HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 12

[Dr John Carlson]

Procedure

• In this vote, you will be presented with 17 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to both @Dr John Carlson and @Professor What. That means seven names out of these fifteen will be left unranked on your ballot.
• Use the same private message thread every week rather than starting a new PM
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top 5 players will be added to the final list (unless a very large break exists at the spot between 4&5 (or 3&4!), or the break between 5&6 is minimal)
• Lists of players eligible for voting will grow as the project continues
• Voting threads will continue until we have added 60 names to the list, for a total of 12 voting threads
• This is the final vote!

Eligible Voters

• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 80 goaltenders (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated in the final ranking
• These voters are: @nabby12, @overpass, @frisco, @Professor What, @DN28, @jigglysquishy, @tony d, @rmartin65, @Vilica, @bobholly39, @The Pale King, @blogofmike, @Dr John Carlson, @MXD, @Michael Farkas, @ContrarianGoaltender, @VanIslander, @seventieslord, @Weztex

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Please refrain from excessive use of the 'laughing' reaction to indicate disagreement / hold grudges
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project
• Anybody may participate in the discussion, whether they submitted a list or not

House Rules

• Any attempts to derail a discussion thread with disrespect to old-time hockey will be met with frontier justice
• Take a drink when someone mentions the number of hockey registrations in a given era
• Finish your drink when someone mentions that wins are a team stat

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, February 7th at midnight and continue through Sunday, February 9th at 11:59 PM Eastern time. I will release the results of the vote the morning of Monday, February 10th, at which point the top 60 will be complete.

Vote 12 Candidates

• Lorne Chabot
• Gerry Cheevers
• Roger Crozier
• Vladimir Dzurilla
• Ron Hextall
• Braden Holtby
• Olaf Kolzig
• Gerry McNeil
• Andy Moog
• Tom Paton
• Pete Peeters
• Chico Resch
• Al Rollins
• Juuse Saros
• Tim Thomas
• Mike Vernon
• Tomas Vokoun

Click to read more...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Goalie	Times	Share
1	Martin Brodeur	15	5.40
2	Dominik Hasek	11	4.76
3	Patrick Roy	17	4.63
4	Connor Hellebucyk	5	2.63
5	Ed Belfour	11	2.51
6	Pekka Rinne	5	2.12
7	Andrei Vasilevsky	6	2.05
8	Tom Barrasso	7	1.98
9	Sergei Bobrovsky	6	1.97
10	Henrik Lundqvist	10	1.93
11	Grant Fuhr	8	1.84
12	Braden Holtby	3	1.68
13	Roberto Luongo	9	1.66
14	Tim Thomas	3	1.55
15	John Vanbiesbrouck	9	1.52
16	Tuukka Rask	5	1.50
17	Miikka Kiprusoff	7	1.44
18	Carey Price	7	1.40
19	Evgeni Nabokov	6	1.23
20	Curtis Joseph	8	1.02
21	Pete Peeters	3	1.02
22	Igor Shesterkin	3	1.02

Bolded are eligible. Italicized are inducted. Holtby, Thomas, and Peeters are the only names to remain.

Hextall is at 0.86, Kolzig and Vernon are at 0.84, Moog is at 0.56, Saros is at 0.42, Vokoun is at 0.15.

Times top 3
Thomas - 2 (1,1)
Holtby - 2 (1,2)
Kolzig- 1 (1)
Hextall - 1 (1)
Peeters - 1 (1)
Vernon - 1 (2)
Saros - 1 (3)
Moog - 1 (3)
Vokoun - 0

All-Star Team Finishes (1945 onwards)

Player	First	Second	Third	Total	Weighted Total
Tim Thomas	2​	0​	0​	2​	10​
Braden Holtby	1​	1​	0​	2​	8​
Roger Crozier	1​	0​	0​	1​	5​
Pete Peeters	1	0	0	1	5
Olaf Kolzig	1​	0​	0​	1​	5​
Ron Hextall	1	0	0	1	5
Chico Resch	0​	1​	1​	1​	4​
Mike Vernon	0​	1​	0​	1​	3​
Gerry McNeil	0	1	0	1	3
Al Rollins	0​	0​	2​	2​	2​
Andy Moog	0	0	2	2	2
Gerry Cheevers	0​	0​	1​	1​	1​
Tomas Vokoun	0	0	0	0	0
Juuse Saros	0	0	0	0	0

Formatting is awful, but that's this site now.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, at least we don't have to talk about Giacomin any more haha

Holtby and Saros jump out very positively here.

I'd like to take a deeper dive on Gerry McNeil. I don't think he's as well known as he should be because he chose to pursue another career.

I've seen a couple people pine for Peeters and Vokoun recently, I had them hovering around 60. I'd be interested in someone wants to make a case.

Andy Moog and Ron Hextall? Those are really bad names, in my opinion. Particularly the latter.

 

[VanIslander]

Tom Paton!

Finally.

 

[rmartin65]

Tom Paton

The hardest part about discussing Tom Paton’s candidacy is that coverage of hockey in the 1880s and early-1890s was sparse. We simply don’t have the amount of quotes that we have for later seasons, making it that much more difficult to get a good picture of who the stars were. Another complicating factor is that, with few exceptions, seasons were done on a challenge basis, which was basically make-it-take-it; the team who won the previous season was the champ at the start of the season, and teams challenged them for the title. The team that won that next game would be the current champ, and that would continue until the season ended. Accordingly, teams played wildly different amounts of games. As the best team of the time period, Montreal AAA played by far the most games, meaning we have more coverage of Montreal AAA players in comparison to players from other teams.

Anyway, Tom Paton was the man between the poles for Montreal AAA from 1885-1893, which was one of the longest careers among players who debuted in the 1880s. Among goalkeepers, I believe that 9 seasons represents the highmark. Counting his time in the AHAC, so-called “exhibition” games against regular AHAC opponents, pre-AHAC games, and Montreal Carnival games, I have Paton playing in 59 games, which, again, is the top figure among 1880s goalies according to the data I have compiled.

Even though I don’t have a lot of quotes for Paton, so I don’t think it will take too long for people to read through them, here my quick pro/con list:

Pros:
Longevity

• As I mentioned above, he played for a long time for a goalkeeper who debuted in the 1880s. I think the closest goalkeeper to his 9 seasons played is Robert Jones who only played 1 season in the 1880s) with 7.
• Paton also dominates games played, though, as I mentioned, that stat is skewed by the structure of most of these seasons. I have him with 59 games, with the aforementioned Jones again being in second with 37 (though only 4 of these were in the 1880s).

Championships

• Montreal AAA didn’t start off as the top dog, but they would win the AHAC for the last 6 years of Paton’s career (and the first year after Paton retired). The group seems to value goalies with championship pedigree, and Paton certainly has that.

GAA

• I dislike GAA- especially in the years where goalies served their own penalties- but I recognize that others still value it. And if you do, certainly Paton has to be high on your list. Since Wiki only covers the AHAC years/games, here is where Paton ranks
  • 1887: second, after Tom Arnton
  • 1888: second, after Robert Scanlan
  • 1889: first
  • 1890: first
  • 1891: first
  • 1892: third, after Albert Morel and W. Cameron
  • 1893: first

Cons:
I am skeptical of dynasty goalies. I’m not saying that they can’t be a reason for the dynasty, or even the reason for the dynasty, but I am not going to just say that a goalie was great because he won a bunch of championships. Based on my readings of the game scans, Paton was not the primary reason for Montreal AAA’s success. This is further supported by Montreal AAA winning the AHAC again the year after Paton retired.

