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

[ContrarianGoaltender]

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.

For your method, you might not need to evaluate the coach. If you think you can fully separate team effects through subjective talent evaluation, then go for it. Even when I disagree with you, I'm always interested to hear your perspective, because at the core we have the same philosophy: Evaluate the individual goalie, not the collective team result. Like you, I am also frustrated at times by some of the evaluation schemes that put a lot of weight on accomplishments, awards voting, top-whatever save percentage finishes, playoff runs where a goalie's team advanced to the Finals by beating two teams 20 points below them in the standings, etc., without appropriate context. I don't care about any of that stuff, all I care about is how well the goalie stopped the puck and how much I think his team helped or hurt him in that endeavour (plus of course any non-save impacts a goalie might be having as well).

The difference in my approach, and why I feel that the coaching impact is actually quite important, is that I'm mainly looking at the stats and working backwards. Therefore, I need to get as good as possible of an estimate of what the team effects were on any given goalie, and then what's left over is the goalie's individual portion.

I think there is something to be said for the actual results, which is why I choose to focus on the objective performance record. If an obviously talented goalie doesn't quite live up to his innate ability, should he really get full credit for that? Maybe another guy has extended success even while nobody understands how. If it's short enough, I completely agree that it could just be a hot streak or an unsustainable run, but at some point it becomes a meaningful impact that is winning his team hockey games (and possibly even championships). Those are the cases where our philosophies are probably going to conflict the most.

I'll let Jiri Holecek explain that basic idea, in his far more colourful way (from Betweeen the Pipes by Randi Druzin):

"I don't understand why people in the NHL are so concerned with the goalie's style rather than his success. Why is it important that a goalie look good in a goal? Why is it so important that he doesn't fall to the ice that often? Because he needs to look good in photographs? They're stupid, those Canadians. Lumberjacks!"

All of your feedback on that last post is perfectly valid, by the way. I agree that rankings can be imprecise, but you can't be overly precise in making a short case like that. That was a quick and dirty way to show that even great goalies have defensive impacts, which we agree is obviously true. And you're right that choosing to not give credit for high-GP seasons means I need to watch out for goalies whose results deteriorated because of that workload. Not sure I have an entirely satisfactory fix to that yet, but it's one of the reasons I rate Miikka Kiprusoff quite a bit higher than I did on my last list, for example. Also, a season like Grant Fuhr in 1987-88 should still be viewed quite highly in my opinion, because he was the best goalie in the world over the first 45 games and very close to the worst goalie in the world over the last 30, and on any other team he's probably just playing that first 45.

As for Brodeur, I'm not entirely sure. His performance didn't seem to drop off in the regular seasons as much, and I still think he had a lower average workload per game than other goalies, plus the Devils also typically had one of the easiest travel schedules of any team. In the 11 playoffs he played in after playing 70 or more regular season games, his team was upset in the first round in 6 of them, which is why I'm not completely convinced he was actually that much more reliable than some of the other goalies coming off of high workloads in the postseason who maybe just didn't have the luxury of 11 tries to get it right. Sure, Brodeur does have 2000, 2001 and 2003, but that 2000/2001 team in particular was a juggernaut. I think it's definitely possible that if he only plays 65 instead of 77, the Devils maybe get through some of those first rounds though, it's definitely something to consider.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think there is something to be said for the actual results, which is why I choose to focus on the objective performance record. If an obviously talented goalie doesn't quite live up to his innate ability, should he really get full credit for that? Maybe another guy has extended success even while nobody understands how. If it's short enough, I completely agree that it could just be a hot streak or an unsustainable run, but at some point it becomes a meaningful impact that is winning his team hockey games (and possibly even championships). Those are the cases where our philosophies are probably going to conflict the most.

I'll let Jiri Holecek explain that basic idea, in his far more colourful way (from Betweeen the Pipes by Randi Druzin):

"I don't understand why people in the NHL are so concerned with the goalie's style rather than his success. Why is it important that a goalie look good in a goal? Why is it so important that he doesn't fall to the ice that often? Because he needs to look good in photographs? They're stupid, those Canadians. Lumberjacks!"

Look, this isn't going to be fun for anyone if we sit around agreeing with each other...you're the numbers guy, I'm the...lumberjack (?) - this is what happens when you skip rehearsal...

No I appreciate where you're coming from on all of this, of course. You're asking the right questions (not that I'm the arbiter of "right", I just mean that I think that they're thought-provoking).

Since there was a lot of agreement going on, I'll turn to the disagreement in the quoted. And I'll answer Holocek directly.

It's not necessarily about the "style" because there's a variety of styles at the top of my list and I think all of our lists.

