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

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I wanted to do a post on coaching impacts for the Original Six guys, so throwing this in now. Probably too late to change any rankings, but this is for my own research and interest as much as anything else.

I'm not doing any backup numbers because goalies of these era often played the entire season. I will use my coaching ratings (explained in post #103), and I'm also posting team discipline numbers, although be warned that the pre-1964 team data is missing and is therefore purely based on PIM relative to league average, which is an estimate at best (that number reflects which teams are more or less likely to fight or take misconducts, not just penalties which actually need to be killed).

I have made a few manual edits to the raw coaching numbers for situations where a goalie's sample represents over 50% of the coach's career, and therefore the estimate isn't going to be as reliable. They are marked in bold with the raw number in parentheses, I'll explain them all in some detail just to be clear so you can make your own corrections if you disagree with me.

Let's start with Terry Sawchuk:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Disc

Adj

GSAA

Sawchuk

1950​

1954​

277​

7754​

0.931​

0.911​

Ivan

503​

55%​

0.90 (0.78)​

0.95​

0.923​

96.3​

Sawchuk

1955​

1955​

68​

1786​

0.926​

0.915​

Skinner

247​

43%​

0.96 (0.89)​

0.99​

0.923​

15.0​

Sawchuk

1956​

1957​

102​

3113​

0.917​

0.916​

Schmidt

770​

13%​

1.09​

1.07​

0.924​

24.4​

Sawchuk

1958​

1958​

70​

2172​

0.905​

0.909​

Skinner

247​

43%​

1.02 (0.89)​

0.88​

0.901​

-4.3​

Sawchuk

1959​

1964​

306​

8989​

0.903​

0.909​

Abel

964​

32%​

1.08​

0.89​

0.910​

15.1​

Sawchuk

1965​

1967​

91​

2705​

0.912​

0.907​

Imlach

889​

10%​

0.92​

1.07​

0.904​

-7.9​

Sawchuk

1968​

1968​

36​

912​

0.891​

0.910​

Kelly R

742​

5%​

1.06​

1.13​

0.898​

-10.9​

Sawchuk

1969​

1969​

13​

318​

0.912​

0.908​

Gadsby

78​

17%​

1.01​

1.13​

0.913​

1.6​

Sawchuk

1970​

1970​

8​

187​

0.893​

0.912​

Francis E

778​

1%​

1.00​

0.95​

0.893​

-3.5​

O6 Total

1950​

1967​

914​

26519​

0.915​

0.910​

1.00​

0.96​

0.914​

125.8​

Exp Total

1968​

1969​

57​

1417​

0.896​

0.910​

1.05​

1.11​

0.901​

-12.7​

Notes:
- Tommy Ivan's raw coaching number is 0.78, in large part because half of his career was coaching Sawchuk during the Red Wings dynasty. This is a huge outlier on my coach's list, as the next-best mark for any coach with at least 300 games in the NHL is Al Arbour's 0.88. The other well-known elite defensive coaches (Burns, Lemaire, Shero, Bowman, Imlach, Julien, etc.) tend to be clustered around 0.90-0.92, which indicates we'd expect a very good defensive coach on a good team to fall closer to that range.
- I adjusted Ivan in Detroit to a 0.90, as I do think this was probably one of the more favourable goalie environments. The Wings look like they were fairly disciplined, and I think they played pretty hard during the regular season.
- Jimmy Skinner's actual coaching number was 0.89, but he spent his entire career with either Sawchuk or Hall in net in Detroit, which again means that his number is going to be not representative. I think by the mid-'50s the Wings were declining a bit, but they were likely still allowing easier than average shots, so I'll set his number at 0.96 (and use the same number for Hall later). For 1957-58, the Wings had clearly declined, and Skinner was fired around midseason and replaced by Abel. Normally I'm just taking the coach who played the most games for each season, but here to be fair to Sawchuk I'll take an average of their two ratings and assign 1.02.
- This method gives Sawchuk a fair amount of credit for the Boston years and his second time around in Detroit, as Milt Schmidt and Sid Abel both had well below-average goaltending results over their long coaching careers.
- I rate Sawchuk as a minus for the rest of his career. Punch Imlach pretty clearly had a favourable defensive environment for goalies, so it doesn't really surprise me to see Sawchuk a touch below average (keep in mind that Original Six average is still a tougher bar to clear than post-expansion league average though).
- Post-expansion Sawchuk didn't achieve a lot, he was playing in tough situations but still was likely subpar.
- Overall, most of Sawchuk's value is peak, but he was probably still very effective through 1963-64, and that was despite often declining in the second half of seasons as posted upthread. After that he likely did fall off significantly.