I don’t have quotes in the game summaries calling Paton the best/greatest/etc. He gets credit for good games/plays and he gets some praise in the 1930s, but it is a little worrisome that there is nothing like that in the summaries.. While I agree that is likely influenced by the lack of coverage I mentioned earlier, I do have quotes from other goalies in the 1884-1894 timeframe getting that level of praise.

• In 1888 William Norris (Montreal Crystals- who I see Wiki has as “Jack”, though I have game reports listing him “W. Norris” and a death notice from the 1 December 1890 Montreal Star stating that Mr. Wm. Norris had died of typhoid fever. In this notice, Mr. Norris was noted to have been “one of the leading members of the Crystal Hockey team”. I do have a J. Norris playing for Montreal HC in 1898, which is where I believe the confusion comes from) received the following praise: “Norris seemed determined to cut out the unsavory notoriety predecessors of his have obtained for unfair play. His best place is decidedly in goal. He is one of the best men we have between the posts, and as such should be kept there.”
• In 1893 H. Patton (Quebec HC) received the following praise: “... Patton proved that he was still entitled to be called the best goal keeper in Canada”
• In 1894 Gordie Lewis (Montreal Victorias) was referred to as “probably the best in his position in Canada”.
• In 1894 Albert Morel received the following praise: “In Morel behind him [Weldy Young] he had the old stonewall goaler of the Ottawas, one of the best in Canada”

1885 (Pre-AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 5-0. Paton played all five games.

“Paton, in goal for the champions, however, was a tower of strength and time after time raised the prospects of his side as he swiped the puck from its dangerous position”

1886 (Pre-AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 4-4. Tom Paton played 6 of the 8 games; Montreal HC lost both games Paton missed.

“After resuming, the chief features of the game, prior to ‘half time’, which was shortly after called, was the brilliant play of Cameron, apart from his decidedly questionable bodychecking; and, the smart goal keeping of Paton, who had to do all he knew to stop some nasty shots by the last named player”

1887 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 3-2. Paton only started 1 of the games, the primary starter appearing to be William Hutchi(n)son.

No noteworthy quotes

1888 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 6-1, winning the AHAC championship. Paton played all 7 games.

“The defence work of Cameron and Stewart was worth going a long way to see. Very little escaped Cameron’s attention, and what little did escape was promptly handled by Stewart. Paton between the flags was the same reliable stop he always is. He did not have a great deal to do, but while he was engaged he had to hustle, and hustle he did when endeavoring to clear his goals”

“The invincible Paton”

“Campbell retaliated by another grand run clean through every one of his opponents, who he either knocked over or cleverly dodged by the excellence of his head work, till at last he was opposite Paton. Then came his chance to ‘pass’ but preferring to score off his own stick he shot at goal; puck being magnificently stopped by that phenomenal goal-keeper Paton”

1889 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 6-2, winning the AHAC challenge series. Paton played all 8 games.

“...both goal keepers had their hands full, Paton particularly, who had several very narrow shaves, but the veteran never lost his head”

“Tom Paton made good work between goals and saved time and again”

1890 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 9-0, winning the AHAC challenge series. Paton played in all 9 games.

“It was not unfrequently that ‘Tommy’ Paton made a stop that ‘brought down the house’, to use a fan expression”

“Time and again Cameron, Stewart or Paton did some remarkable work. The latter, especially in goal, seemed able to divine exactly where and when a left was going to drop, or where a shoot was coming from, and the result was that the only way to get the puck through the Montreal goals was to work it close in and then rush it through, for give Paton half a show to see the puck and he was certain to stop it”

1891 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 7-1, winning the AHAC challenge series. Paton played in 7 of the games.

“Paton was cool and collected and time and again stopped shots which seemed to be impossible”

1892 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal HC went 2-4-1, but still won the AHAC challenge series by beating Ottawa HC in the final game of the year. Paton played in 6 of the games.

“Of their usual seven, Paton, the famous goal-keeper…”

“The Montreal team, as will be seen, was composed mainly of crack lacrosse players, Paton, Cameron, McNaughton and Hodgson, beautiful skaters, all of the noted for their agility, display the best of judgment, were in their best form, and made up such a powerful combination”

1893 (AHAC)

Spoiler

Basic Information: Montreal AAA went 8-1, winning the AHAC championship. Paton played in all 9 games.

“On the other side much credit is due to Paton for his clever work in goal and many thought that it was due to his energy that the Montreal colors did not fall.”

“There is cool-headed and invincible Tom Paton in goals. Stewart who can lift the puck the full length of the rink at point, with the redoubtable Allan Cameron at cover-point”

Post Career Comments and Notes

Spoiler

1894: “The Montrealers have a first-class goalkeeper still, but he is not Paton” [Note: this is said about Herb Collins, who replaced Paton in goal for Montreal HC after Paton’s retirement]

1928: From a “gentleman of prominence, both in business and sport”: ‘I suppose it is next to impossible at this stage to make the goalkeepers stand up and penalize them for falling down, but I think that if the outrageous width of the pads of the goalers were reduced, and if their flanges were abolished, it would help a great deal towards having more open games and more scoring.’

I have followed hockey almost from its beginning, and in those early days, when noted men like the late Tom Paton played in goals, all they wore was an extra pair of trousers or drawers, and although their legs were sometimes black and blue after a match, no one minded that, and no one was the worse for it’ (Montreal Star, 25 February 1928)

1935: “One of the best goaltenders he [Allan Cameron] ever saw was his team-mate, Tom Paton. Paton played in the days when pads were unknown and no bigger stick than the one carried by his team-mates up forward. But he was a wizard, Allan Cameron says, at stopping shots from players, who even in those early days, could fire in the puck like a bullet” (The Gazette, 3 January 1935)

1935: “In the field of sport, Tom Paton’s achievements were no less noteworthy. He excelled at both hockey and lacrosse, and although the ice game has changed much since his day, old timers rate him one of the finest goaltenders that ever lived” (The Gazette, 8 January 1935)

 

[overpass]

Here's a post in the preliminary round I made about Gerry McNeil's career.

Post in thread 'HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Preliminary Discussion Thread'

Aug 28, 2024

Gerry McNeil - NHL and minor league career

Gerry McNeil played only 4 NHL seasons for Montreal in the Original 6 era. But he was a high level minor league goaltender for another dozen seasons, often considered among the best or the best outside the NHL. In a larger NHL he would certainly have had a longer career.

Here's a review of his career, especially the minor leagues which aren't documented so well. Overall, I would assess him as being an elite non-NHL goalie for 4 seasons before he made the NHL, and for 5 seasons after.

Pre-NHL career
Highlights - 3 straight QSHL MVPs...