Roy - butterfly
Hasek - uhhh...him
Brodeur - hybrid, but also kind of his own thing
Plante = Brodeur
Roy = Hall-ish

etc.

The reason why the talent level is important is because the talent is more likely to give you consistent results. The position lends itself to "the percentages" as folks say. Well, having a consistent and meaningful save process is the over-arching "playing the percentages". If you play the game like a clown, you get uneven results, you become unreliable....

Who played like a legit a-hole and had long term success across multiple conditions? Looking at my weak/no interest list...
Tony Esposito maybe....though he famously is the worst playoff goalie this side of Bobrovsky.

I don't know who else really made a career out of being a jester. Sure, we can get a handful of years stuck together or some pop-gun years here and there...but as you slide down that ladder of legitimate talent, consistent save process, fundamentally strong hockey, etc. it's more and more likely that you can't sustain it and/or they figure out how to beat it or whatever.

And averaging stats go a long way to covering that inconsistency up (see: the goalies of record in the 2011 and 2012 Stanley Cup Playoffs, one guy is throwing 20% of his games into the unwinnable column; the other guy, 0%).

So really, you're getting the unreliable right in front of you, but because of the nature of the stats, we fail to pick it up in the "quick and dirty" way.

It's like the no hockey sense, but athletic defenseman that comes into the league...makes it at 19 years old, blows 20 one-timers by unsuspecting goalies on the power play for a couple years, "ah, he'll get better defensively as he matures...don't worry", entry-level contract runs out, big deal..............cap dump.

I'm not saying that player, let's call him, Dion P. - no, that's too obvious...D.Phaneuf...didn't score those goals when he did. I'm not saying he didn't "bam, ka-bam, Double Dion" those guys...but it obviously (to me) wasn't gonna hold because he didn't really have a process because he really didn't have a brain. So, once the league figures him out, he has no place to go adaptability wise, he has no place to go because his athletic prime is running out, and now it's just a guy that's in the league because he was in the league yesterday.

It's the sustainable aspects that need to be cherished - and in the case of this list, rewarded - in my opinion because otherwise you're probably going to scrape too much "team" or "coach" into the goalie list.

It all exists on a spectrum, too.

There's large scale...why couldn't Palmateer keep it up? Why couldn't Ranford repeat 1990?
There's medium scale...why was Richter great in '94, the '96 World Cup, the '97 Playoffs but really quite unreliable all around that and even through that (that is, 1995, the '96 season/playoffs)?
There's small scale...why was Dryden so good for the Canadiens, but underwhelming for Team Canada? Why did Parent really only make it work in Philadelphia, despite all the penalties they took?

Even to Holecek...what's your problem man? You got a ton of starts stolen from you by Vlad Dzurilla...that probably shouldn't have happened. The pure talent gap is large there.

And I agree, we have to give some credit to guys that actually did a thing. At the bottom of my list, I have complete or near-complete buffoons like Gump, Richter, Giacomin, Esposito, etc. because there aren't enough players in this very fragile position. But for all the "objective truthers" out there, we still can't get over the hump on some things - like the Cechmanek conundrum that I posed some weeks ago...which isn't for this thread, of course. We'll probably eventually get to Alec Connell who has the lowest GAA in combined RS and PO history if I recall, yet, there isn't much fanfare for him historically...objectively, he might be the best goalie of all time. But...

So everyone gets to dabble in the "buffet style" of things to some degree...which I think is fine, I'm doing it from the opposite end, so to speak, because I see a clear pattern.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

To try to look at the issue of coaching impacts on goaltending, I pulled the team save percentage numbers for every coach from every season since 1948-49 (using unofficial numbers to fill in the gaps for 1948-49 to 1954-55). We can adjust all those for league average, to get an expected save percentage for each coach, all the way from Tommy Ivan in first place (0.78) to Steve Kasper at the bottom (1.23). Those numbers are my adjustment factor, which means that in a .900 average environment, Ivan's goalies would put up a .922 while Kasper's would come in around .877.

For partial seasons (where a coach was hired or fired mid-year), I'm just pro-rating results. That's not entirely correct, as a lot of times things turn around under a new coach, but it's way easier from a calculation perspective and will likely wash out mostly for any longer-tenured guys.

I also looked at the average team discipline (i.e. power play opportunities relative to average) for each coach, because that's something that impacts goalies. We also don't want to double-count, i.e. if a team is disciplined but a coach's teams are always disciplined, then it's kind of already "baked in" to their coaching rating.

Lastly, I ran the numbers for backup goalies and calculated their numbers playing with the given goalie, as well as their career numbers while playing for all other teams, which will also give us a backup rating to help add information to the coaching analysis.

Hopefully that all makes sense. If anyone notes any errors I'm happy to make corrections, this was a bit rushed together and may need to be refined based on feedback.