Speaking of Glenn Hall:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Disc

Adj

GSAA

Hall

1953​

1953​

6​

144​

0.931​

0.916​

Ivan

503​

1%​

0.90 (0.78)​

0.96​

0.923​

1.0​

Hall

1955​

1957​

142​

4165​

0.927​

0.915​

Skinner

247​

57%​

0.96 (0.89)​

0.81​

0.924​

38.2​

Hall

1958​

1963​

416​

12615​

0.912​

0.907​

Pilous

387​

100%​

1.04 (0.94)​

1.19​

0.915​

102.4​

Hall

1964​

1967​

202​

6201​

0.923​

0.910​

Reay

1102​

18%​

0.90​

1.06​

0.915​

31.3​

Hall

1968​

1970​

108​

3034​

0.917​

0.910​

Bowman

2141​

5%​

0.91​

0.96​

0.909​

-2.0​

Hall

1971​

1971​

32​

867​

0.918​

0.903​

Arbour

1607​

2%​

0.88​

1.00​

0.907​

3.7​

O6 Total

1953​

1967​

766​

23125​

0.918​

0.909​

0.99​

1.08​

0.917​

172.9​

Exp Total

1968​

1971​

140​

3901​

0.917​

0.908​

0.91​

0.97​

0.909​

1.8​

Notes:
- Jimmy Skinner shows up again, the adjustment to his numbers was explained above. As mentioned the Wings were likely declining through the mid-'50s, but they still finished first overall as late as 1956-57.
- 100% of the NHL games coached by Rudy Pilous were with Glenn Hall in net, which makes my coaching metric of no value whatsoever for judging Hall during this stretch. This is a very important adjustment, as it covers 416 games of Hall's career including some of his best seasons. I would argue that this was likely not a favourable save percentage environment, though. In 1958, Chicago missed the playoffs, but Hall was still named First Team All-Star goalie despite a below league-average save percentage, which definitely indicates that observers thought he had a tough job. The Hawks then barely squeaked into the playoffs by a 5 point margin in 1959 and 1960. They also had a very rate of PIM compared to league average, so unless they were fighting way more than average then that would have made it tougher for their goalie as well. There are some accounts of the Blackhawks that portray the team as being pretty run-and-gun, and I believe they are more from this period than the later stretch under Reay (who had pretty strong goaltending results during his career). I ended up putting down 1.04 (tougher than average); how you rate this period has a pretty big impact on how you view Hall's regular season career.
- Billy Reay has very good goalie stats over a very long career, and the Hawks were really good in the mid-'60s, so this indicates that Hall's numbers for those seasons were a bit team-aided. This might be a bit unfair to Hall, though, as the post-expansion league average bar would have been much easier to clear than the Original Six one.
- Hall's favourable environments continued in his late career with Bowman and Arbour, both among the all-time best according to my metric
- Overall, I think Hall delivered quite a bit more regular season value than Sawchuk, unless you think Rudy Pilous was a better defensive coach and you think that Sawchuk's team support at his peak was worse than estimated here. And it's entirely possible that the gap is larger still if you don't rate Billy Reay as highly either.

