)

And it's not like the first sample is all of Brodeur's physical peak or anything:

Lemaire/Burns/Julien: Ages 21-25, 30-31, 34, 37-38
Every other Devils coach: Ages 26-29, 33, 35-36, 39-42

The second one skews a bit older, but not by much. Otherwise those are pretty much alternating segments throughout his career.

You can absolutely quibble with Hockey Reference cutoffs and make those rankings look a little better by kicking out a few of the relatively low GP guys, but it's straight-up impossible to argue that the two samples above are even close to the same thing. Was Marty just randomly better in those seasons? Was there some other external factor that I'm unaware of (i.e. better competiton, better teams, or whatever)? Again, we're talking goals here, nothing to do with subjective shot counting or the relationship between save percentage and shots faced or any of those things. Why did the pucks go in much more often relative to the other top goalies when he didn't have an elite defensive coach behind the bench?

At the end of the day, are we absolutely convinced that the non-Lemaire/Burns/Julien sample reflects a top-6 all-time goalie? In a hypothetical universe where those guys decided to coach other teams instead, and Brodeur's career was just the second one x 2 with GAA ranks of 5-5-6-6-8-8-9-9-10-10, are we still talking about him here? Maybe we are, but I think we should at least consider that scenario.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Do you know if it's a common belief that Brodeur is "very likely the smartest goalie of all time"? Any cites/evidence on that one? Honestly curious, because I just finished reading a biography of Jacques Plante, and the entire hockey world was basically lining up at his doorstep for goaltending advice during the back half of his career, and it seems hard for me to even see a plausible case for ranking Brodeur ahead of Plante in that particular category. Not to mention a few other guys I might potentially bring up in that discussion as well.

Plante is the only all-timer that would give me pause about that statement. And if you give "advent" points, then it's Plante.

It's tough when you're talking about something like hockey sense AND the entire history of hockey and trying to build a list haha - but I'm really struggling to think of who else could really displace Brodeur in the top 2.

Re: sources, I really think the tape speaks for itself in this regard. It's why you see him stay on his skates so much. He'd just stay up and intercept passes cleanly because he's so far ahead of the game. Staying on his skates is probably why folks like @Dennis Bonvie say, "he gives up bad goals". Are they bad? Or are they just different looking than the goals you're used to seeing a goalie give up?

The thing has been for the last several decades where if a goalie gets beat up high, it's like "ah, what can you do...he picked a corner..." and that may well be true. But did Brodeur give those up much less than his peers (Hasek, who was generally on the floor; Roy who was butterfly, etc.), but as a trade-off (because everyone gives up 2 somehow) did more pucks beat him low to the corners of the net? Probably. Those are goals that Sawchuk and Plante gave up too.

--

Anyhow, if you're looking for "sources"...

Coming from one of the best play-readers of his generation...

Plus, he had the Gretzky-like gift of otherworldly anticipation, and from a goalie's perspective, that meant being square to the shooter far more often than not. "He probably read and tracked the puck and he saw the game before it happened better than, I think, any goalie," said current Devils goalie Cory Schneider, who admired Brodeur first as an opponent and then a teammate. "I think he knew where the puck was going to be before any of the shooters did."

...
"I didn't mind making the first move if I could dictate the moment"

Martin Brodeur: 100 Greatest NHL Players | NHL.com

All-time leader in wins, saves, shutouts, games played led Devils to Stanley Cup three times

www.nhl.com

And there was Brodeur’s precision positioning, a trait he perfected with the help of longtime goalie coach and personal guru Jacques Caron. There is a difference between meticulous positioning and robotic goaltending, a fine line that can determine greatness.

“I knew him as the greatest goalie who has played the game, because of his fierce competitiveness, skill set, hockey sense and passion for the game.

I never saw a goalie better than Marty [Brodeur]...he's almost like the Gretzky of the position...