Ken Dryden is the easiest, since he played all of his meaningful regular season career for one coach:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

SoS

Bkp SoS

Bkp SA

Bkp Sv%

Bkp Other

Bkp GP

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Backup

Coach Disc

Team Disc

Dryden

1972​

1979​

391​

10872​

0.921​

0.893​

-0.09​

-0.34​

4576​

0.897​

0.885​

314​

Bowman

2141​

18%​

0.91​

0.89​

0.93​

0.89​

Explanation of terms:
SoS is strength of schedule pulled from the outstanding Hockeygoalies.org
Bkp Sv% - save percentage while teammates
Bkp Other - career save percentage adjusted to league average when not playing with that goalie
(If goalies did not have any games on other teams, I just assumed league average)
Bkp GP - weighted average career GP of the backup goalies
% w/G is the percentage of the coach's career that he shared with that goalie
Coach Disc and Team Disc are team discipline ratings using power play opportunities against relative to average
All the averages were weighted using shots faced
For all the ratings, below 1 means easier for the goalie, and above 1 means tougher for the goalie

Notes for Dryden:
- he played a far more difficult strength of schedule compared to backups than any of the other post-expansion goalies
- his backups did far better when playing with Dryden than they did elsewhere
- Bowman is one of the better defensive coaches (unsurprisingly) with a 0.91 rating
- Dryden's backups did even better than they would expect given that they were playing for Bowman (although that should perhaps be expected since they played easier opposition)
- Dryden's teams were more disciplined than Bowman's average (even though Bowman's teams were typically very disciplined)
- In summary, Ken Dryden got an obviously huge team lift from his coach and team defence

Moving on to Patrick Roy:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

SoS

Bkp SoS

Bkp SA

Bkp Sv%

Bkp Other

Bkp GP

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Backup

Coach Disc

Team Disc

Roy

1986​

1988​

138​

3640​

0.889​

0.878​

-0.02​

0.00​

2722​

0.887​

0.866​

355​

Perron

287​

48%​

0.95​

0.85​

0.89​

0.87​

Roy

1989​

1992​

217​

5916​

0.910​

0.884​

-0.13​

-0.09​

3032​

0.882​

0.871​

241​

Burns P

1019​

21%​

0.90​

0.92​

0.83​

0.79​

Roy

1993​

1995​

173​

5127​

0.906​

0.893​

0.00​

-0.20​

1445​

0.874​

0.889​

174​

Demers

1007​

17%​

0.99​

1.13​

1.00​

0.95​

Roy

1996​

1996​

39​

1130​

0.907​

0.898​

-0.01​

-0.07​

1983​

0.909​

0.891​

416​

Tremblay

159​

25%​

0.96​

0.83​

0.97​

0.90​

Roy

1996​

1998​

166​

4816​

0.917​

0.904​

-0.12​

-0.10​

2432​

0.905​

0.891​

379​

Crawford

1169​

14%​

1.02​

0.88​

1.03​

1.05​

Roy

1999​

2002​

249​

6455​

0.917​

0.906​

0.00​

-0.06​

2314​

0.912​

0.901​

282​

Hartley

944​

26%​

1.02​

0.89​

0.97​

0.98​

Roy

2003​

2003​

63​

1723​

0.920​

0.909​

0.04​

-0.03​

593​

0.916​

0.912​

214​

Granato T

215​

29%​

0.99​

0.95​

0.98​

0.99​

Total

1986​

2003​

1045​

28807​

0.910​

0.895​

-0.05​

-0.09​

14521​

0.895​

0.887​

281​

All

851​

0.98​

0.93​

0.95​

0.93​

Notes:
- Patrick Roy likely got a lot of help from his team in the early years as a Hab (1986-1992)
- It's tough to fully rely on the number for Jean Perron here since 48% of his games were with Roy in net, however the backups did outstanding under him relative to what they did on other teams, and those Habs were very disciplined
- I already discussed Pat Burns and Roy in this thread - Burns is one of the best defensive coaches ever, and the backup results fall right in line. Montreal was also an extremely disciplined team during those years.
- Playing for Jacques Demers, on the other hand, was tougher. Coaching numbers say average, backup numbers say even tougher than that. It's not surprising that Roy's relative numbers dropped by a lot over those seasons. Point on the backup numbers though - I'm assuming Andre Racicot is league average since he doesn't have a non-Roy sample, and there's no way Red Light Racicot was actually that good. So the real backup numbers would likely be closer to average.
- Patrick Roy's Colorado years are particularly interesting, because coaching and backup numbers tend to move in tandem for almost every situation, but for Roy in Colorado they diverge wildly
- The numbers for Crawford and Hartley suggest that Roy faced slightly tougher than average shot quality, but his backups did far better playing with Roy in Colorado than they did over the rest of their careers
- You can make your own conclusions on that one, personally I think the backup numbers are likely more accurate (and there were not any major strength of schedule impacts for Roy's playing partners in Colorado)
- Overall: Roy's teams were very disciplined, his backups did great playing playing with him, but his coaching numbers are closer to average (again mostly from the Demers years which seem legit and the Crawford/Hartley results which are more mixed)