Lastly, Jacques Plante:

Goalie

From

To

GP

SA

Sv%

LgAvg

Coach

GP

% w/G

Coach

Disc

Adj

GSAA

Plante

1953​

1955​

72​

1991​

0.929​

0.916​

Irvin

550​

13%​

0.92​

1.11​

0.923​

14.3​

Plante

1956​

1963​

484​

13676​

0.920​

0.909​

Blake

914​

53%​

0.97 (0.93)​

1.05​

0.917​

114.4​

Plante

1964​

1965​

98​

3561​

0.908​

0.914​

Sullivan R

364​

27%​

1.08​

0.83​

0.914​

2.0​

Plante

1969​

1970​

69​

1990​

0.931​

0.910​

Bowman

2141​

3%​

0.91​

0.93​

0.924​

29.6​

Plante

1971​

1973​

106​

3267​

0.925​

0.901​

McLellan J

310​

34%​

0.93​

0.97​

0.919​

60.0​

Plante

1973​

1973​

8​

220​

0.927​

0.896​

Johnson T

208​

4%​

0.92​

1.05​

0.921​

5.4​

O6 Total

1953​

1965​

654​

19228​

0.919​

0.911​

0.98​

1.02​

0.917​

130.7​

Exp Total

1969​

1973​

183​

5477​

0.927​

0.904​

0.93​

0.96​

0.921​

95.1​

Notes:
- I think Dick Irvin's number is probably reasonably accurate, given his reputation
- Toe Blake's actual number was 0.93, mostly with Plante in net. These are the Hab dynasty years, so it has to have been a favourable environment for goalies, but it doesn't seem that the team was overly disciplined. I also think there had to be a clear difference between Irvin's more defensive style and Blake's "firewagon hockey". See these quotes from Jacques Plante by Todd Denault:

"Under Irvin, the Canadiens' defence was instructed to circle around the red line, while the forwards were in the opponent's end of the rink. Now, Blake wanted his defence-men to move up towards the blue line."

Dickie Moore: "We were urged to always pinch, to always take offensive chances. Sometimes those chances left Jacques all alone. He was the last man on the ice...There was a lot of pressure on him - he was the one who had to bail us out."

- If you ignore the Plante years and look at Blake's numbers from 1963-64 to 1967-68, he rates at 0.97, so I'm going to just use that number for him here, but you could certainly argue that the team quality of the dynasty Habs means that the adjustment should be stronger.
- Playing as a Ranger was difficult, no surprise there, but Plante did not do particularly well even taking that into account, which to me is the only significant strike against him in his career.
- Plante did well in a very favourable environment under Bowman in St. Louis.
- Plante's Toronto number should be taken with a huge grain of salt, as he had pretty much stopped playing against good teams in the regular season by that point of his career (although he still did quite well if you isolate him against good teams only - I have him at .918 vs .904 league average with what I define as non-contending teams removed from 1968-69 to 1972-73)
- Overall this has Plante slightly ahead of Sawchuk but well behind Hall in Original Six value, then blowing them both out of the water post-expansion.

Additional Considerations:

- I mentioned earlier in this thread about rewarding non-NHL years, when goalies were most likely NHL quality. All of these goalies were pretty much definitely NHL ready before they actually made it to the show.
- Sawchuk was the First Team All-Star in the AHL in 1949-50 in his age 20 season. He also impressed in his 7 game NHL stint. I ran across this quote from Lynn Patrick in 1950: "There are only three big-league goalies in the league right now and one of them is in the minors." Just a reminder that this was the guy actively coaching Chuck Rayner, in a league that also included Bill Durnan, Turk Broda, Frank Brimsek and Harry Lumley.
- Sawchuk also played a full season in the AHL the previous year at age 19, and had a similar GAA. He might even have been NHL good that early, but age 20 is a typical starting year for elite talents throughout history, so let's give him credit for one additional season, probably at star-level quality, given that people rated him highly, his team cleared the way for him the next season, and he hit the ground running strongly as an NHL starter (I'll say 24 GSAA in 63 GP, pro-rating his play in 1949-50 and 1950-51)
- Glenn Hall played one season in the AHL (age 20) and three in the WHL (age 21-23, where he was awarded 2nd Team All-Star in 1952-53 and 1st Team All-Star in 1954-55).
- It's tough to evaluate his AHL year, as he played on a team that was in its last year before folding and seems to have sold off most of their good players from the year before. But getting awards recognition at age 21 in probably the third-best league in the world is an indicator that he probably should have been playing in the NHL at age 21, so let's give him 3 additional NHL-quality seasons as a capable starter (15 GSAA in 210 GP, because of course he's playing every game)
- Jacques Plante was paid to be the Montreal Canadiens' practice goalie starting in the 1949-50 season, when he turned pro with the Montreal Royals, in his age 21 season, and was widely viewed to be #3 in the club's pecking order behind Durnan and McNeil. He very likely have been in the NHL in an expanded league at that age, as he was the First Team All-Star goalie in both the preceding seasons in the Quebec Junior League, a league that was pretty stacked with NHL prospects. Just a reminder, Plante didn't become a full-time starter until 1954-55 at age 26, so that's up to five additional seasons that we could potentially give him credit for. Plante's unofficial save percentage in the regular season and playoffs in 1952-53 and 1953-54 combined was .937 in 837 SA, which is fantastic. If use those numbers along with 1954-55 to estimate his previous years (and discount his GP because Plante wouldn't play the entire schedule), and assume he would have gotten the job in 1950-51 in another NHL scenario, I'll estimate additional credit of 37 GSAA in 220 GP.
- In addition, Jacques Plante sat out for three seasons from 1965-66 to 1967-68, mainly because of his wife's deteriorating health and a sense that he was away from his family too much, rather than a lack of an ability to play.

Plante: "I have never been as well paid or any happier than I have been with New York. I won't make near the money in my new job but I'll be with my family and that is the most important thing right now. I enjoyed it, but it takes you away from your family for most of the year."

- In this period, he suited up for the Junior Canadiens and shut down the Russians in a famous 2-1 win. Obviously we don't know if playing those years would have impacted his eventual longevity, but in another environment he probably doesn't stop playing at age 36, especially given how much success he was still yet to have.
- I'm not going to give him much credit for this period, though, since he didn't have a lot of success with the Rangers and probably would have had some injury issues if he was playing any kind of starter workload. Let's say 6 GSAA in 120 GP.
- That said, I am not sure that Plante plays until age 44 in other eras (and especially not if he plays those 3 extra years in his late thirties). He was definitely one of the best old goalies ever, though, on the short-list with Hasek and Bower, but he might have got a bit more mileage out of the weaker expansion era than he would have at another time. Hasek did make it to age 43 in the post-lockout NHL, but that's also a pretty extreme outlier. Maybe we could subtract a couple off the back end for Plante, but that still gives him five or six additional seasons that he could have easily been an NHL goaltender in another era (I'll take off his 1971-72 and 1972-73 seasons from the estimates for my revision below, and adjust 1970-71 a bit for team quality).
- Opinions are going to differ based on how much "what if" credit different voters are prepared to give. But I rate Plante's elite longevity as the best ever. I doubt he would have been a below league-average goaltender at any point in his life from age 21 or 22 all the way until age 44, and transport him to another era and that's still mostly true, except maybe he probably doesn't get quite so far into his forties. Roy retired at 37, Brodeur had his last full regular season and Finals run at age 39. I think the only one of the group that has an argument for matching Plante is Hasek, if you think he was at least NHL average good in Europe (which I personally do).

Revised Career Estimates with Non-NHL Estimates Included:

	NHL	NHL	Non-NHL	Non-NHL	Combined	Combined	NHL	NHL
Goalie	O6 GP	O6 GSAA	O6 GP	O6 GSAA	O6 GP	O6 GSAA	Exp GP	Exp GSAA
Sawchuk	914​	126​	63​	24​	977​	150​	57​	-13​
Hall	766​	173​	210​	15​	976​	188​	140​	2​
Plante	654​	131​	340​	43​	994​	174​	109​	48​

Peak Play (Best Individual Seasons):

1. Sawchuk, 1952: 45.4
2. Plante, 1959: 34.3
3. Hall, 1961: 32.5
4. Plante, 1962: 31.9
5. Hall, 1957: 30.2
6. Sawchuk, 1951: 28.6

Playoffs:

	O6	O6	O6	O6	O6	Exp	Exp	Exp	Exp	Exp
Goalie	SA	SV%	Coach-Adjusted SV%	LgAvg	GSAA	SA	SV%	Coach-Adjusted SV%	LgAvg	GSAA
Sawchuk	2933​	0.918​	0.917​	0.911​	19.3​	186​	0.871​	0.880​	0.911​	-5.6​
Plante	2485​	0.922​	0.918​	0.911​	17.9​	566​	0.922​	0.915​	0.907​	4.9​
Hall	2706​	0.911​	0.909​	0.909​	-1.0​	899​	0.911​	0.902​	0.910​	-7.2​

Overall:

I came in with Plante in my top tier with Hasek and Roy, and Sawchuk and Hall in the next tier with Tretiak and Brodeur. I don't think that really changes as I still think Plante is the best of these three, when you factor in everything including playoffs, non-NHL years and elite longevity, but Sawchuk really rose in my estimation, especially since I don't care as much about workload, and I'm inclined to give a lot more "what-if" credit for injuries, which I think really hurt him in some of those second-half dropoffs. I think there is a pretty good chance that we're still underrating Hall's team situation here, both in the regular season and especially in the playoffs, so I'm not dropping him as far as some of the other voters. But I'm still going to flip Sawchuk ahead of Hall this round, for my first time ever in an all-time goalie ranking.

 

[overpass]

- 100% of the NHL games coached by Rudy Pilous were with Glenn Hall in net, which makes my coaching metric of no value whatsoever for judging Hall during this stretch. This is a very important adjustment, as it covers 416 games of Hall's career including some of his best seasons. I would argue that this was likely not a favourable save percentage environment, though. In 1958, Chicago missed the playoffs, but Hall was still named First Team All-Star goalie despite a below league-average save percentage, which definitely indicates that observers thought he had a tough job. The Hawks then barely squeaked into the playoffs by a 5 point margin in 1959 and 1960. They also had a very rate of PIM compared to league average, so unless they were fighting way more than average then that would have made it tougher for their goalie as well. There are some accounts of the Blackhawks that portray the team as being pretty run-and-gun, and I believe they are more from this period than the later stretch under Reay (who had pretty strong goaltending results during his career). I ended up putting down 1.04 (tougher than average); how you rate this period has a pretty big impact on how you view Hall's regular season career.
- Billy Reay has very good goalie stats over a very long career, and the Hawks were really good in the mid-'60s, so this indicates that Hall's numbers for those seasons were a bit team-aided. This might be a bit unfair to Hall, though, as the post-expansion league average bar would have been much easier to clear than the Original Six one.

Great post.

I just want to add my interpretation of Glenn Hall's coaching situation. I think the main difference between Rudy Pilous and Billy Reay on the 60s Hawks is that Pilous had better depth defensive players and used them better. For example, penalty killing specialists Earl Balfour and Bob Turner, and rock-solid veteran defensemen Jack Evans and Dollard St Laurent. And you can see the team scoring under Pilous was more balanced than under Reay.

Reay came in and gave more ice time to the top two lines and unleashed Pierre Pilote. Hull and Mikita started killing penalties. This worked well for much of the season but the Hawks fell off in March and lost in the playoffs every year, possibly because they overplayed their stars and didn't have the depth required for the playoffs. And their penalty kill was a weak point.

Then Reay really changed to a more defensive style around 1970, reining Hull and Mikita in. But Hall was gone by then.

I firmly believe Hall's defensive support in the playoffs was better under Pilous than under Reay. In the regular season? I don't know, if the numbers point to Reay maybe that's the way to go. But I do think Reay's approach changed to be more defensive after Hall left, so I think your numbers might be too low on Hall with Reay.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm 100% certain I'm voting Patrick Roy #1 this round. We already litigated Roy vs. Hasek here a decade ago, and I don't think the points in his favour and against Hasek have really changed since then.

21.4
14.2
14.0
13.5
9.2
7.3

... those are Roy's best GSAA in single playoffs.

14.0
11.7
11.0
2.1
1.4
1.3

...those are Hasek's best.