• overpass

• 
• 

I rate McNeil over his contemporary Al Rollins. While Rollins played more NHL seasons, most of them were on the bottom feeding Hawks with no competition or expectations. McNeil played for an elite Cup contending organization, and had to compete for a starting job against either Bill Durnan or Jacques Plante for his entire career. McNeil was outstanding in the playoffs and Rollins gets an incomplete grade. And McNeil was a much bigger minor league star than Rollins.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Post-1980 AS

Player	First	Second	Third	Fourth	Fifth	Total	Weighted Total
Tim Thomas	2	0	0	0	0	2	10
Braden Holtby	1	1	0	1	0	3	8.5
Pete Peeters	1	0	0	2	2	5	6.5
Ron Hextall	1	0	0	1	1	3	5.75
Olaf Kolzig	1	0	0	0	1	2	5.25
Mike Vernon	0	1	0	0	2	3	3.5
Andy Moog	0	0	2	1	3	6	3.25
Juuse Saros	0	0	0	3	0	3	1.5
Tomas Vokoun	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.25

Thomas is again on an island. Very few goes are left with any 1st AS selections, and he has two. But those are his only finishes in top 9. It's just a bizarre stat line.

Holtby looks good. I'd be surprised if he doesn't go this round.

Lots of guys with a spike season here, or several middling years.

Vokoun doesn't look good by any of the metrics I've posted.

 

[Professor What]

My initial impressions of Paton and Vokoun are positive, the latter from having watched him, and feeling that he was always a solid, though not spectacular, goalie.

Paton kind of feels like the original top guy, and I feel like that should be acknowledged in some way. I think there were plenty of goalies that needed to go before him, but a spot on the list feels appropriate to me, nonetheless. Maybe I'm falling into the trap of cutting things up by eras here, but it seems to me that 1800s hockey should have some representation on a list this size. I mean, I get why someone like Paton wouldn't make a top 40 list, but we're dealing with a top 60 where some of the names that have come up are more questionable than I would have suspected before we started this project.

McNeil intrigues me, but there's so little there. I'm not interested in "punishing" someone for making a perfectly valid choice, but the fact that there are a lot of guys with more meat on the bone doesn't get past me. I appreciate what he was bracketed by and competed against though. I see him kind of like Saros, and while I wouldn't be upset with Saros making this list, he feels more like a one day, but not yet guy to me.

Peeters... this one's interesting. There's plenty of longevity, but it's not overly impressive play outside of one year. But, man, does that one year shine brightly. I'm sure some might argue for Thomas here, but I think Peeters, in 1982-83 might have the best single season of anyone up for discussion now. I think we can get too hung up on numbers, yes, but those numbers are spectacular that year. Like, they were numbers that shouldn't have been possible in the era that he put them up.

As for the other newcomers, Moog, I'm pretty well neutral on. Don't love him, don't hate him. Hextall though, please no... Yes, he had that rookie year, but what else is there? I suspect Thomas is about to make this list, though it won't be because of me voting him high. It's just a matter of looking at the last round's results. But to me, Hextall and Thomas are too similar, though I'll at least grant Thomas that he had 2 seasons that don't make sense. Moog, I just don't think there's quite enough room for, though I wouldn't pitch a fit over him making it. Hextall, I simply don't think should make the list.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Every Gerry McNeil playoff game

1950 Playoffs
Bill Durnan played the first three games as the Rangers took a 3-0 series lead

Habs win 3-2 in OT
Habs 1 Rangers 3

Toledo Blade · ‎Apr 5, 1950

Both goalies played thrilling hockey for their respective clubs.

Earlier in the day, Durnan requested that McNeil play claiming that he (McNeil) was not at his best and had not felt right since his injury a month ago in Chicago.

Rangers win 3-0
Habs 1 Rangers 4

No relevant comments, but Rayner gets high praise.

1951 Playoffs
Habs beat Red Wings 3-2 in quadruple OT
Habs 1 Wings 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 28, 1951

They outshot the Canadiens 62 to 42 and only the brilliant work of Gerry McNeil in the net had kept Canadiens in the picture.

Just before the third period ended Sawchuk made a game-saving stop from Richard and McNeil duplicated the feat at the expense of Howe early in the overtime. Then McNeil made the most spectacular stop of the night on a breakaway by Lindsay.

McNeil continued his magnificent work in the Canadien net in the second overtime period when he managed to get in front of a drive by Abel.

Habs win 1-0 in triple OT
Habs 2 Red Wings 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 30, 1951

McNeil....another outstanding performance

McNeil Stars

But once again GErry McNeil played every bit a prominent a part in the win as the brilliant Richard. He was terrific again as he earned his shutout. Terry Sawchuk also turned in a great game, but Gerry has graded him in both contests.

George Gee gave Gerry McNeil a very busy time and Gerry had to be brilliant to keep him from scoring.

Red Wings win 2-0
Shots: Habs 24 Red Wings 31
Habs 2 Red Wings 1

No relevant comments, but Sawchuk gets lots of praise.

Red Wings win 4-1
Shots: Habs 23 Red Wings 28
Habs 2 Red Wings 2

No relevant comments

Habs win 5-2
Shots: Habs 25 Red Wings 25
Habs 3 Red Wings 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 6, 1951

Gerry McNeil was back in form and definitely shaded Terry Sawchuk.

Habs win 3-2

Habs 4 Red Wings 2

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 9, 1951

All the Habitants played well, but Gerry McNeil was a big factor in the victory. He was at his best when the pressure was hottest. Butch Bouchard and Doug Harvey gave Gerry a lot of protection while the forwards all went at top speed.

McNeil gets pretty hefty praise here and might be the most praised Hab. Richard, Geoffrion, and Harvey get lots of praise too. The media definitely plays up the Sawchuk/McNeil battle.

1951 Stanley Cup Final
Leafs win 3-2 in OT
Habs 0 Leafs 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 12, 1951

McNeil was right back to the form he displayed in the recent Detroit series and kept Canadiens in it until Smith tallied the the clincher. He got great protection from Butch Bouchard and Jim MacPherson, but the Canadiens forwards weren't wheeling as fast as the Leafs.

Habs win 3-2 in OT
Habs 1 Leafs 1

The Calgary Herald · ‎Apr 16, 1951 ·

If Montreal wants to give Maurice Richard the keys to the city and throw in Mount Royal as well it's no more than 14,567 Toronto hockey fans think he deserves.

Although a typical Rocket-like swoosh settled the issue, the Leafs had to contend as well with spectacular goaltending by rookie Gerry McNeil.

Leafs win 2-1 in OT
Habs 1 Leafs 2

No relevant comments

Leafs win 3-2 in OT
Habs 1 Leafs 3

The Windsor Daily Star · ‎Apr 20, 1951

[Toronto] were robbed by Goalie McNeil on several other fine chances.

Leafs win 3-2 in OT
Habs 1 Leafs 4

The Calgary Herald · ‎Apr 23, 1951

In the decisive game, a spectacular goaltending performance by little Gerry McNeil forced the Leafs to come from behind twice to tie the score.

The 146-pound McNeil... The cool rooki gave an unbelievale display of puck stopping.

He's the most praised Hab this series and the most praised overall this playoff. Richard and Bouchard get praise too.


1952 Playoffs
Habs beat Bruins 5-1
Habs 1 Bruins 0

No relevant comments

Habs win 4-0
Shots: Habs 28 Bruins 30
Habs 2 Bruins 0

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 28, 1952

McNeil, who gave a marvellous display of netminding to register his shutout.