Next is Dominik Hasek:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

SoS

Bkp SoS

Bkp SA

Bkp Sv%

Bkp Other

Bkp GP

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Backup

Coach Disc

Team Disc

Hasek

1991​

1992​

25​

506​

0.897​

0.888​

0.02​

-0.09​

3728​

0.896​

0.889​

835​

Keenan

1386​

2%​

0.97​

0.93​

1.11​

1.19​

Hasek

1993​

1995​

127​

3493​

0.923​

0.895​

-0.15​

0.00​

3095​

0.885​

0.890​

638​

Muckler

648​

20%​

0.96​

1.04​

1.00​

0.99​

Hasek

1996​

1997​

126​

4188​

0.925​

0.902​

-0.07​

0.06​

1438​

0.901​

0.896​

137​

Nolan

471​

27%​

0.92​

0.95​

1.07​

1.10​

Hasek

1998​

2001​

238​

6689​

0.928​

0.906​

-0.06​

-0.06​

2719​

0.906​

0.906​

489​

Ruff

1774​

13%​

0.99​

0.99​

0.98​

1.04​

Hasek

2002​

2002​

65​

1654​

0.915​

0.908​

0.07​

-0.16​

503​

0.911​

0.912​

365​

Bowman

2141​

3%​

0.91​

1.01​

0.93​

1.01​

Hasek

2004​

2004​

14​

324​

0.907​

0.911​

-0.15​

-0.10​

1821​

0.916​

0.912​

590​

Lewis

251​

6%​

0.99​

0.95​

1.02​

0.91​

Hasek

2006​

2006​

43​

1202​

0.925​

0.901​

-0.06​

-0.11​

1141​

0.900​

0.895​

265​

Murray Bry

1239​

3%​

0.96​

0.95​

0.97​

0.99​

Hasek

2007​

2008​

97​

2164​

0.909​

0.907​

0.00​

0.04​

1777​

0.908​

0.906​

660​

Babcock

1301​

7%​

0.98​

0.97​

0.99​

1.02​

Total

1991​

2008​

735​

20220​

0.922​

0.903​

-0.06​

-0.03​

16222​

0.902​

0.901​

447​

1223​

0.96​

0.99​

1.00​

1.04​

Notes:

- Under Keenan and Muckler, Hasek was probably facing slightly easier than average shots. The backup numbers aren't great under Muckler, but that might have just been Fuhr being a bit washed up at that point.
- The Ted Nolan years are interesting. Nolan has a very good score, but it is probably a bit inflated by peak Hasek being 27% of it. The backups did pretty well too though.
- Lindy Ruff: 0.99 coach rating with team less disciplined than usual, 0.99 backup rating. About as average as you can get. I have always maintained that there is no evidence to suggest that Hasek was getting any kind of significant team lift during this period, and these numbers strongly back that up.
- Bowman has a great defensive reputation, but I'm not sure how much that was still relevant by 2002. The backups are average, and his teams were much less disciplined than normal.
- For the rest of Hasek's career, he had easier than average under Bryan Murray and a bit easier but close to average under Babcock
- Overall, Hasek's coaching numbers are actually slightly better than Roy's, but the Sabres were less disciplined than those coaches' teams were normally. Also, Hasek's backup results are almost right on league average. Overall, his environment was probably slightly better than league average.

Finally, here's Martin Brodeur:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