The goal is winning important hockey games and Stanley Cups, right? Roy not only actually did that, but his individual contributions towards that goal were clearly stronger. This is not a case of, "well, Hasek performed just as well but his team let him down..." - flat out, Roy was better in the playoffs, over a larger sample, with many more games played deeper in the playoffs. I don't know if there's another matter I feel that strongly about in this entire round. Roy is #1.

In fact, I'm becoming warmer and warmer to the idea that Hasek was a bit of a flake that you couldn't always count on. He was an exceptional talent and once upon a time I thought he was #1 all-time myself. But now I don't even have him #2. That honor goes to Jacques Plante. He's got a resume that is unassailable. Hasek's resume... well, you can assail it, a little. But Plante? He's got the individual achievements, the team achievements, the strong statistical performance throughout his career in both the regular season and playoffs, he was clearly an innovative mind and a technical master who had an immense influence on the position, and eye test guys really love what they see in him. He was truly the master.

Now, Hasek, don't feel bad, I only consider you-a scum compared to Patrick!

Yeah, you see how you-a scum.

I don't really see anyone unseating Hasek as my #3. I see a clear separation between him and the next-best of his generation, Brodeur, who got a way too easy ride this round, such a separation that I will need to fit one, probably two, original six guys in between them for emphasis. I mean really, how many times did we talk about New Jersey having the fewest PP opportunities against in the NHL more times than they didn't? Save percentage isn't everything, because shot quality is such a key factor, right? What kinds of shots are of the highest quality? Powerplay shots! And his save percentage was never really anything to write home about to start with...

Anyway, so there's Hall/Sawchuk, then Brodeur, then Tretiak, and then Dryden... I don't hate Dryden here, but I do think he has been shown to be less of a difference maker than these other guys.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Brodeur, who got a way too easy ride this round

To be fair, he's gotten 20 years of tougher-than-deserved rounds. It's about time that he doesn't get killed for something that basically every goalie is on the receiving end of at some point in their career haha

To folks at large, I'm going to try to get some video out tomorrow. I've had a lot of [stuff] going on recently that's taking longer than I thought...gotta keep the lights on though haha

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I'm 100% certain I'm voting Patrick Roy #1 this round. We already litigated Roy vs. Hasek here a decade ago, and I don't think the points in his favour and against Hasek have really changed since then.

21.4
14.2
14.0
13.5
9.2
7.3

... those are Roy's best GSAA in single playoffs.

14.0
11.7
11.0
2.1
1.4
1.3

...those are Hasek's best.

The goal is winning important hockey games and Stanley Cups, right? Roy not only actually did that, but his individual contributions towards that goal were clearly stronger. This is not a case of, "well, Hasek performed just as well but his team let him down..." - flat out, Roy was better in the playoffs, over a larger sample, with many more games played deeper in the playoffs. I don't know if there's another matter I feel that strongly about in this entire round. Roy is #1.

In fact, I'm becoming warmer and warmer to the idea that Hasek was a bit of a flake that you couldn't always count on. He was an exceptional talent and once upon a time I thought he was #1 all-time myself. But now I don't even have him #2. That honor goes to Jacques Plante. He's got a resume that is unassailable. Hasek's resume... well, you can assail it, a little. But Plante? He's got the individual achievements, the team achievements, the strong statistical performance throughout his career in both the regular season and playoffs, he was clearly an innovative mind and a technical master who had an immense influence on the position, and eye test guys really love what they see in him. He was truly the master.

I'm sorry, but viewing Hasek as a flake while Plante is unassailable is the worst kind of anti-modern player bias.

All of these quotes are from Jacques Plante by Todd Denault:

"Frustration was mounting in all corners. Plante finally came forward with his sore knee and had it X-rayed, but doctors were unable to find anything amiss. This led some in the Canadiens organization to question whether there was indeed anything physically wrong with the underachieving Plante."

"Blake's patience with Plante was starting to wear noticeably thin. The team was floundering without Plante. Yet Blake found himself in an impossible situation: he couldn't rely on Plante when he needed him more than ever. Plante's endless stretch of injuries were worrisome in their frequency and distressing in their variety."

