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

[Dennis Bonvie]

From an outside perspective, this is all very informative but at some point it becomes redundant. Why is the debate still going on? No one is changing their vote at this point. Move onto the next round already.

There's zero chance the voting doesn't go:
Roy
Hasek
Plante
Sawchuck

In order...the more interesting rounds are coming up, this is just a dress rehearsal. I'm more interested in the case for Cujo or Belfour coming up than any of this.

Someone requested an extra week of discussion before voting. Others agreed.

Seemed very unnecessary in retrospect.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Absolutely, yes.

Hundreds?

In any case, if we're just going to defer to the, whatever, 15 writers whose job is not evaluating goaltending...then close the project down now, in my opinion. I'm not saying don't take any other opinions, clearly that's going to happen, clearly there's some value there.

Just in short...
Hall's 1957 - didn't win the 1st half of the year. Narrowly won the second half (though our voting is incomplete).
1958 - decent 1H win, lost 2H to the guy that was close in 1H. 108-104 victory.
1960 - 3rd in 1H, but Sawchuk didn't play in 2H, so there was no vote siphoning...allowing Hall to win 106-105.
1962 - 3rd in 1H, but Bower got no votes in 2H allowing Hall to work his way to a 2AS.
1963 - Tied Sawchuk for 1H.
1964 - Dominant 1H, got dummied in 2H by Charlie Hodge.
1966 - Lost 2H to Gump Worsley...
1967 - Was 3rd in 1H, 3rd in 2H, but because of the nature of this style of voting, he narrowly beats out DeJordy for the 2AS.
1969 - Got a 1AS narrowly, with just 39 decisions on a team where Plante had better numbers.

There's a reason why folks do interviews and not just read a resume. Saying that anyone is taking a "subjective angle" (which people use pejoratively, which is incorrect), but then leaning on the lack of transparency, incomplete voting records by a bunch of subjective writers that were generally associated with certain teams and possibly buddy buddy with some of the people involved here is just bizarre.

Just because it's on a piece of paper doesn't make it objective.

Watch...IQ | Skill | Skate | Compete | Misc.
Plante 9 | 8 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8 | 7
Hall 8 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 7

(Not that I'm married to those numbers) - objectively by the numbers, Plante is better haha

But yeah, taking goofy things like 1H/2H voting that can be separated by a vote or two at pure face value and then applying it across eras and generations is a lower form of the boogey-man "subjectivity" in my opinion.

Gee, I wonder who we all should defer to?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Gee, I wonder who we all should defer to?

No one person, certainly. Otherwise, why did we summon a panel together? We could have just posted 70s list and CG's list and your list and then we could all run up to the corkboard like how you got grades in 1980's college movies haha

 

[MXD]

Yeah, I think there was a reason why Hasek above Brodeur is cannon. It's a case of "There's a question to be asked, but the answer's there".

I have super strong opinions on Hasek, Plante and Roy being Top-3 . Hall or Brodeur 4th, can live with either of these (I clearly have an opinion, it's just... weak). Anyone else would be, as far as I'm concerned, a mistake.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Someone requested an extra week of discussion before voting. Others agreed.

Seemed very unnecessary in retrospect.

Only if people chose not to take advantage of the time...I know that my ballot had some places changed during this time. There's obviously a lot to consider and I'm not sure where it will land.

Unrelated, "Sawchuk after 1955" the below the line stuff that might not show on H-R...

1956 - 1 Hart vote, 4th in 1H voting (incomplete 2H voting).
1957 - Dominant 1H win for 1AS (67-45 over Plante). Quit. Finished 3rd overall.
1958 - Zippo.
1959 - 3rd in Hart voting 1H. 1st goalie. (Bathgate 67, Howe 36, Sawchuk 31). 1H win for 1AS.
1960 - 7th in Hart voting (7 points) - 2nd goalie. Likely 1st goalie in 1H Hart voting (Hall had 0 Hart votes in 1H). Narrow 2nd place finish (68-65 to Plante) in 1H 1AS voting. Shutout in 2H to fall to 3-AS.
1961 - Scant 1H votes (2)
1962 - Just 43 games, nothin'
1963 - 1H Hart win. Tied 1AS in 1H. Distant 3rd in 2H voting.
1964 - Weak 2H Hart votes (3, basically same as Bower and Hall). 9 1H for AST. That's only 5th place in 1H
1965 - Balanced (10-13) ballot for 1H/2H. Narrowly 5th (23) behind Hall (27).
1966 - Nothin' for 27 games.
1967 - Similar but lesser version of 1965. Finished 5th with a (5-4) card. Only Giacomin and Hall really got votes in both halves. Very unbalanced year.
1968 - Weak 2H votes (3).