SoS

Bkp SoS

Bkp SA

Bkp Sv%

Bkp Other

Bkp GP

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Backup

Coach Disc

Team Disc

Brodeur

1994​

1998​

301​

7302​

0.916​

0.901​

-0.06​

-0.07​

2607​

0.903​

0.899​

377​

Lemaire

1262​

24%​

0.91​

0.96​

0.86​

0.78​

Brodeur

1999​

2000​

142​

3525​

0.908​

0.906​

-0.13​

0.05​

593​

0.887​

0.906​

406​

Ftorek

443​

32%​

1.06​

1.20​

0.98​

0.93​

Brodeur

2001​

2002​

145​

3417​

0.906​

0.905​

-0.12​

-0.27​

664​

0.893​

0.908​

485​

Robinson

501​

29%​

0.98​

1.17​

0.92​

0.82​

Brodeur

2003​

2004​

148​

3551​

0.915​

0.910​

-0.08​

-0.51​

375​

0.944​

0.896​

157​

Burns P

1019​

15%​

0.90​

0.54​

0.83​

0.75​

Brodeur

2006​

2006​

73​

2105​

0.911​

0.901​

-0.14​

-0.2​

295​

0.881​

0.889​

191​

Lamoriello

53​

89%​

0.93​

1.07​

0.72​

0.73​

Brodeur

2007​

2007​

78​

2182​

0.922​

0.905​

-0.19​

-0.18​

144​

0.889​

0.894​

191​

Julien

1274​

6%​

0.92​

1.05​

0.94​

0.68​

Brodeur

2008​

2009​

108​

2959​

0.919​

0.909​

-0.12​

-0.03​

1697​

0.916​

0.900​

243​

Sutter Bre

410​

26%​

0.95​

0.84​

0.96​

0.91​

Brodeur

2010​

2011​

133​

3317​

0.911​

0.912​

-0.04​

-0.18​

1040​

0.913​

0.905​

291​

Lemaire

1262​

11%​

0.91​

0.91​

0.86​

0.80​

Brodeur

2012​

2014​

127​

3097​

0.904​

0.914​

-0.02​

-0.01​

2276​

0.913​

0.911​

389​

DeBoer

1179​

11%​

0.98​

0.98​

0.94​

0.99​

Total

1994​

2014​

1255​

31455​

0.912​

0.906​

-0.09​

-0.15​

9691​

0.906​

0.901​

321​

892​

0.94​

0.96​

0.89​

0.82​

Notes:
- Pretty strong team environment under Jacques Lemaire, to nobody's surprise, although the backup results aren't quite as good as the coach numbers
- Robbie Ftorek wasn't a good defensive coach. This is easily the toughest environment Brodeur had to play in, and very likely the toughest save percentage environment any of these 4 goalies faced in their careers.
- Robinson is around average, but the Devils were much more disciplined under him than on his other teams
- Burns shows up again, with ridiculous backup numbers (in a very small sample size though) and incredible team discipline as usual
- Lamoriello is tough to evaluate since his entire short career is basically just with Brodeur in net. The backup results aren't great in a tiny sample size, but the Devils continue to be super disciplined.
- Claude Julien is another coach that had great defensive results during his career (almost as good as Burns or Lemaire). Again, the backups don't quite track, but it's only 144 shots (running theme for the high-workload Brodeur, we can only really analyze backup results in aggregate).
- the Brent Sutter years and Jacques Lemaire second time around also look pretty favourable
- Deboer looks like right around average
- Overall, coaching results suggest Brodeur had an easier time of it than Roy or Hasek, especially when you factor in his teams being quite a bit more disciplined than they usually were for those coaches. But the backup results lag a bit behind, so maybe there were other impacts.

My quick-and-dirty overall estimates for difficulty of environment in terms of its effects on save percentage:

1. Ken Dryden: 0.91
2. Patrick Roy: 0.95
2. Martin Brodeur: 0.95
4. Dominik Hasek: 0.98

Those are just my guesses. If you think playing in Colorado was actually tougher than average, then you should slide Roy down. I think overall Roy had the worst backups (with Racicot not being fully adjusted for) and Hasek had the best, while Hasek was the only one that had to deal with poor team discipline, and that is also informing my estimates to some degree.

The other major point from this analysis is that Roy's peak under Pat Burns was very likely not close to as good as it looks statistically. If you're someone who focuses heavily on big peak, you should check to make sure you aren't overrating Roy in Montreal.

For the O6 guys, I can't really do a full backup analysis so it's not quite apples to apples, and I don't have full team disicipline numbers going all the way back, but I'll post the simplified coaching numbers in another post and do a quick discussion on those too.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

One thing that stood out to me in Hall's career was that he was the goalie to end the Montreal dynasty in 1961. After 5 straight cups, Chicago defeated the Canadiens in the first round, 4-2. Hall shutout Montreal in games 5 and 6. Also won game 3 in triple OT, 2-1. Hall had a .930 SP for the series, Plante .910.

But the following season, Plante was not only the top goalie, he won the Hart trophy as MVP. But again, in round 1 of the playoffs, Chicago won 4-2. Hall again had a shutout in game 6. With 41 saves in a 2-0 final. Hall's SP was .936 for the series, Plante's .904.