Frank Selke: "Plante will have to win his job back. I can't understand why a man is all right on a Friday, as Plante was, and then turns up sick on a Saturday. He's got to show me that he deserves to be in the nets for this club. He's got to show me that his attitude is right."

Plante: "It would be foolish to use me unless I'm perfectly all right and traveling with the club hasn't helped. If I had stayed home, I could have been treated. As things stand now, the injury hasn't improved."

Red Fisher: "Plante has been complaining about a hip and a groin injury, which more people associated with the front office and the club's medical department have been inclined to shrug off. It is their view that injuries are something of an obsession with the goaltender, and escape hatch, so to speak, for what has amounted to several unhappy experiences in the nets in recent games."

Selke: "We got rid of Plante because he couldn't depend on him anymore. Toe Blake couldn't have taken much more without punching him on the nose. He's the best goalie I've ever had and close to the best I've ever seen. But that doesn't say he can run the hockey club."

Selke: "Jacques Plante is an extrovert who can't put his personal interests aside for the benefit of the team. In the circumstances, no matter how brilliant a goaltender he may be, it was better than he left."

Fisher: 'Lookit,' hissed Blake, 'how would you like it, Sammy, to have a goalie who doesn't know when he's gonna play. How would you like to go from city to city and never be sure you'll have a goalie on the ice? As far as I'm concerned, I can't take it anymore.'

Frank Orr: "Blake thought he was a hypochondriac and that he dreamed up things. Blake was a very macho man, a man of his time, and expected all of his players to be the same. He would get mad when guys got hurt and he thought they were loitering when they didn't come back. He would rail on about Plante. The Canadiens back then wouldn't tolerate injuries. It was a pretty cruel system. If you got hurt a second time you were gone. When you slipped a little, that was it."

Dickie Moore: "Jacques' trade wasn't much of a surprise, because of his character. He was bigger than the team, and nobody's ever bigger than the team. Ultimately, it's a team game."

Emile Francis: "I could see in building that team up that the goaltending wasn't going to be good enough. Plante wasn't the type of a goalkeeper that you'd want to build a team around. Plante had been on a winning team and he sure as hell didn't want to be on a losing team. He was a loner, he didn't mingle with the players. He was never going to be the type of goalkeeper that the players were going to work their ass off for. As a former goaltender I could pick that up right away."

"Plante was set to play the final game of the year in Los Angeles. However, he begged off, claiming that he had a twinge in his knee. Bowman and his teammates believed that the knee was merely an excuse, as Plante knew that if he sat out his goals-against average would end the season below two. With Plante unable - or unwilling - to play, Glenn Hall stepped into the breach and played the Blues' final game of the 1968-69 season, a 2-1 victory."

Bowman: "He was always conscious of his goals-against average. That was the number that meant the most to him. People called it selfish, but for me a goalie who wants to keep his goals-against down is an asset and not a detriment. He was a very studious guy."

"In the days following his seventh Vezina win, Jacques Plante blasked in the praise and the accolades from the media and the fans, but in the St. Louis Blues dressing room one would be hard pressed to find a player less popular with his teammates. By sitting out, Plante had ensured that his goals-against average finished at 1.96, but he had paid a price for it."

Scotty Bowman: 'The players were upset with Plante, so they put all kinds of white tape around his luggage and painted a big red cross on it. Somebody wrote on the tape , 'Win #76 for Jacques.' He came down to the room about two minutes before the game was over and he was upset the players felt that way. That was on a Saturday. We went home the next day to start the playoffs on Wednesday. On Monday Plante came in and told me he wouldn't be able to play. By that time I had had it with him, I guess, so we went out of town to a hotel and I told him to stay in St. Louis. The day of the game we're getting off the bus at the Arena just as Jacques was pulling into the parking lot. Camille Henry, and I give him a lot of credit for this, came to me and said, 'I know how you feel. But he's not coming back, Scotty, unless we make a fuss over him, make him feel wanted. I know everybody's cheesed off with him, but I'm telling you I know what he's like. He'll coast right through the playoffs unless we appeal to his pride.' I thought that was a pretty good idea, so I talked to Plante and asked him how he felt. He had received special treatment that day for his knee at the clinic run by the football clinics. I tried to sympathize with him and that seemed to pep him up. He told me that he thought he could dress as a back-up that night but he still didn't think he could play."