Gerry McNeil was the difference.

Bruins win 4-1
Habs 2 Bruins 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Mar 31, 1952

McNeil was good in the Habitant's net, but the breaks went against him.

Bruins win 3-2
Habs 2 Bruins 2

No relevant comments

Bruins win 1-0
Habs 2 Bruins 3

No relevant comments

Habs win 3-2 in OT
Habs 3 Bruins 3

No relevant comments

Habs win 3-1
Habs 4 Bruins 3

The Windsor Daily Star · ‎Apr 9, 1952

McNeil's sensational display in the Montreal nets

Another good series, though he's largely unpraised in games 4, 5, and 6. Strong games 2 and 7 though. Richard the most praised Hab.

1952 Stanley Cup Finals
Red Wings win 3-1
Habs 0 Red Wings 1

No relevant comments

Wings win 2-1
Habs 0 Red Wings 2

No relevant comments

Wings win 3-0
Habs 0 Red Wings 3

No relevant comments

Wings win 3-0
Habs 0 Red Wings 4

No relevant comments.


Very odd series. He is functionally unpraised across the sweep, but he's also uncriticized too. Lots of praise towards Sawchuk, with Howe and Metro Prystai getting praise too. How much do you read into a series where a goalie is functionally unmentioned?


1953 Playoffs
Habs beat Hawks 3-1
Habs 1 Hawks 0

No relevant comments

Habs win 4-3
Habs 2 Hawks 0

No relevant comments

Hawks win 2-1 in OT
Habs 2 Hawks 1

Edmonton Journal · ‎Mar 30, 1953

Prior to Mosienko's game-tying goal, McNeil had to make only one stop in the third period, so close-checked and conservative was the Canadien game.

Hawks win 3-1
Habs 2 Hawks 2

No relevant comments

Hawks win 4-2
Habs 2 Hawks 3

No relevant comments

Plante comes in and wins games 6 and 7

Ottawa Citizen · ‎Apr 6, 1953

McNeil asked to be relived "for the good of the team". Friends said McNeil felt largely responsible for Montreal's three straight defeats.

1953 Stanley Cup Finals
Plante plays the first two games, which Boston and Montreal split.

Habs beat Bruins 3-0
Habs 2 Bruins 1

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 13, 1953

The Flying Frenchmen displayed marked confidence in McNeil, who had asked to be relieved before the sixth game of the victorious semi-final series with Chicago Black Hawks. McNeil was replaced by Jacques Plante, who gave two impressive performances aginst the Black Hawks and another against the Bruins.

Habs win 7-3
Habs 3 Bruins 1

The Montreal Gazette · ‎Apr 15, 1953

McNeil Big Factor in Victory Habs One Game From Cup.

Sharing honours [as best Hab] with McNeil was Maurice The Rocket Richard. Richard, still one of the greatest money players of them all. The Rocket performed the hat-trick tonight by scoring three goals. While he was putting them in at one end, McNeil was keeping them out at the other.

Habs win 1-0 in OT
Habs 4 Bruins 1

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 17, 1953

McNeil matched him all the way and had several particularly tough shots to handle, fired by Milt Schmidt, Dave Creighton, Leo Labine and Fleming Mackell.

A good series from both McNeil and Plante. Richard the most praised Hab overall.


1954 Playoffs
Plante plays as the Habs sweep the Bruins

Plante plays the first four games of the finals as the Wings are up 3-1

Habs win 1-0 in OT
Habs 2 Wings 3

The Windsor Daily Star · ‎Apr 12, 1954

Mosdell Shares Hero Role With McNeil

The performance of McNeil was the big part of a desperate gamble Coach Dick Irvin took. McNeil hasn't played in a regular game since Feb. 11 when he suffered an ankle injury in Chicago. He recovered slowly and then had a couple of minor accidents in practice. By that time Jacques Plante had taken over the job regularly and McNeil was sidelined.

But in the last two games against the Wings, Plante didn't look particularly good on several shots.

McNeil, recalled to his old-time job from the role of practice goalie, who stood off everything the precision-like Red Wings could throw at him.

Habs win 4-1
Habs 3 Wings 3

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix · ‎Apr 14, 1954

McNeil came to Canadiens' rescue with saves on shots by Howe and Marty Pavelich. Canadiens had by far the better defence and goal-tending.

Wings win 2-1 in OT
Habs 3 Wings 4

The Leader-Post · ‎Apr 17, 1954

Both goalie Terry Sawchuk and Montreal's McNeil played sensationally throughout the game.

A good series, even if he missed the first four games.


Overall, I like what I'm reading. McNeil is routinely praised and holds his own against Sawchuk regularly. He loses the job to Plante permanently in 1954, but I do think the ankle injury was a major role in this. He retired for the 1954-55 season, owing it to the injury.

He'll rank for me this round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He retired for the 1954-55 season, owing it to the injury.

Had a nice job with Molson's AIUI, so he didn't "need" the NHL, like some.

 

[overpass]

Lateral movement was a weakness for Pete Peeters. In his final season (1990-91), The Hockey News made mention of it. After a hot November for Peeters, THN wrote

"Peeters has never seemed more comfortable in his stance. His lateral movement, an eternal source of criticism, has been extremely good. Working with Aeroflex executive Jeff Russell, Peeters helped design the lightweight pads he began wearing this season, and the improvement has been unmistakable. In a 12-game stretch that began Nov. 8, Peeters went 7-2-1 with two no-decisions; and in 686 minutes played, he allowed just 20 goals—compiling a 1.75 goals-against average and a. 937 save percentage."

Despite the lightweight Aeroflex pads, Peeters went only 1-4-0 in the remainder of the 1990-91 season and then retired.

I noticed while watching a Boston-Islander playoff game from 1983 that colour commentator Ed Westfall really tore into Peeters for his poor lateral mobility. It was game four of the series, when Peeters allowed eight goals on 31 shots, including five goals in six minutes early in the third period.

After a goal by Mike Bossy to make it 4-2 early in the third period:

Ed Westfall: "Watch how slow again the reaction going laterally from Pete Peeters. He does not move well going side to side."

And after Bossy scored less than four minutes later to make the score 6-2:

Ed Westfall: Watch again, look at the backhand shot by Bossy, he's right in the middle of the net, I can't believe it...I don't believe that Peeters moved that poorly from side to side.

Look at that pass, flat, right on the ice, Bossy in motion, two quick strides, and that little trickle right into the middle of the net. It did not go between his legs.

Jiggs MacDonald: I can't believe it! No mobility!

When he first became a goaltender with the Boston Bruins, Parent--Bernie Parent had that problem and it was diagnosed by Eddie Johnston, the coach of Pittsburgh, and he helped him work his way out of it. Bernie Parent was one of the worst players moving side to side at one time. I can't believe--I didn't know that about Peeters.

Westfall: Maybe that wandering around handling the puck helps cover up for it.

MacDonald: Heh heh. It's possible. I wasn't aware of it either.

 

[MXD]

I think we did Semyon Varlamov dirty.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Overall, I like what I'm reading. McNeil is routinely praised and holds his own against Sawchuk regularly.