Also find it of interest that Hall had 7 first team all-star selections to Plante and Sawchuk's 3 each. All of Sawchuk's came pre-Hall and Plante. Not sure who voted in those days, but the voters really only had 6 goalies to look at, and they probably saw all of them a lot. So I do put a lot of stock in those selections.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And I agree, we have to give some credit to guys that actually did a thing. At the bottom of my list, I have complete or near-complete buffoons like Gump, Richter, Giacomin, Esposito, etc. because there aren't enough players in this very fragile position. But for all the "objective truthers" out there, we still can't get over the hump on some things - like the Cechmanek conundrum that I posed some weeks ago...which isn't for this thread, of course. We'll probably eventually get to Alec Connell who has the lowest GAA in combined RS and PO history if I recall, yet, there isn't much fanfare for him historically...objectively, he might be the best goalie of all time. But...

So everyone gets to dabble in the "buffet style" of things to some degree...which I think is fine, I'm doing it from the opposite end, so to speak, because I see a clear pattern.

So much of what you say must be taken with a grain of salt because of comments like this.

All goalies with impressive NHL careers. Three in the freakin' Hall of Fame!

Goaltending Buffoons? Absurd.

 

[BM67]

Anybody want guess how many times the Devils had the fewest SOGA/GP in the 20 seasons from 1993-94 to 2013-14?

A: 4

2002-03, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14

 

[Michael Farkas]

So much of what you say must be taken with a grain of salt because of comments like this.

All goalies with impressive NHL careers. Three in the freakin' Hall of Fame!

Goaltending Buffoons? Absurd.

The thing with this kind of stuff is - and you're free to feel this way - but it's very funny to me that when someone agrees with me (and I see this with my channel now a lot), it's "wow, great perspective. No one breaks down the game like this, this is incredible." and when they don't agree, I need "to be taken with a grain of salt" or "I don't know anything about hockey". haha

I'm the one that has one mode (for better or for worse)...it props up some guys and it cuts down others, but it doesn't waver very much. I'm a loveable scamp because Bobby Orr is the best player I've ever seen, but I need to be properly seasoned because of Gump Worsley - a guy sent down to the minors consistently in his prime for poor performance...that's where I'm out of line? haha

 

[jigglysquishy]

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​

Just looking at the splits in relation to the league. I'm limiting it to 20 GP minimum to weed out backups or injury replacements.

Season	Oct-Dec GAA Rank	Jan-Apr GAA Rank
1950-51	1st	2nd
1951-52	1st	1st
1952-53	1st	1st
1953-54	2nd	1st
1954-55	2nd	1st
1955-56	5th	3rd
1956-57	5th	N/A
1957-58	6th	4th
1958-59	2nd	6th (by quite a bit)
1959-60	2nd	4th
1960-61	N/A	N/A (6th at 10 GP+)
1961-62	5th	N/A (6th at 10 GP+)
1962-63	3rd	N/A (5th at 10 GP+)
1963-64	4th	3rd
1964-65	N/A (3rd ignoring GP)	N/A (5th at 10 GP+)
1965-66	N/A (8th ignoring GP)	N/A (7th at 10 GP+)
1966-67	N/A (4th ignoring GP)	N/A (8th at 10 GP+)
1967-68	N/A (25th ignoring GP)	9th (11th at 10 GP+)

Not really what I was suspecting. Even early in his career, usually more dominant after the new year.

Really rough in the back half later on. When you're 6th in GAA in a 6 goalie league. Man. It's not good.

There's a bit in 1958-59 and 1959-60 where he looks good early on, but all these splits are pretty rough.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's interesting to see the parallels between the O6 trio and the 90s trio.

Plante/Roy - Technical French-Canadien innovator that played on deep defensive Canadien teams. Moved to another team and proved they weren't a product of their system. Continued to play a coach/mentor role after retirement.

Hasek/Sawchuk - Enigmatic Slav with the highest peak of their era. Unusual style and won a Cup as a Red Wing.

Hall/Brodeur - Reliable workhorse that played by far the most games of their era on a per season basis. Loaded up on all star selections. An abrasive Ontarian was the best skater on their team most of their career. Finished their career on the Blues.

Hasek/Roy were born the same year. Sawchuk/Plante were born the same year.

Maybe we really are living in a simulation.

 

[57special]

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:

Tretiak did make my A list. Dryden did not.

Many of the old time guys(I am a senior, but I am talking about guys a generation older)would always mention Sawchuk when it came to "best goalie" conversations... except in Montreal, of course.