"Much as he had in St. Louis with Glenn Hall, Plante consulted with his coach and Bruce Gamble, the backup goalie, about the playing schedule, trying to maximize the Leafs' chances for success. It was an arrangement that drew a fair share of criticism in hockey circles, as some felt that Plante was choosing his spots and avoiding many of the league's better teams in an effort to pad his own stats."

I'm posting all this not to run down Jacques Plante (who I also rate very highly), but to point out that team management is often overly demanding and far from always right about things, and also to show very clearly that Hasek seems to get uniquely picked on here for some of his eccentrities.

 

[BM67]

Montreal had the fewest PKs in the league during Roy's time there, and 70s top 100 list has Roy and 4 players that Roy won Cups with listed ahead of Brodeur, but Brodeur gets dinged for an easy ride?

 

[MadArcand]

I'm 100% certain I'm voting Patrick Roy #1 this round. We already litigated Roy vs. Hasek here a decade ago, and I don't think the points in his favour and against Hasek have really changed since then.

21.4
14.2
14.0
13.5
9.2
7.3

... those are Roy's best GSAA in single playoffs.

14.0
11.7
11.0
2.1
1.4
1.3

...those are Hasek's best.

The goal is winning important hockey games and Stanley Cups, right? Roy not only actually did that, but his individual contributions towards that goal were clearly stronger. This is not a case of, "well, Hasek performed just as well but his team let him down..." - flat out, Roy was better in the playoffs, over a larger sample, with many more games played deeper in the playoffs. I don't know if there's another matter I feel that strongly about in this entire round. Roy is #1.

Not a fan of this logic.

21.4 - Desjardins/Odelein/Brisebois/Daigneault on D, Carbonneau/Muller/Keane up front as notable defensive stalwarts. Meh D, solid defensive forwards.
14.2 - Chelios/Robinson/Svoboda/Ludwig on D, Gainey/Carbonneau/Skrudland/Keane/Walter up front. Ridiculously good team defensively.
14.0 - Robinson/Chelios/Ludwig/Green on D, Gainey/Carbonneau/Skrudland up front. Another defensively stacked team.
13.5 - Blake/Bourque/Foote/Klemm on D, Yelle/Reid/Podein up front. Stacked D, solid defensive forwards.
9.2 - Ozolinsh/Foote/Krupp/Lefebvre on D, Ricci/Yelle/Keane/Murray up front. That's a pretty good forward group and decent D.
7.3 - Ozolinsh/Foote/Lefebvre/Gusarov on D, Ricci/Yelle/Keane/Corbet up front. Still rather decent all around.


14.0 - Zhitnik/Woolley/Warrener/McKee on D, Peca/Juneau/Brown up front. Forwards look good, defense is mediocre to meh at best.
11.7 - Zhitnik/Woolley/Shannon/Smehlik on D, Peca/Brown up front. Thin at forward, pretty bad D.
11.0 - Bodger/Smehlik/Boucher/Muni on D, Wood/Hannan up front. Abomination.
2.1 - Lidstrom/Chelios/Schneider/Markov on D, Zetterberg/Datsyuk/Maltby/Draper/Cleary up front. Excellence.
1.4 - Zhitnik/Woolley/Patrick/Warrener on D, Gilmour/Brown up front. Very thin at forward, mediocre D.
1.3 - Lidstrom/Chelios/Duchesne/Olausson on D, Yzerman/Fedorov/Draper/Maltby/Datsyuk up front. Quite excellent.

That's a gross difference in defensive support right until Hasek got so old that Roy was already retired. Aside from the excellent '93, Roy was always on comparatively defensively stacked teams. If Brodeur gets dinged for playing on defensively great teams with defensive stalwarts, why doesn't the same apply to Roy?