Let's get it going on one of the bigger unknowns in history, Gerry McNeil.

McNeil, at 5'7", 155, is the second smallest goalie to play 100 games in the Original Six era (Charlie Hodge 5'6", 150). So just sitting in there and being a blocker isn't gonna work.

One bit of a trivia is that McNeil has the best GAA in the O6 era at 2.34.

Let's check the tape to see if we have anything that would indicate he'd have success if he chose to play longer in the NHL.



Not a straight away shot like you normally see at this time, so he has to hang in there and track a bit. Good crease depth for the time to start the sequence, but loses a bit of it in his tracking. As the shot becomes clear, he reclaims a bit of it and then telescopes out that leg for an impressive save out of a crowd.

Puts the puck in the corner out of danger and then gets run into during his recovery. That's DET9 in the crease there, I doubt we'll see him again.



Here's a more straightforward sequence from the same angle, different distance, different pre-shot deal...but the same process. Gets square. Very under control movement. Rebound control is excellent for the reaction.



Again here, this is really terrific form. He's not guessing. He's not out of control. We have near-post anchoring to face the LHS coming down the left side - another fairly anonymous player, DET7 - then he's able to get out with the far pad and glove on the high shot. He's not all over the floor before or after the save, as the situation doesn't call for it.

It's not that easy at this point in history for a lot of goalies to hang in there on the recovery because that part hadn't fully evolved yet. A lot of goalies were rough skaters still, style lineages were still fledgling, etc. So you look at some of these saves - the selection, the process, etc. - and think "boy, there's a bit of Plante here, there's a bit of Sawchuk". You're not wrong.

And McNeil turned pro and played in the NHL before both of those guys. McNeil was in the QSHL as a 17 year old in 1943-44 and played his first NHL games in 1947. Some accounts from the time make it sound like he could have played in the NHL at this point a la Lumley.



There's a couple of sequences before this ^ where he plays the puck in the more traditional sense. But just little things to show that he's aware, on his toes, and has well-rounded skills. 50/50 puck and he's there to calmly poke it away out of danger. How many times did we see Plante do that 5 years later? Quite a few.

He gave up goals too...which happens sometimes. Let's see if it's because he's being a fool...



It's that player 9 again on Detroit, surprised to see him pop up twice in this post, but whatever...Gordie Howe basically skates through the entire Montreal team unmolested. McNeil doesn't overreact to what is almost certain doom. Doesn't bite on the initial charge - even though pre-shot passing is not at all en vogue at this time in history - and then Howe makes the first move and McNeil stays right with him, good form, remains upright, stays pretty square...then...

Howe is allowed to carry it all around the world and finally find space to beat McNeil. The goal goes in, but McNeil looks really good in the save process, and that's what matters for these purposes. I just didn't want to show nothing but saves to go, "see...he's great!" haha

Quick aside, I often mention that while I am a bit lower on Richard than most of HoH forum that I still believe he was the most technically skilled player through at least 1950. Well, look at this extremely modern setup and finesse move real quick...



The reason why he was able to give them a goal when they needed it is because he's clearly a time traveler. He's doing that stuff with a stick/skates/gloves combination that probably weigh more than Gerry McNeil...

Anyhow, back to the goalie...

You can get a good sense of his angular proficiency with a rare extended iso cam look here...



He doesn't win the Cup as Montreal only scores two goals in the series, none in the final 8 periods of action.

You can see, too, like a lot of smaller goalies, he has the ability to play hero ball and make the desperation saves...here he is in the clinching game of the 1953 Stanley Cup Final (game 5), which Montreal would win 1-0 in OT.



He attacks that quick developing odd-man rush with a plan. He doesn't just collapse on to his back side or anything useless. He picks his spot and makes a great save.

Goaltending scouting can be a bit of an inexact science, and sometimes a comparison is helpful. Let's take a look at Sugar Jim Henry (2-AS in 1952)...watch these two sequences in short succession (about 20 seconds).



The difference in technique is pretty massive. The athleticism, the skating, the save process, the recovery, Even though Henry plays six NHL seasons, you'd be able to guess quite quickly that this isn't a guy you can trust to win you much (he won, what, one playoff series in his career?)...while McNeil looks exceedingly competent and then some.

##

He has most of the necessary qualifications which go to make up a good goaltender, in abundance. Though still just a youngster in age he has the experience of a veteran. He is steady under fire, remarkably fast and has one of the best left hands in the business. It is almost impossible to beat him on his left side if the puck is anywhere within reach of that hand. He also stands out where most other goalers fall down, on low shots, Gerry admits they are the hardest to stop but he is seldom’beaten by one. He actually hasn’t one weakness in his whole armour and the opposition has to work for every goal it gets on him.

...

Hockey experts feel he can’t miss being one of the better goalies of all time and his coach King Clancy is exceptionally high on him.

“He’s (McNeil) just as good or better than either Sawchuck or Rollins for my money. Both of those guys have big strong teams in front of them. Gerry hasn’t and still he’s just a few percentage points behind them. I’d rather have Gerry than either Sawchuck or Rollins. He’s filled Durnan’s boots as far as I’m concerned and that’s good enough for me.”

...

“A lot of our fans were worried about Gerry at the start of the season,” said Dick, “but I wasn’t one of them. I’ve watched McNeil for seven years and I knew he’d be good enough..."

I'll try not to duplicate what JS did above in terms of his playoff successes and the raving. The big upset over Detroit in '51 (.721 Det vs. .464 Mtl, McNeil stole it in 6), etc.

In 11 playoff games McNeil failed to come up with a bad one. His first against the Wings was probably his best ever. In fact some authorities call it the greatest game they have ever seen played. His last against the Leafs was nearly as outstanding. But in between his first and last games he shone just as brightly. It’s hard to unfold McNeil’s great playoff story in words. There are few who would do him justice.

In fact, when McNeil started his career with the Canadiens in 1943, he actually outplayed Durnan in training camp, but the team decided to go with the more experienced goalie. McNeil had to wait seven years while Durnan piled up a motherlode of Vezinas. After leading the Montreal Royals to back-to-back Quebec Senior League titles and an Allan Cup in 1947, McNeil was essentially the Habs’ stopgap, providing four years of work between the sudden and early retirement of Durnan and the emergence of Plante as one of the game’s all-time greatest at the position.

His Style Was Flawless…note Smoothness

Though they would pull Plante for McNeil in the 1954 Cup to get back into the series (McNeil delivered a 0.95 GAA across three games, with the winner by Leswick hitting off Harvey before going in), McNeil couldn't overcome my vote for #1 goalie of all time. He went to the Quebec League and won the goaltender of the year award in 1956.

More than half of the skaters that played in the league that year would play in the NHL at some point.

Prior to be an NHL regular, he was the top goalie and MVP of the QSHL in 1947 and 1948.

Earlier, McNeil was quoted as saying that he would not leave Montreal or the Quebec League because he wanted to remain close to his family.

He basically dummies the minors on either side of some very high end NHL play. There's a ton more good quotes on him, but I think the point has been made. At this point in the list, he's a star.