I grew up in Montreal watching the 60's and 70's Canadiens, which meant that I watched all of Dryden. He burst into the league in the best way possible, winning a Conn Smythe and a Cup before he was even eligible for a Calder. That, and being the goalie for, arguably, the best team ever assembled, elevated his status, as well as being, AFAIK, the first "big goalie". He also had an iconic pre whistle pose, with his stick planted oin the ice and under his blocker, which he rested his chin on. These were just a few of the things that were responsible for his legendary status. He was a memorable guy on a great team. Having said that, I would say that aside from a few great playoff performances, he was a goalie who was good enough for his team to win, and a case of being in the right place and right time, rather than one of the greatest goalies who ever played. Don't get me wrong, he was great, but simply didn't play enough to be put in the "best of the best" category.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The thing with this kind of stuff is - and you're free to feel this way - but it's very funny to me that when someone agrees with me (and I see this with my channel now a lot), it's "wow, great perspective. No one breaks down the game like this, this is incredible." and when they don't agree, I need "to be taken with a grain of salt" or "I don't know anything about hockey". haha

I'm the one that has one mode (for better or for worse)...it props up some guys and it cuts down others, but it doesn't waver very much. I'm a loveable scamp because Bobby Orr is the best player I've ever seen, but I need to be properly seasoned because of Gump Worsley - a guy sent down to the minors consistently in his prime for poor performance...that's where I'm out of line? haha

Would never suggest you don't know anything about hockey. I would have to be a buffoon to claim that.

Sending Gump Worsley down in his prime merely meant he wasn't seen as one of the 6 best goalies in the world. Five playoff seasons in Montreal his numbers:

.936 SP 1.68 GAA 5-3

.931 SP 1.99 GAA 8-2

.956 SP 1.50 GAA 0-1

.930 SP 1.88 GAA 11-0

.919 SP 2.27 GAA 5-1

Totals .931 SP 1.92 GAA 29-7 4 Cups

These were not the dynasty powerhouses of the 1950s or 1970s. No Harveys or Robinsons or Lafleurs or Boom Booms. But pretty spectacular playoff numbers for a buffoon.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My quick-and-dirty overall estimates for difficulty of environment in terms of its effects on save percentage:

1. Ken Dryden: 0.91
2. Patrick Roy: 0.95
2. Martin Brodeur: 0.95
4. Dominik Hasek: 0.98

This feels right, presuming I'm reading it right. Dryden had it the easiest, Hasek had it the toughest, they all had it easier than most others.

The other major point from this analysis is that Roy's peak under Pat Burns was very likely not close to as good as it looks statistically. If you're someone who focuses heavily on big peak, you should check to make sure you aren't overrating Roy in Montreal.

This is interesting. I'm not sure if you have any more to expound upon here, but this could be a tectonic-shifting point.

Ya know, it's kind of blasphemous but you look at Roy and you look at Hall...maybe kind of a similar deal in some respects. Butterfly guys coming in with really a nice team. Hall with the post-dynasty Wings, they get to the Final right away with him. Roy with the late 80's Habs, that was a real good team.

Then...we all know Hall's struggles in the postseason. And I know not everyone can win, but Roy got sunk by Boston a lot for a while...lost starts to Hayward in there...

All right, so Ed Belfour sneaked in with a tremendous rookie season and won the Vezina Trophy in 1991. But this was the spring of 1992, and there was Roy back where he belonged: in Toronto’s Convention Centre accepting the Vezina, emblematic of the best goalie in the NHL. For the second straight year, he was also named the THN/Pro Set goalie of the year.

What more proof did anybody need?

A great playoff performance, perhaps. Not to rain on Roy’s parade but his “best goalie” status has been tainted by consecutive, mediocre postseasons.

“I think there were a lot of people who had no question, no doubt that Patrick Roy was the best goalie in the NHL,” said ex-goalie-tumed-broadcaster John Davidson.

“But after this spring, some of those people now have questions. I think they’ve changed their philosophies a bit, they want to see Patrick come up big again in a playoff series. You can understand that.”

...

In the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately pro sports world, the only thing people could think of was his less-than-brilliant showing in the Adams Division playoffs.

“I thought I had my best year,” said Roy...

...

Then came the shaky playoff. It’s not that he gave up a lot of goals-his GAA was 2.62, after all-but it was the kind of goals he gave up. It seemed as though half of the opponents’ shots were trickling between his legs or finding their way between his pad and the post.

“We don’t have the best team in the league,” said Canadiens’ general manager Serge Savard, “but I have difficulty understanding what happened. I’d never have predicted we would give up a bad goal every night.”

Savard made those statements after the Habs had been dragged into a seventh-game doubleovertime battle with lowly Hartford in the first round and then got blasted out of the playoffs in four games by the Boston Bruins.

...

Now, he has had two bad playoffs in a row (7-5, 3.06 GAA in 1991) and you start to wonder.”

Davidson theorizes that Roy just may be burned out; if not physically, then mentally. Especially considering the offense Roy has in front of him.

“You can’t let in a bad goal,” Davidson said. “They won’t get it back. You have to believe that after a while it becomes very grueling.