For folks that eyeball incomplete H-R records, it looks like Sawchuk has nothing going on after 1955.

But compared to guys like Tony Esposito, who has all these scant votes, they get counted as these 5 and 6 and whatever AS votes...it looks like he was relevant and Sawchuk wasn't. I'm not sure that that is necessarily a fair data viz.

 

[MXD]

But compared to guys like Tony Esposito, who has all these scant votes, they get counted as these 5 and 6 and whatever AS votes...it looks like he was relevant and Sawchuk wasn't. I'm not sure that that is necessarily a fair data viz.

It's a good thing we aren't comparing Sawchuk and Esposito.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's a good thing we aren't comparing Sawchuk and Esposito.

We aren't. But there is a lot of talk about "nothing after 1955" for Sawchuk, while others might look at "consistent longevity" or whatever for other goalies simply because of inconsistent data visualization. Just using it to stand up the qualification. Naturally, it doesn't apply to most goalies at this level.

 

[The Pale King]

Reading back through the thread now, apologies I didn't contribute after my one (relatively useless) comment) on the first page. I was using an E-sim on my phone and couldn't navigate beyond the hfboards main page without running into a "400ginx" error message. Frustrating. I didn't have computer access for the last 16 days or so.

 

[DN28]

Absolutely, yes.

Hundreds?

In any case, if we're just going to defer to the, whatever, 15 writers whose job is not evaluating goaltending...then close the project down now, in my opinion. I'm not saying don't take any other opinions, clearly that's going to happen, clearly there's some value there.

Just in short...
Hall's 1957 - didn't win the 1st half of the year. Narrowly won the second half (though our voting is incomplete).
1958 - decent 1H win, lost 2H to the guy that was close in 1H. 108-104 victory.
1960 - 3rd in 1H, but Sawchuk didn't play in 2H, so there was no vote siphoning...allowing Hall to win 106-105.
1962 - 3rd in 1H, but Bower got no votes in 2H allowing Hall to work his way to a 2AS.
1963 - Tied Sawchuk for 1H.
1964 - Dominant 1H, got dummied in 2H by Charlie Hodge.
1966 - Lost 2H to Gump Worsley...
1967 - Was 3rd in 1H, 3rd in 2H, but because of the nature of this style of voting, he narrowly beats out DeJordy for the 2AS.
1969 - Got a 1AS narrowly, with just 39 decisions on a team where Plante had better numbers.

There's a reason why folks do interviews and not just read a resume. Saying that anyone is taking a "subjective angle" (which people use pejoratively, which is incorrect), but then leaning on the lack of transparency, incomplete voting records by a bunch of subjective writers that were generally associated with certain teams and possibly buddy buddy with some of the people involved here is just bizarre.

Just because it's on a piece of paper doesn't make it objective.

Watch...IQ | Skill | Skate | Compete | Misc.
Plante 9 | 8 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 8 | 7
Hall 8 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 7

(Not that I'm married to those numbers) - objectively by the numbers, Plante is better haha

But yeah, taking goofy things like 1H/2H voting that can be separated by a vote or two at pure face value and then applying it across eras and generations is a lower form of the boogey-man "subjectivity" in my opinion.

Not every company does interviews when they got a resumé from someone with significantly more experience than all other applicants.

Hall had more 1st all-stars than Plante and Sawchuk combined.

Talking about the "nerves" and how hard it was playing in the O6 era.. Hall did not have breaks, he played whenever he was expected to play. If people want to prefer Roy / Brodeur over Hašek due to being healthier, maybe they should also prefer Hall over Plante / Sawchuk for the same reason. Hall was more reliable than either Plante or Sawchuk on day to day basis from his 1st NHL season till his last. Hall didn't have knee or elbow injuries, didn't face asthma or mental illnesses, depressions etc.