McNeil was "too homesick" to sign a contract with Montreal in 1943, broken ankle, broken cheekbone that left him temporarily blind in one eye, leg infection, "blood poisoning", of course the ol' standby of "nerves" led to him retiring in 1954 (saying that he's "hung up [his] skates and doesn't intend to change [his] mind". Lost his mother during his playing career (twice...as someone pulled a prank and sent word to him after a game that she had passed when she hadn't). Nearly lost his young daughter to pneumonia. Among other serious things, but the praise for him on the ice is quite unrelenting. It was a bit of bad luck that he was sandwiched between Bill Durnan and Jacques Plante while also not wanting to really leave the province for the majority of his career for career and family reasons, otherwise, I think we'd have a goalie that would have been higher on a lot of prelim lists and, really, probably on our list 20+ spots ago. I had him at 25, personally, my highest goalie left available by a fair bit.

I know there isn't a ton of NHL meat on the bone, but I'd rather take a guy who succeeded big time at every level, including consistently in the NHL, than a guy who played a little longer in the league and failed at this point in our list.

Barring something unforeseen, McNeil is a mortal lock for top 3 for me on this ballot. He's probably the odds on favorite for #1 coming in.

 

[rmartin65]

A couple data points

Looking at how many calendar years players on our list were active in given decades (same caveats/warnings as the last few rounds)-

Total Calendar Years	1025
Average per Decade	68.33
Average per Decade w/out 1800s	78.62

Decade	Calendar Years Active	Percent of Total	% of Average	%of Average w/out 1800s
1880s	0	0.00	0.00	N/A
1890s	3	0.29	4.39	N/A
1900s	28	2.73	40.98	35.62
1910s	58	5.66	84.88	73.78
1920s	83	8.10	121.46	105.58
1930s	68	6.63	99.51	86.50
1940s	59	5.76	86.34	75.05
1950s	69	6.73	100.98	87.77
1960s	84	8.20	122.93	106.85
1970s	95	9.27	139.02	120.84
1980s	80	7.80	117.07	101.76
1990s	98	9.56	143.41	124.66
2000s	127	12.39	185.85	161.55
2010s	126	12.29	184.39	160.27
2020s	47	4.59	68.78	59.78

Name	Birth Year	Number of Players on List Born within 5 Years of Birth Year	Players on List Born within 5 Years of Birth Year
Ron Hextall	1964	8	Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy, Ed Belfour, Grant Fuhr, Curtis Joseph, John Vanbiesbrouck, Tom Barrasso, Mike Richter
Olaf Kolzig	1970	8	Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy, Martin Brodeur, Ed Belfour, Curtis Joesph, Tom Barrasso, Mike Richter, Evgeni Nabokov
Chico Resch	1948	7	Vladislav Tretiak, Ken Dryden, Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Billy Smith, Tony Esposito, Rogie Vachon
Andy Moog	1960	7	Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy, Ed Belfour, Grant Fuhr, John Vanbiesbrouck, Tom Barrasso, Mike Liut
Mike Vernon	1963	7	Dominik Hasek, Patrick Roy, Ed Belfour, Grant Fuhr, Curtis Joseph, John Vanbiesbrouck, Tom Barrasso
Braden Holtby	1989	7	Andrei Vasilevskiy, Carey Price, Connor Hellebuyck, Jonathan Quick, Sergei Bobrovskiy, Marc-Andre Fleury, Tuukka Rask
Al Rollins	1926	6	Jacques Plante, Terry Sawchuck, Glenn Hall, Johnny Bower, Harry Lumley, Gump Worsley
Gerry McNeil	1926	6	Jacques Plante, Terry Sawchuck, Glenn Hall, Johnny Bower, Harry Lumley, Gump Worsley
Roger Crozier	1942	6	Ken Dryden, Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Tony Esposito, Rogie Vachon, Ed Giacomin
Vladimir Dzurilla	1942	6	Ken Dryden, Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Tony Esposito, Rogie Vachon, Ed Giacomin
Lorne Chabot	1900	5	Charlie Gardiner, Roy Worters, Tiny Thompson, Alec Connell, John Ross Roach
Gerry Cheevers	1940	5	Bernie Parent, Jiri Holecek, Tony Esposito, Rogie Vachon, Ed Giacomin
Tomas Vokoun	1976	5	Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, Miika Kiprusoff, Ryan Miller, Evgeni Nabokov
Pete Peeters	1957	4	Vladislav Tretiak, Grant Fuhr, John Vanbiesbrouck, Mike Liut
Tim Thomas	1974	4	Martin Brodeur, Roberto Luongo, Miika Kiprusoff, Evgeni Nabokov
Juuse Saros	1995	3	Andre Vasilevskiy, Connor Hellebuyck, Igor Shesterkin
Tom Paton	1855	0	None

Looking at who was in net for the Stanley Cup-winning game

Name	Wins	Losses	Win Percentage
Lorne Chabot	2 (1928, 1932)	0	100.00
Tim Thomas	1 (2011)	0	100.00
Braden Holtby	1 (2018)	0	100.00
Gerry Cheevers	2 (1970, 1972)	2 (1977, 1978)	50.00
Mike Vernon	2 (1989, 1997)	2 (1986, 1955)	50.00
Andy Moog	2 (1983, 1984)	2 (1988, 1990)	50.00
Gerry McNeil	1 (1953)	3 (1951, 1952, 1954)	25.00
Vladislav Dzurilla	0 (N/A)	0 (N/A)	0.00
Tom Paton	0 (N/A)	0 (N/A)	0.00
Al Rollins	0	0	0.00
Tomas Vokoun	0	0	0.00
Chico Resch	0	0	0.00
Juuse Saros	0	0	0.00
Olaf Kolzig	0	1 (1998)	0.00
Pete Peeters	0	1 (1980)	0.00
Roger Crozier	0	2 (1966, 1975)	0.00
Ron Hextall	0	2 (1987, 1997)	0.00

As always, please point out any mistakes you see.

 

[rmartin65]

A fairly uninspiring list of new names, in my opinion-

Ron Hextall? Yikes.

Gerry McNeil? I don't have a problem admitting he was a good/great goalie, but having only 4 seasons at the top level available to him is... less than ideal. Especially when in those 4 seasons he only had one post-season AS2 to boast of.

Andy Moog? Taking a closer look, I actually like him better than I did before the project, haha, but I still don't think he's a top-60 goalkeeper all-time.

Tom Paton? Poor coverage makes it hard to get a good sense of the hockey environment during his career, but I struggle to see him as a top-60 goalkeeper of all time. He played for a long time and for the best team around- it doesn't surprise me that he is the best remembered goalkeeper from his era- but I don't think that necessarily makes him better than some of his peers.

Pete Peeters? Take out that one season and does anyone even have him on their top-80?

Tomas Vokoun? At no point during his career did I feel like I was watching an all-time great.

 

[Professor What]

Tomas Vokoun? At no point during his career did I feel like I was watching an all-time great.

Yeah, I agree that he wasn't an all-time great, but are we really talking about that at this point? He was solid for a long time. I feel that he ranks pretty well here just by virtue of not having as many flaws. He doesn't have the peak seasons of Hextall, Peeters, or Thomas, but I know which one of these guys I'd want to have as my franchise goalie, and it's the one I'd feel I could depend on more.

I know that's not the only thing that we have to take into consideration, but I think it counts for something.