“Is he still the best? I think people really have questions now. I remember in ’86, it was the old cliche that he had ice water in his veins. I think right now people are waiting to see if he gets that back. They are starting to wonder if he’s losing it, if it has just been a mental letdown in the playoffs, or if he’s really in the back nine.”

Here we go again, with a butterfly goalie, really tough workload in '92 (67 games, 2nd most in the league). He was 5th in GP in '90. The other years, not so much, to be fair...

Obviously, he comes around and makes it happen three more times after that and no one questions it from 30,000 feet. But if CG onto something here about maybe his whole time in Montreal is a little over-clocked. Maybe not much...but maybe enough to where it opens the door for a Plante or a Hasek to slide in there? I think it's worth talking about.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Would never suggest you don't know anything about hockey. I would have to be a buffoon to claim that.

Sending Gump Worsley down in his prime merely meant he wasn't seen as one of the 6 best goalies in the world. Five playoff seasons in Montreal his numbers:

.936 SP 1.68 GAA 5-3

.931 SP 1.99 GAA 8-2

.956 SP 1.50 GAA 0-1

.930 SP 1.88 GAA 11-0

.919 SP 2.27 GAA 5-1

Totals .931 SP 1.92 GAA 29-7 4 Cups

These were not the dynasty powerhouses of the 1950s or 1970s. No Harveys or Robinsons or Lafleurs or Boom Booms. But pretty spectacular playoff numbers for a buffoon.

I appreciate that, thanks.

And yes, I agree, it means he wasn't one of the six best. But that's still a heavy weight. Did this happen regularly to anyone else from that era that's likely to come up? I know Bower had to wait, but then the had a whole career up in the show until he was on Social Security. The film jives with the idea that he would be unreliable. He might have gotten the "Fleury is a nice guy" pass into the HOF I think...

We're taking the playoff where he played 80 minutes of the whole thing? Boo...haha

Like usual, those numbers need context...he yielded starts to guys like Vachon in that time, as he was generally unable to string the necessary consecutive outings together to win a series on his own. One of those runs he got to play an expansion team for four of them too, which certainly help.

But let's table this for now...he's not available this round. He'll come up sooner than I'd like and we can return to this then.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

Lots of interesting avenues of discussion today... me and @Professor What are not quite satisfied that we're going to be able to flesh all of it out by Sunday.

How much appetite is there for this opening vote's discussion to be extended for another week? Seeing how it is the first vote, we want to make sure we get this 'right'... but if people are set to vote, then we'll be set too.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That would give me a better opportunity to get video involved for you guys, I fully support that. These are significant spots, obviously. I don't mind taking our time on this.

 

[Professor What]

That would give me a better opportunity to get video involved for you guys, I fully support that. These are significant spots, obviously. I don't mind taking our time on this.

How much video is available for the O6 guys?

 

[Michael Farkas]

How much video is available for the O6 guys?

Plenty enough.

 

[Professor What]

Plenty enough.

I can wait if need be, but I'm wondering how much different Sawchuk looks during his first tenure in Detroit as opposed to the rest of his career. I almost get a Jekyll and Hyde impression from accounts, stats, and accolades from him. I feel like I'm least sure on my placement of Sawchuk. Credit has to be given for that peak, but does his tailing off later drag him down?

I also wonder how much his mental health had to do with that decline. If he was so depressed from the trade to Boston that he never recovered from it, does that explain why he never seemed to be the same player again? I'm not saying that it should affect his ranking, but I'm interested from a historical perspective.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I'm quite happy to go another week with this group, I think there is still lots more to potentially discuss.

 

[Staniowski]

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

The thoughts are Dryden's, not mine. But if you want to know my opinion, I would guess it was somewhat better, but I'd need to watch some video to have a firm opinion.

There's no doubt the depth of talent of forwards and defensemen was better in the '70s than in the '60s, both in the NHL, and overall in the world.

The increase in talent is mostly due to a couple things. Improvements in transportation and hockey infrastructure (indoor arenas, minor hockey programs, etc.) in Canada. And, obviously, the growth of hockey outside Canada.

Improvements in transportation and infrastructure of this generation marked the beginnings of real depth of talent.

One example is that guys who grew up in rural hamlets - like Lanny McDonald, Larry Robinson, probably Bryan Trottier, and later guys like the Sutters, Al MacInnis, etc. - could easily travel some distance by car to play hockey in bigger towns. None of their fathers would've been able to do that. Similarly, back in time, Gordie Howe couldn't have played pro hockey if his family didn't move to a larger place....same for Jacques Plante, same for Cyclone Taylor.

Back to '70s goaltenders, I agree with what you've said about Parent and Dryden, that Parent's GAA, etc. were definitely aided by the Flyers, but also that he's clearly a very good goalie; and that Dryden is generally overrated.