--

Re: Coaching. You'll never get an argument from me that coaching doesn't influence goaltending stats. He gave up fewer goals with defensive coaches because that's how it works haha

I'm just saying, how is it only Brodeur? (Which is rhetorical, as I see you mention this above and I'll await that analysis).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Was Marty just randomly better in those seasons?

And just to put a finer point on this: EXACTLY. This what I've been saying for years and years and years here.

Do goalies actually fluctuate in quality this much? Do they really play that much better some seasons versus others that tracks pretty closely to substantial team tactics changes? Sometimes? Sure. But it's pretty outrageous these swings. And yes, we get the Zach Hyman type situations for skaters too...the old "partner of Lidstrom" plus/minus guy...we aren't so quick to "fall" for those. The ol' "Kunitz is only in the Olympics because of Crosby" line, etc.

But with goalies, folks predominantly fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

You ask a great question. Was Marty better in those seasons? Perhaps. Was he worse in the other seasons? Maybe, maybe not.

GAA is a relative figure too. Ok, Brodeur goes from 2nd to 7th in GAA or whatever. Well, did he play worse? Did a defensive team end up splitting goalie duties to net two top finishers? Did a complete gibberish man that wasn't worth figuring out during the regular season pop in and pop out for a couple years like Cechmanek?

And I don't mean to complicate that analysis because it's just some averaging stats separated by a couple hundredths of a goal...I'd rather sit and go through the film and go, "all right, are his skills a 7 or an 8?", "is he anticipating at an 8 level or is he super, super elite?" And I know that's not for everyone and I'm not asking anyone to abide by that...but that's going to tell us a whole lot more than 2.28 vs 2.19 and trying to manufacture reasons behind that. How many hundredths of a goal is a messy in-season divorce worth? haha

You're already prepared to bias your data to help goalies that play a certain style (65 game cutoff), so when you cut off the extra games that Brodeur plays, are you taking his worst GA performances with him because those were damaged by the workload? Right? Like, it's an average...either of us can twist that number to say almost anything we want.

I'm not saying it's rubbish or that the work is irrelevant or that the number is irrelevant. None of that. But...

In 1998, when he's with Lemaire and has a 2nd place finish...

For one, like you said, qualifying games - he's got minor leaguers Robbie Tallas and Petr Skudra who had 14 and 17 games between them sitting at 1.83.

But otherwise, you got Belfour, Barrasso, Hasek with Brodeur in sitting under 2.1 - all HOFers. Cool, sounds good. Good group.

When Brodeur falls out of it in '99...

Ron Tugnutt - in the minors in '96 - gets behind Jacques Martin for 40 decisions goes 1.79.
Hasek and Belfour remain.
Pat Burns lands in Boston: Byron Dafoe goes sub 2 (!)
Roger Nielson turns off the faucet on shots in Philadelphia because shooting on Hextall was a real weakness, but at the same time Beezer goes there and hits it big.
Arturs Irbe gets a team change to Carolina and he gets in there too under young Paul Maurice.

So, if Beezer just stays in Florida, Irbe stays in Vancouver, Tugnutt gets passed over for a call up or however he ended up in Ottawa...bam, right there he's top 5. Pat Burns fails a piss test for Boston and the job goes to Eddie Johnston, that washes Dafoe out and now he's 4th.

And I understand that that's the nature of things, but that's just it...that's the nature of things. To use your question: Was Ron Tugnutt randomly better than Brodeur (and Hasek and Belfour and Roy) that year? Or did he just average out a little better?

As a GM, would you trade Brodeur for Dafoe?

Even the numbers aren't exactly telling the truth, unless we're expanding sig figs here...Brodeur's "non top 10 finish in GAA" in 1999 is this...