 

[rmartin65]

Yeah, I agree that he wasn't an all-time great, but are we really talking about that at this point. He was solid for a long time. I feel that he ranks pretty well here just by virtue of not having as many flaws. He doesn't have the peak seasons of Hextall, Peeters, or Thomas, but I know which one of these guys I'd want to have as my franchise goalie, and it's the one I'd feel I could depend on more.

I know that's not the only thing that we have to take into consideration, but I think it counts for something.

I see what you are saying- and I generally agree, I'd take Vokoun over Hextall and Peeters without a doubt.

But are we really at the point where we are saying just being good for a long-enough time is good enough for this list? That in over 140 years of organized hockey, that is something that means a player is a top-60 goalie?

I'm not there at this point, but I'll gladly read whatever cases are made for him.

 

[Professor What]

I see what you are saying- and I generally agree, I'd take Vokoun over Hextall and Peeters without a doubt.

But are we really at the point where we are saying just being good for a long-enough time is good enough for this list? That in over 140 years of organized hockey, that is something that means a player is a top-60 goalie?

I'm not there at this point, but I'll gladly read whatever cases are made for him.

I didn't think that would have been good enough when we started discussions, but my mind started to change when I made my list, and as we've had deeper discussions, it's become changed even more. Tbh, I think I undersold Vokoun on my original list. I had him behind some guys I can't believe I ranked ahead of him. I looked it up and I had him 71. Since I think that was significantly too low now, I don't think that the end of the list would be out of the question.

But anyway, as far as making a case for him, I'd also ask if there was ever that time that he just scared you. To me, there wasn't. I feel like I knew what I was going to get from him, and I didn't have to worry about him melting down, which is a weakness that some guys already on the list have. Right now, I feel like we're dealing with a lot of peaks and valleys. I don't think Vokoun is like that. He's just steady for the course.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, there's about 4 or so names that I wouldn't trust to play an NHL regular season game for me.

If we don't want Vokoun because he didn't peak quite high enough in terms of AS nods, and we don't want guys with 4 or 5 seasons (besides Gardiner, Shestyorkin, Hellebuyck, Parent, Rayner, etc.), then I don't know if we have anyone to place haha

I'm not necessarily a Vokoun superfan by any means, but considering he went from an expansion team to a team that was never better than 50:1 to win a Cup in Florida, I'm not sure there's a better positive-impact longevity guy on the board.

 

[rmartin65]

But anyway, as far as making a case for him, I'd also ask if there was ever that time that he just scared you. To me, there wasn't. I feel like I knew what I was going to get from him, and I didn't have to worry about him melting down, which is a weakness that some guys already on the list have. Right now, I feel like we're dealing with a lot of peaks and valleys. I don't think Vokoun is like that. He's just steady for the course.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying, I think we just have different weights on this. I like that he was "safe"; I don't like that I was never really worried that he was going to steal a game from the team I support.

Well, there's about 4 or so names that I wouldn't trust to play an NHL regular season game for me.

I'm guessing Thomas, Paton, Rollins, and... Hextall? Peeters?

If we don't want Vokoun because he didn't peak quite high enough in terms of AS nods, and we don't want guys with 4 or 5 seasons (besides Gardiner, Shestyorkin, Hellebuyck, Parent, Rayner, etc.), then I don't know if we have anyone to place haha

This feels like an oversimplification of what the argument is. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm looking for a combination of peak and longevity. The higher the peak, the less longevity I really "need", and vice-versa. Gardiner played seven years (so more than 4 or 5 seasons), had AS teams, and had great contemporary praise. Shestyorkin is in his 6 NA season (so more than 4 or 5 seasons) and has a strong peak. Hellebuyck is in his 9th year as a starter (so more than 4 or 5 seasons) and has a strong peak. Parent had 10 (?) seasons as a starter (so more than 4 or 5 seasons) and had a strong peak. Rayner had 6 (?) seasons as a starter (so more than 4 or 5) and had a decent peak.

Its a balance, right? Vokoun has great longevity, but there is no real peak to speak of (on a historically great scale, of course). I'm more likely to support Gerry McNeil than Vokoun, despite the short career, because he was a no-kidding difference maker. I'm more likely to support Gerry McNeil than Pete Peeters because, while Peeters had the one spike season and played for longer, McNeil was an impact player for longer. But I'm more likely to support Braden Holtby than Gerry McNeil, because their peaks are comparable but Holtby has greater longevity.

This is, of course, just my feelings at the present. I always try to keep an open mind- I don't think I'm the smartest/most informed guy in the room. I've changed my mind on a number of players during this project due to arguments/evidence presented by others (including you), and I suspect that will happen again during this round.

I'm not necessarily a Vokoun superfan by any means, but considering he went from an expansion team to a team that was never better than 50:1 to win a Cup in Florida, I'm not sure there's a better positive-impact longevity guy on the board.

Maybe that is true. I look forward to reading that argument.

I'm not going to check the numbers or newspapers right now, but I don't remember Vokoun being all that much better than Mike Dunham for most of their overlap there.... even the other Nashville goalie who came later (Mason?) seemed to do ok, but maybe I'm misremembering things.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying, I think we just have different weights on this. I like that he was "safe"; I don't like that I was never really worried that he was going to steal a game from the team I support.

I don't view Vokoun as "safe", personally. He leaned more game stealer than safety. That said, I'm not sure there's any real "worry about theft" goalies left, except for maybe the two little guys - Saros and McNeil. Those guys could definitely steal games, whether someone is worried about smaller goalies though, I don't know - may be disqualifying for some.

I'm guessing Thomas, Paton, Rollins, and... Hextall? Peeters?

Definitely Hextall and Thomas. Just rubbish. Rollins looks not far behind. I never saw Paton, I'm actually excited to read about him because we're going to need a way to get to 10 suitable names for a ballot.

Cheevers was the other guy that sprang to mind.

Peeters was in my top 60. That's a guy that's more "safe" than "stealer", if you end up looking for one, presumably, lower on your ballot.

This feels like an oversimplification of what the argument is. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm looking for a combination of peak and longevity. The higher the peak, the less longevity I really "need", and vice-versa. Gardiner played seven years (so more than 4 or 5 seasons), had AS teams, and had great contemporary praise. Shestyorkin is in his 6 NA season (so more than 4 or 5 seasons) and has a strong peak. Hellebuyck is in his 9th year as a starter (so more than 4 or 5 seasons) and has a strong peak. Parent had 10 (?) seasons as a starter (so more than 4 or 5 seasons) and had a strong peak. Rayner had 6 (?) seasons as a starter (so more than 4 or 5) and had a decent peak.

Well, I understand that those guys started for more years. But fairly obviously, I was leaning more towards impact seasons, right? I think that's pretty clear at this point in the project.

Shestyorkin had a 12 start and 31 start season to relatively little fanfare. We started the project before this season kicked off. In his three seasons as a starter, he had major impact. He's on the list. Great.

Parent wasn't the player we voted for early in his career. Kicked around from team to team, inconsistent, etc.