Having said that, I'm not married to that argument either. I admitted the all-star argument for Hall is "hardly convincing", so I'm not going to defend it more. All it does that it shows Hall was relevant for a long time, season by season, for multiple teams in two different decades filled with great goaltending talent.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hall had more 1st all-stars than Plante and Sawchuk combined.

If my math is correct, he is literally two ballots away - across a 20 year span - as being even with Plante. Which doesn't even bite into the 39-decision one where he was worse statistically on the same team as Plante in '69.

It's bandied about like it's some stone cold lock of a thing. But it's a hanging chad away from it being a completely different narrative. A vote or two. But yet it somehow gets this untouchable weight...but that's not how the people thought at the time. You're taking a very, very scattered opinion, skimming the very top, and applying the binary result as some gospel.

Now, if Hall was out there killing everyone for years and years fine...but winning 106-105 or whatever and proclaiming "more than everyone combined!!!" isn't representing this somewhat questionable data in a legitimate way.

If win-loss and binary aspects are so important to you, I'd hate to see what that means for Hall's playoff record...or Hasek's...

But yes, Hall was relevant...more than relevant...downright impactful for a long time, that's why he's up for discussion. No question. But like @jigglysquishy I think has asked..."who names Hall as the best ever?" Sawchuk gets that press. Plante gets that press. Does Hall? Doesn't sound like a guy that was better at anything than Plante and Sawchuk combined or what have you.

And again, if binary victories win the day...Hall falls well out of the top 5, of course.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

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.

Really appreciate your feedback. I think I'm almost definitely giving Hall too much credit for the Pilous years (especially post-1960) and not enough for the Reay years.

I know that these ratings assume every coach was the same for their whole careers and that team strength doesn't vary, which isn't realistic, but the results look meaningful in aggregate to me as a rough baseline (although I'm certainly far from the most knowledgeable poster here when it concerns historical NHL coaches).

Anything stand out here as seeming majorly out of place? These are mostly the best guys ever, no?

Top Coach Ratings, Min. 500+ GP (1948-49 to 2023-24):

Rank	Coach	GP	Rating
1​	Tommy Ivan	503​	0.78​
2​	Al Arbour	1607​	0.88​
3​	Pat Burns	1019​	0.90​
4​	Billy Reay	1102​	0.90​
5​	Bruce Cassidy	673​	0.90​
6​	Jacques Lemaire	1262​	0.91​
7​	Fred Shero	734​	0.91​
8​	Scotty Bowman	2141​	0.91​
9​	Punch Imlach	889​	0.92​
10​	Dick Irvin	889​	0.92​
11​	Roger Neilson	1000​	0.92​
12​	John Muckler	648​	0.92​
13​	Claude Julien	1274​	0.92​
14​	Bob Pulford	829​	0.93​
15​	Toe Blake	914​	0.93​
16​	Randy Carlyle	924​	0.94​
17​	Barry Trotz	1812​	0.94​
18​	Duane Sutter	1479​	0.95​
19​	Alain Vigneault	1363​	0.95​
20​	Michel Therrien	814​	0.96​

And the flipside (I'll lower the cutoff since these ones tend to get fired more quickly):

Bottom 10 Coach Ratings (min. 400 GP):

Rank	Coach	GP	Rating
1​	Fred Glover	424​	1.15​
2​	Guy Boucher	423​	1.11​
3​	Bill Peters	438​	1.09​
4​	Milt Schmidt	770​	1.09​
5​	Tom McVie	462​	1.08​
6​	Jack Capuano	483​	1.08​
7​	Ron Low	505​	1.08​
8​	Sid Abel	964​	1.08​
9​	Don Cherry	480​	1.07​
10​	Dallas Eakins	404​	1.07​

 

[BM67]

Since it's about names without any context, he did beat Billy Smith by 31 points.

Context? You mean like comparing Smith's 87 SV% to Roy's 88 SV%? Smith 88 is higher than Roy 87 too.