1. Tugnutt 1.79 (40 decisions)
2. Hasek 1.87 (62)
3. Belfour 1.99 (59)
4. Dafoe 2.00 (66)
5. Khabibulin 2.13 (63)
6. Vanbiesbrouck 2.19 (60)
7. Shields 2.22 (34)
t-7. Irbe 2.22 (59)
9. Turek 2.29 (22)
t-9. Roy 2.29 (59)
t-9. Brodeur 2.29 (70)

Again, I'm not in the business of telling anyone coaching doesn't matter. Brodeur's goal numbers were helped by playing for defensive teams. His save percentage probably wasn't. But you ask a great question...was he randomly worse? Do goalies randomly fluctuate this much versus skaters?

Yeah...probably not. Must be a big influence out there and we need to account for it...evaluate the goalie, not the coach, in my opinion.

 

[blogofmike]

Sorting thoughts by generation.

Post-Merger

Patrick Roy is locked in as my number 1. He looks like the best playoff goaltender of all time. In Montreal he had the advantage of playing behind a great defensive team that didn't take penalties, but he was also successful in Colorado, on a team that was good, but wasn't nearly as disciplined. In the regular season he has a 5 year run where he averages 36.9 GSAA over an average of 52 games. Brodeur's single season peak is 35.8, and he played 78 games to get there. I don't really have questions about Roy.

Dominik Hasek was my 2nd place goalie, but the longer I look, the longer it seems like Brodeur has a case to be ranked ahead of him. While Hasek wins in terms of a regular season peak, he is weaker in terms of meaningful longevity, and while he has some great playoff performances, he has fewer of them. His save percentage stats may be inflated by a high volume of lower quality shots in Buffalo, since he seemed just as good on the 2002 Wings, even if his save percentage was only slightly above average. Big question mark for Hasek would be - if you want to win a Stanley Cup, can you trust Hasek more than these other guys to do the job?

Martin Brodeur played long enough that he wasn't just a trap goalie, but it should also be noted his teams were the best at avoiding penalties in the NHL and were the best by a wide margin. NHL PK Stats. For as much as Brodeur helped the 2012 Devils make the Finals, there are quite a few instances of him faltering in the playoffs behind strong teams too.


Expansion Era

I flip flop a lot on Dryden and Tretiak. Both guys lived on stacked teams, but both men mostly delivered. Tretiak made a splash with the 1972 Summit Series, but seemed more average as the series went on. Dryden's issues with east/west plays didn't make him look good against the Soviets either. Tretiak seemed more likely to steal a game, but that may have something to do with samples. Both guys retired young, which stands out in this group of 8.

I think they're fighting for spots 6 and 7 on my ballot, unless someone wants to convince me otherwise.


Original 6 Era

Jacques Plante

He was consistently great (perhaps the most consistent), albeit behind good teams. I am of the opinion that he benefits from weaker playoff opponents during the end of the dynasty, but he dominated those matchups accordingly. He had a lot of issues with being on the Rangers, but fortunately for him, that didn't last too long. His comeback years were also behind good defensive teams, and his legacy is probably helped by coaches pulling him when he faltered in his late career playoff runs. Never won a playoff series after 1960, except against expansion teams. Clips of 73 Plante make Dryden look like a master of lateral movement, though I won't fault a 44-year goalie for no longer being dominant. Still, the question marks would be how much was he dependent on his teams and when he isn't on a dynasty (I think his MVP year behind a banged up Habs squad helps), and can Plante steal you a playoff game or even a playoff series against a better opponent (maybe not later on, but it seems like Plante did this in 1953)?

Terry Sawchuk

Very high peak, perhaps the least consistent of this batch. Official save percentages aren't available for his peak, but what @overpass found 51-55 Sawchuk held up well. 1952 playoffs are as ridiculously good as it gets. He seems to have been quite helpful in getting the Wings to the Finals 3 times in 4 years in the early 60s, even if the numbers don't back that up (was Sawchuk in a tougher save percentage situation?) His post dynasty teams weren't as strong as the early 50s Wings, but Sawchuk does manage to help the aging Maple Leafs extend their dynasty in 1967.