Ya know, et cetera...I admire sticking to the "(so more than 4 or 5)" bit haha

Its a balance, right? Vokoun has great longevity, but there is no real peak to speak of (on a historically great scale, of course). I'm more likely to support Gerry McNeil than Vokoun, despite the short career, because he was a no-kidding difference maker. I'm more likely to support Gerry McNeil than Pete Peeters because, while Peeters had the one spike season and played for longer, McNeil was an impact player for longer. But I'm more likely to support Braden Holtby than Gerry McNeil, because their peaks are comparable but Holtby has greater longevity.

Great. I 100% agree with this and the line of thinking. You seemed to wink at the notion that McNeil wasn't a good thing for you because he "only had four seasons"...which is true, but also...sort of an asterisk. It depends on how folks view things.

I'm not going to check the numbers or newspapers right now, but I don't remember Vokoun being all that much better than Mike Dunham for most of their overlap there.... even the other Nashville goalie who came later (Mason?) seemed to do ok, but maybe I'm misremembering things.

Nashville played pretty tight, or tried to any way, so I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were tight. Mason, in particular, was a very interesting goalie to watch. He had a couple of interesting ideas. But maybe we'll discuss them in the top 600 list haha

 

[rmartin65]

I don't view Vokoun as "safe", personally. He leaned more game stealer than safety.

Maybe I'm just remembering when he replaced MAF that year in the playoffs. He definitely felt safe there, haha.

That said, I'm not sure there's any real "worry about theft" goalies left, except for maybe the two little guys - Saros and McNeil. Those guys could definitely steal games, whether someone is worried about smaller goalies though, I don't know - may be disqualifying for some.

It would be weird to disqualify a smaller goalie, considering we've put some really short guys on the list. Vezina, Worters, Hainsworth, Roach, etc.

Definitely Hextall and Thomas. Just rubbish. Rollins looks not far behind. I never saw Paton, I'm actually excited to read about him because we're going to need a way to get to 10 suitable names for a ballot.

We only have four spots available on the final list right? So while we submit a list of ten, all we really need is a top 4.

Cheevers was the other guy that sprang to mind.

Ah, thanks.

Peeters was in my top 60. That's a guy that's more "safe" than "stealer", if you end up looking for one, presumably, lower on your ballot.

Interesting- if you have time, I'm definitely interested in hearing more about Peeters.

Well, I understand that those guys started for more years. But fairly obviously, I was leaning more towards impact seasons, right? I think that's pretty clear at this point in the project.

It wasn't clear to me- Vokoun doesn't have peak years anything close to the peak years that the guys you mentioned.

Shestyorkin had a 12 start and 31 start season to relatively little fanfare. We started the project before this season kicked off. In his three seasons as a starter, he had major impact. He's on the list. Great.

Those three seasons are quite a bit better than any 3 seasons Vokoun put together.

Parent wasn't the player we voted for early in his career. Kicked around from team to team, inconsistent, etc.

Yet his peak 3-4 years are better than anything Vokoun did.

Ya know, et cetera...I admire sticking to the "(so more than 4 or 5)" bit haha

I do what I can.

Great. I 100% agree with this and the line of thinking. You seemed to wink at the notion that McNeil wasn't a good thing for you because he "only had four seasons"...which is true, but also...sort of an asterisk. It depends on how folks view things.

I wasn't winking at anything- I said it was less than ideal, and it is. It's not a death-knell to his candidacy this round, but it is something that shouldn't just be swept under the rug.

Nashville played pretty tight, or tried to any way, so I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were tight.

Doesn't this kind of go against your earlier (implied) argument that Vokoun was disadvantaged because he played for expansion Nashville?

Mason, in particular, was a very interesting goalie to watch. He had a couple of interesting ideas. But maybe we'll discuss them in the top 600 list haha

There is no way I'm participating in a top 600, haha.

 

[Professor What]

Yeah, I think I'd be out for a top 600 anything. It breaks my brain to think about. Lol

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe I'm just remembering when he replaced MAF that year in the playoffs. He definitely felt safe there, haha.

Heh, yeah, him replacing Fleury in 2013 is a different feel. They could have laid down a wet cloth and it would have felt safer than what Fleury was putting out there.

It would be weird to disqualify a smaller goalie, considering we've put some really short guys on the list. Vezina, Worters, Hainsworth, Roach, etc.

I agree. But there's some people that think 5'9" d-men can't play in the league today, etc. So who knows what kinds of filters people have...

We only have four spots available on the final list right? So while we submit a list of ten, all we really need is a top 4.


Ah, thanks.


Interesting- if you have time, I'm definitely interested in hearing more about Peeters.

Sure, I'll do my best to make Peeters my next rundown.

It wasn't clear to me- Vokoun doesn't have peak years anything close to the peak years that the guys you mentioned.


Those three seasons are quite a bit better than any 3 seasons Vokoun put together.

Yet his peak 3-4 years are better than anything Vokoun did.


I do what I can.


I wasn't winking at anything- I said it was less than ideal, and it is. It's not a death-knell to his candidacy this round, but it is something that shouldn't just be swept under the rug.

Fair enough. And no, the guys already on the list don't go toe for toe with Vokoun in terms of peak. But like I said, I'm not a Vokoun salesman haha

Doesn't this kind of go against your earlier (implied) argument that Vokoun was disadvantaged because he played for expansion Nashville?


There is no way I'm participating in a top 600, haha.

I don't think their numbers being tight is at odds with it, no. Maybe I'm not understanding the implication. But if you're snooping around for "peak" and "peak" around here has a lot of overlap with award voting and the like...it's tough for a goalie to go from expansion team to sad sack (and then to the late-Bylsma Penguins) and get a sniff at a real strong resume on paper.

Which, to me, falls a little bit under "much ado about nothing" because I sort of think that his H-R resume only undercuts him a bit. It's not a total white-washing of a super goalie. It's more like a, "that scant voting record is weaker than it could be because of the situation, but also he wasn't really elite enough where he deserved so much better."

##

Heh, yeah, I mean look around at these names...there's no shame in having a top 55. It's like a top 50 with an hono(u)rable mention list. I'd be content haha

Only 349 goalies have played 100 NHL games. So a top 600 would likely include a few HoH board members haha

 

[Felidae]

Well, let me be the vokoun salesman again..

even calling Vokoun just "good for a long time" feels like a slight disservice. I dont know peoples definitions of elite when it comes to netminders here, but i'd say Vokoun hovered around the top 5-10 area for a number of years, 3-5 on a peak year.

There's also discrepancy between his underwhelming award placements and very good sv% and GSAA finishes across varying quality of defensive teams that should be explained, imo.


And I feel like his Allstar and vezina finishes can be partly attributed to once again, the low quality teams he was on

Luongo for instance barely had any allstar votes despite a good portion of his best seasons being on terrible Florida teams. It took him having one of the best goaltending seasons of the 21st century from a statistical point of view in 2003-04 (highest GSAA this century) to even get any serious award consideration.

And when you see Finalists for the vezina trophy (or even goalies that finish outside the top 3), most of them are on playoff teams and/or top defensive teams.

Even when Vokoun's teams were top 10 in GA, they were almost never good enough to make the POs.

Edit: Also noticed Nabokov was voted through, was Nabokov really better than Vokoun? Better GSAA and sv% finishes not just comparing their top seasons, but career stats as well, despite the drastic difference in team quality.