Glenn Hall

Lowest ranked guy on my list. Had consistency over Sawchuk, but it seemed like Hall was consistently just good enough to lose you a playoff game. Footage seems to show him allowing some pretty soft goals in key playoff games. He has the 1961 playoffs, and nothing else in the postseason. His numbers look good in 1965, but if you like Hall, don't watch Game 7.





GA%- by Goaltender

Goaltender	RS GA%-	PO GA%-
Playoff Roy	85	84
Jacques Plante	86	86
Martin Brodeur	93	92
Ken Dryden	73	86
Dominik Hasek	79	83
Glenn Hall	90	101
Terry Sawchuk*	103	110

Distribution of Qualifying Regular Seasons and Playoff Years

Goaltender	GA%- 79 or below	GA%- 80 to 100	GA-% 101 to 120	GA-% 121+
Patrick Roy	4	14
Playoff Roy	5	8	3	1
Jacques Plante	3	10	3
Playoff Plante	5	2	3
Martin Brodeur	1	13	8
Playoff Brodeur	3	6	3	4
Ken Dryden	6	1
Playoff Dryden	3	5
Dominik Hasek	7	6	1
Playoff Hasek	3	4		2
Glenn Hall	1	12	3
Playoff Hall	1	6	4	3
Terry Sawchuk*		7	7
Playoff Sawchuk*		2	2	4

*Sawchuk is definitely missing some good stuff from the Wings dynasty. HR doesn't go back that far.

 

[BM67]

Was Brodeur "The System"?

Comparing games where Brodeur played the whole game vs games where he only played part, or didn't play at all.

Most shots on goal for, fewest shots on goal against, fewest faceoffs (1997-98 on), fewest defensive zone faceoffs(2009-10 on), fewest penalty minutes, fewest times shorthanded

Player

GP

SOGF

SOGA

FO

DZFO

PIM

TS

H GP

H SOGF

H SOGA

H FO

H DZFO

H PIM

H TS

R GP

R SOGF

R SOGA

R FO

R DZFO

R PIM

R TS

Brodeur

1166​

30.27​

25.83​

57.89​

15.78​

13.42​

3.53​

600​

30.11​

24.52​

57.48​

15.08​

12.8​

3.4​

566​

30.43​

27.22​

58.31​

16.63​

14.07​

3.67​

Both

90​

30.42​

26.21​

59.43​

16.35​

16.88​

3.62​

40​

31.05​

25.22​

58.48​

17.12​

17.32​

3.68​

50​

29.92​

27​

60.17​

15.93​

16.52​

3.58​

Other

318​

29.77​

27.16​

57.76​

18.6​

11.78​

3.55​

147​

29.56​

25.88​

57.52​

18.43​

11.01​

3.35​

171​

29.95​

28.26​

57.98​

18.73​

12.44​

3.73​

BO Tot

408​

29.91​

26.95​

58.05​

18.22​

12.9​

3.57​

187​

29.88​

25.74​

57.67​

18.25​

12.36​

3.42​

221​

29.94​

27.97​

58.38​

18.21​

13.36​

3.69​

Here are the years surounding the year Brodeur was injured.

2007-08

Player

GP

SOGF

SOGA

FO

PIM

TS

H GP

H SOGF

H SOGA

H FO

H PIM

H TS

R GP

R SOGF

R SOGA

R FO

R PIM

R TS

Brodeur

73​

29.04​

27.44​

52.03​

11.78​

3.75​

39​

29.1​

26.46​

52​

11.41​

3.74​

34​

28.97​

28.56​

52.06​

12.21​

3.76​

Other

9​

26.89​

28.22​

54.22​

12.67​

4.44​

2​

27.5​

23​

51​

17.5​

5​

7​

26.71​

29.71​

55.14​

11.29​

4.29​

2008-09

Player

GP

SOGF

SOGA

FO

PIM

TS

H GP

H SOGF

H SOGA

H FO

H PIM

H TS

R GP

R SOGF

R SOGA

R FO

R PIM

R TS

Brodeur

28​

35.14​

29.68​

55.04​

14.75​

4.25​

14​

34​

29.57​

55.71​

13.64​

4.14​

14​

36.29​

29.79​

54.36​

15.86​

4.36​

Other

54​

31.74​

29.33​

56.59​

11.94​

3.81​

27​

31.41​

27.33​

57.26​

13.56​

3.78​

27​

32.07​

31.33​

55.93​

10.33​

3.85​

2009-10

Player

GP

SOGF

SOGA

FO

DZFO

PIM

TS

H GP

H SOGF

H SOGA

H FO

H DZFO

H PIM

H TS

R GP

R SOGF

R SOGA

R FO

R DZFO

R PIM

R TS

Brodeur

70​

29.84​

27​

51.71​

15.3​

10.47​

2.86​

39​

28.54​

25.33​

50.97​

14.69​

10.33​

2.77​

31​

31.48​

29.1​

52.65​

16.06​

10.65​

2.97​

Other

12​

30.83​

26.92​

52​

14.33​

10.5​

3.25​

2​

33​

19​

49​

10​

13​

4​

10​

30.4​

28.5​

52.6​

15.2​

10​

3.1​

How the Devils ranked in these categories over Brodeur's 20 years as a starter, the 5 years before he became the starter, his career broken into 5 year chunks, and the 5 years after he left.

Years	SOGF	SOGA	FO	DZFO	PIM	TS
1994-2014	3rd	1st	1st	1st	1st	1st
1989-1993	6th	7th	NA	NA	10th	13th
1994-1998	3rd	3rd	3rd	NA	3rd	1st
1999-2003	1st	2nd	1st	NA	10th	1st
2004-2009	9th	4th	1st	NA	1st	1st
2010-2014	27th	1st	1st	1st	4th	3rd
2015-2019	31st	17th	7th	29th	20th	26th

The system seems to have died with Brodeur's leaving.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Glenn Hall

Lowest ranked guy on my list. Had consistency over Sawchuk, but it seemed like Hall was consistently just good enough to lose you a playoff game. Footage seems to show him allowing some pretty soft goals in key playoff games. He has the 1961 playoffs, and nothing else in the postseason. His numbers look good in 1965, but if you like Hall, don't watch Game 7.





GA%- by Goaltender

Goaltender	RS GA%-	PO GA%-
Playoff Roy	85	84
Jacques Plante	86	86
Martin Brodeur	93	92
Ken Dryden	73	86
Dominik Hasek	79	83
Glenn Hall	90	101
Terry Sawchuk*	103	110

Distribution of Qualifying Regular Seasons and Playoff Years

Goaltender	GA%- 79 or below	GA%- 80 to 100	GA-% 101 to 120	GA-% 121+
Patrick Roy	4	14
Playoff Roy	5	8	3	1
Jacques Plante	3	10	3
Playoff Plante	5	2	3
Martin Brodeur	1	13	8
Playoff Brodeur	3	6	3	4
Ken Dryden	6	1
Playoff Dryden	3	5
Dominik Hasek	7	6	1
Playoff Hasek	3	4		2
Glenn Hall	1	12	3
Playoff Hall	1	6	4	3
Terry Sawchuk*		7	7
Playoff Sawchuk*		2	2	4

*Sawchuk is definitely missing some good stuff from the Wings dynasty. HR doesn't go back that far.

You may have missed 1968 when Hall won the Conn Smythe trophy.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Glenn Hall has been the odd man out in the discussion. Lots of (justifiable) boosting for Plante and Sawchuk for the O6 guys. Is anyone wanting to make a case for him as anything other than #3 here of the trio?

Is anyone planning on voting anyone besides Roy and Hasek as #1? I am curious to hear cases.

Hall vs. Tretiak is an interesting one. The canon has been Hall, largely for longevity reasons. But is Tretiak's 12 year run as the top Soviet goalie far off?

 

[Michael Farkas]

You may have missed 1968 when Hall won the Conn Smythe trophy.

One of the first times in his career where he didn't have a full slate of regular season games. Also, '65...he got to game 7 of the Final that year vs Montreal.

Butterfly and goalies that throw themselves seem to struggle with the playoffs after a heavy workload...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is anyone planning on voting anyone besides Roy and Hasek as #1? I am curious to hear cases.

I came in with Roy at 1. I don't have Hasek top 3, but am open.

I wanted Brodeur to be higher, as I mentioned, but the tape falls just short of that for me. I could be convinced to get him over Hasek, but I don't think folks want super smarts over super flash.

I'll try to squeeze in some video on the older guys before voting is up but it's gonna be tight.

Not gonna do Dryden for sure because he doesn't belong here yet.

 

[Professor What]

Glenn Hall has been the odd man out in the discussion. Lots of (justifiable) boosting for Plante and Sawchuk for the O6 guys. Is anyone wanting to make a case for him as anything other than #3 here of the trio?

Is anyone planning on voting anyone besides Roy and Hasek as #1? I am curious to hear cases.

Hall vs. Tretiak is an interesting one. The canon has been Hall, largely for longevity reasons. But is Tretiak's 12 year run as the top Soviet goalie far off?

To me Hasek and Roy are still 1-2. I've felt that way for a long time, and it's honestly probably pretty hard to change my mind now.

I feel the worst about my placement of Hall right now in fifth. As I said upthread, fifth feels too low for him, but that's where he's tracking. I had him fourth on my initial list, for the record, but Sawchuk has taken a jump the more he's discussed and the more I think about everything. Hall gets the bad end of the loaded team syndrome. Roy had loaded teams and won a lot. Hall had loaded teams and didn't win nearly as much.

I think you can make the argument that he made up for some of that with the Blues at the end of his career, but honestly, how do those Blackhawks with him, Hull, Mikita, and Pilote only win one Cup? You guys know I hate Cup counting, but there does come a point when a lack of Cups feels like a failure to deliver on potential. That's one of those cases for me. Where I differ with the Cup counters is that the whole team is responsible for that, and not one guy, so I suppose it's possible that someone could sell me on the idea that Hall was the victim of an underperforming team in the playoffs, but if that's the case, why are his playoff numbers noticeably worse than his regular season numbers? Sure, team stats and all that, but it's not a sign of a guy stepping up his game when more is on the line, and he actually has a negative career GSAA in the playoffs. This feels to me like a case where a guy isn't bringing his normal stuff in the playoffs. Perhaps it is the combination of style and workload that's been talked about, but whatever it is, I really don't like the postseason result.

I'd be happy to be talked out of that though. There's a part of me that really wants to rank him higher, but I'm not seeing a lot of daylight between his current slot and Brodeur in 6th, while the advantage for Plante and Sawchuk has been growing. Hall does gain something on the back of longevity and starting and playing so many games (much like Brodeur), but does the very thing that makes him gain later make him lose? I don't know. I just know I'd prefer to have him in the regular season than the postseason.

As for Tretiak and longevity, I struggle using that word in the same sentence with the phrase "retired at 32." The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that so many of the Soviet stars broke down in their early 30s, I've always assumed because of the ridiculously rigorous training schedule. So, his truly effective career doesn't cut off much - if any before theirs. Plus, with him retiring at 32, we didn't see him play with dwindling effectiveness, so we never saw the winddown. I don't subscribe to the idea that you penalize guys like Chelios that play for an incredibly long time, but I know that it can affect some people with the last impression not being so strong. Did Tretiak avoid something like that? Would his career be different if he'd played to 40 and we saw him in decline?

All of that said, longevity was still the factor that made me rank Tretiak ahead of Dryden on my initial list, and I think it's why I still have him ahead right now after going back and forth more times than I could count.

 

[Pegi]

I don't know if anybody has taken it into the account, but Brodeur probably went through more game evolution than i'd say almost anybody. Everything changed equipment wise(players and goalies) and game changed alot over that time period as well. He played his junior years in the 80s, became a starting goaltender in the 90s and ended his career in 2014. The last game he played in 2014 was completely different game he had education through his junior years. He had to make some changes too and still managed to stay relevant even on his 40s(stanley cup final 2012). To me longevity over that extreme time period of hockey becoming way different sport at that position is a testament to his greatness.

Is he the greatest ever to do it? Who knows, but just another way to look at the things.

 

[Vilica]

The trouble I had splitting the O6 goaltenders was resolved a bit after I looked at their non-peak years separate from their peak years.

Sawchuk - Detroit peak of 5 seasons (50-51 through 54-55), highest peak.

His 6th best season is what? The candidates would be 55-56 BOS, 59-60 DET, 62-63 DET, 64-65 TOR. The first two are full seasons, the second two are 1a/1b situations. None of them broke 90 on GA%-, none of them were below 2.50 in adjGAA. He never really had a year after age 25 that you'd objectively consider a great season.

Plante - Montreal peak of 5 dynasty seasons (55-56 through 59-60), perhaps equal to Sawchuk peak, played 20 less games in those 5 years.

His 6th best year is obviously his Hart in 61-62, then you have 54-55 MTL, 62-63 MTL, and then his 1a/1b years in STL and TOR. In my estimation, his non-peak years were significantly better than Sawchuk's non-peak years.

Hall - Chicago peak from 59-60 to 63-64, probably 3rd best peak, not far behind the other two, but still behind.

His first two DET seasons were good, had an AS-1 his first year in Chicago though that wasn't the best statistical year, 65-66 CHI another stellar season, then 3 years as a 1a/1b where he mostly matched Plante (Plante bit better statistically, Hall 3 years to Plante's 2). He had more full seasons than Plante, and better full seasons than Sawchuk.

Outside their peaks, here's some stats:
Sawchuk had 3 seasons of 60+, 5 seasons of 50+, 7 seasons of 40+, and 11 of 30+, and 13 of 25+. Of his 6 seasons below 40 games, I'd call 2 relevant, 56-57 and 64-65.
Plante had 2 seasons of 60+, 4 seasons of 50+, 7 seasons of 40+, and 11 of 30+ and 25+. Of his 4 seasons below 40 games, I'd call 2 relevant, 68-69 and 71-72.
Hall had 5 seasons of 60+, 5 seasons of 50+, 8 seasons of 40+, and 10 of 30+ and 25+. Of his 2 seasons below 40 games, I'd call 1 relevant, 66-67.

I did an rough ranking of their seasons, first their 30 non-peak years, then their 15 peak years. In the non-peak years, even though Sawchuk had 13 seasons compared to 11 for Plante and Hall, I actually ended up with 10 apiece in the rankings. If you order them from 1-45 in peak/non-peak (not accurate, Plante's Hart year plus couple others much higher than artificial ceiling of 16th), Sawchuk's worst peak year is 10/15, while his best non-peak year is 22/45 (7/30, both Hall and Plante had 3 seasons better than Sawchuk's best non-peak season). Hall dominates the middle third of seasons, while Plante ends up with 5 in each bucket.

For the purposes of the ranking, just regular season was considered, no playoffs whatsoever.

 

[bobholly39]

Glenn Hall has been the odd man out in the discussion. Lots of (justifiable) boosting for Plante and Sawchuk for the O6 guys. Is anyone wanting to make a case for him as anything other than #3 here of the trio?

Is anyone planning on voting anyone besides Roy and Hasek as #1? I am curious to hear cases.

Hall vs. Tretiak is an interesting one. The canon has been Hall, largely for longevity reasons. But is Tretiak's 12 year run as the top Soviet goalie far off?

It's Roy/Hasek for top 2 for me. If I try hard enough to play devil's advocate, I can probably make a case for Plante.

I was hoping someone would change my mind around having Hasek #1 over Roy, but it hasn't happened yet, so I'm likely sticking with Roy.

I also have Hall #3 there, behind Plante and Sawchuk.

The most interresting question for me at this point is where to place Brodeur - I could see him anywnere from 3 to 6.

 

[BM67]

The trouble I had splitting the O6 goaltenders was resolved a bit after I looked at their non-peak years separate from their peak years.

Sawchuk - Detroit peak of 5 seasons (50-51 through 54-55), highest peak.

His 6th best season is what? The candidates would be 55-56 BOS, 59-60 DET, 62-63 DET, 64-65 TOR. The first two are full seasons, the second two are 1a/1b situations. None of them broke 90 on GA%-, none of them were below 2.50 in adjGAA. He never really had a year after age 25 that you'd objectively consider a great season.

Plante - Montreal peak of 5 dynasty seasons (55-56 through 59-60), perhaps equal to Sawchuk peak, played 20 less games in those 5 years.

His 6th best year is obviously his Hart in 61-62, then you have 54-55 MTL, 62-63 MTL, and then his 1a/1b years in STL and TOR. In my estimation, his non-peak years were significantly better than Sawchuk's non-peak years.

Hall - Chicago peak from 59-60 to 63-64, probably 3rd best peak, not far behind the other two, but still behind.

His first two DET seasons were good, had an AS-1 his first year in Chicago though that wasn't the best statistical year, 65-66 CHI another stellar season, then 3 years as a 1a/1b where he mostly matched Plante (Plante bit better statistically, Hall 3 years to Plante's 2). He had more full seasons than Plante, and better full seasons than Sawchuk.

Outside their peaks, here's some stats:
Sawchuk had 3 seasons of 60+, 5 seasons of 50+, 7 seasons of 40+, and 11 of 30+, and 13 of 25+. Of his 6 seasons below 40 games, I'd call 2 relevant, 56-57 and 64-65.
Plante had 2 seasons of 60+, 4 seasons of 50+, 7 seasons of 40+, and 11 of 30+ and 25+. Of his 4 seasons below 40 games, I'd call 2 relevant, 68-69 and 71-72.
Hall had 5 seasons of 60+, 5 seasons of 50+, 8 seasons of 40+, and 10 of 30+ and 25+. Of his 2 seasons below 40 games, I'd call 1 relevant, 66-67.

I did an rough ranking of their seasons, first their 30 non-peak years, then their 15 peak years. In the non-peak years, even though Sawchuk had 13 seasons compared to 11 for Plante and Hall, I actually ended up with 10 apiece in the rankings. If you order them from 1-45 in peak/non-peak (not accurate, Plante's Hart year plus couple others much higher than artificial ceiling of 16th), Sawchuk's worst peak year is 10/15, while his best non-peak year is 22/45 (7/30, both Hall and Plante had 3 seasons better than Sawchuk's best non-peak season). Hall dominates the middle third of seasons, while Plante ends up with 5 in each bucket.

For the purposes of the ranking, just regular season was considered, no playoffs whatsoever.

Of course this doesn't take team strength into account. Plante's average team during the O6 era fall between 1st and 2nd, Hall's fall between 2nd and 3rd, and Sawchuk's after leaving Detroit the first time are just a hair better than 4th. (Sawchuk got 3 4th place teams to the Finals, while Plante and Hall never played on a 4th place team.)

Of the 24 all-star team goalies from 55-56 to 66-67, only 5 weren't given to a goalie in the top 2 in PTS or GA. Of those 5 2 went to Sawchuk, 2 to Hall, and one to Giacomin.