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

[Professor What]

I don't see the comparison with Durnan. I get the team factor, and I get that Durnan played in a weaker league for a good part of his career, but he was consistent as far as anything I understand. Maybe I'm being too tough on Thomas. I don't know. But I don't think that's an appropriate comparison.

Thomas at absolute face value would've been voted in a while ago.

I agree with this. But I don't think face value is accurate.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Two seasons and basically nothing else? I don't think he would have been voted yet at all. Have we really taken anyone with this few relevant impact seasons yet?

And also, if everyone isn't taking him at face value...why aren't you? Must be something haha

 

[MXD]

Two seasons and basically nothing else? I don't think he would have been voted yet at all. Have we really taken anyone with this few relevant impact seasons yet?

Shesterkin. His 5th best season (which is, THIS season) is probably on par with Thomas' 5th best season (which was the immediately post-lockout, also a partial season like Shesterkin's current season), and if you tell me that Thomas' numers were a bit too close to Toivonen, I'll replay that Shesterkin's numbers are a bit to close to the positively ancient Jonathan Quick. Last word on topic, won't entertain reply, thank you.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, why would we want any discussion on a goalie available haha

If Shestyorkin going 3 for 3 in the NHL and has immediately been considered one of the league's elite goalies in a pretty tough situation is similar to Thomas then...well, what difference does it make if we're not willing to chat about it haha

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ok, so no credit for his non-NHL stuff is good. But you, who targets Brodeur harder than most because of his team and a buzzword, takes Thomas at face value? Tough to square. You give out a lot of punishment to Brodeur specifically (as if Roy and others didn't play for defensive clubs)...but Thomas strings together a couple seasons and it's just grand?

If Durnan was a bad goalie, I'd be right there with you. I was extremely skeptical of him for the longest time. Turns out he knew what he was doing, so I had to change my tune.

Wonder how Brodeur got into this discussion? Anyway, I never referred to him as a stiff, a bum or as rubbish. I'm not the one that gives out punishing reviews.

But to me, the Devils were significantly better defensively than the Bruins that we are talking about.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Wonder how Brodeur got into this discussion? Anyway, I never referred to him as a stiff, a bum or as rubbish. I'm not the one that gives out punishing reviews.

But to me, the Devils were significantly better defensively than the Bruins that we are talking about.

Maybe, maybe not. Boston is certainly a better save pct pumper. And folks live and die by that.

Here's the thing...and don't think I don't get it, I do...but here's the thing: when I love a goalie that people love, it's "this is great analysis" but when I dislike a goalie that maybe some people like it's "what a boob, this guy stinks".

But my process is the same. I'm not asking anyone to adhere, but I'm on the panel, so I state what I see.

But I don't have to worry about "save pct of backups" and other noise. I can. And sometimes I use it to help illustrate a point so that it resonates with folks that use that type of thing.

We've been at this for a long time...not me or you or Tim Thomas...but this board. You have been watching hockey for longer than me on TV. What percentage of the coverage is legitimately critical? Who is out there writing in THN "this line was the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked"...?

It's rare. So now we have to sit there and go "all right, let's assume that no mention means 'bad'...or neutral...or just that they were overshadowed by someone better..." and then we take almost everything that's written that's good at face value. And folks will keep score on how much positivity there is...primarily from media types with unknown knowledge of the game, specifically goaltending.

Again, it's like media coverage of a draft. How many times have you watched a draft and heard someone picked in the first round and the analysts go, "probably not gonna make it because..."?

Never.

The culture of this sport is nothing but atta-boys...the coverage of it is an extreme version of that. If you go against that, you get what you get and that's fine. But amassing just happy thoughts and hugs just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[DN28]

One of the guys worthy of being added is Tom Paton. The case for him is clear. Is this an all-time list? If so, why is there no goalie from the 19th century? I am somewhat disappointed that Paton is all we got. Was I the only one expecting either Frank Stocking or Whitey Merritt as well? Paton has nine relevant seasons, so it's not like voting for Bouse Hutton, a goalie who may have been great too, but only over a stretch of seasons that could be counted on one hand.

Lorne Chabot is also a goalie with good case. Reconstructed save percentages of 1927-1935 revealed him in the best possible light. He was above the league SV% average every single season between 1927-1935. On top of that, Chabot was above SV% average also every single playoff between 1931-1935. When I made that series of posts a month ago, I thought it will force Chabot to the list immediately...

I realize how easily those SV% can be questioned. If a person distrusts even todays SV%, counted by (hopefully) the same method in all arenas, why should we occupy our minds with incomplete save percentages gathered from multiple newspaper sources ca. 90 years ago...

But if a goalie has literally zero statistically below average seasons over the span of 9 seasons, across 4 different teams and various coaches, along with a playoff record in harmony with the regular seasons stats, we should pause, reflect and come to the conclusion that goalie was likely doing something right...

Frustratedly, most of my 27-35 SV% and GSAA tables have been destroyed. So below, I'll just post screenshots of my excel sheets with Chabot row marked.



























We did the right thing voting in Connell and Roach before Chabot in spite of superior stats of the latter, absolutely... But it would be a mistake to end up with a top-60 list without Chabot completely.

Chabot played 22 playoff games in 1931-1935 timeframe. 21 out of these 22 PO games have been recorded statistically. Chabot went cumulatively 0.949 in the recorded 21 PO games. Prorated by SOG/60, Chabot ends with 0.950 in 22 PO games, and with ca. +7.30 GSAA.

 

[DN28]

Another goaltender with serious consideration: Vladimír Dzurilla.

I'm not going to repeat ups and downs of his career. If you want to read that, just go back to last week's post. I want to raise question whether Dzurilla is ranked fairly. It's real shame that the round 1 panel didn't collectively bring itself to vote Seth Martin or Jiri Kralik sufficiently high enough (or even Holmqvist or Lindmark.. or even Konovalenko...) so that they could appear in the discussion. I mean, if we go by the names appearing throughout the project, participants collectively believe there were more all-time best goalies born between 1962-1965 than the non-NHL goalies playing in Europe over a 3-decade long time span...

List of European goalies spending their prime in 1960-1990 which have been elected:

1. Vladislav Tretiak
2. Jiri Holecek

+ Dzurilla as a possible 3rd option.

List of European goalies spending their prime in 1991-2024 which have been elected:

1. Dominik Hasek
2. Henrik Lundqvist
3. Andrei Vasilevskiy
4. Miikka Kiprusoff
5. Sergei Bobrovsky
6. Pekka Rinne
7. Tuukka Rask
8. Igor Shesterkin
9. Evgeni Nabokov

+ Kolzig, Saros and Vokoun as possible 10th, 11th & 12th option.

Now, if you want to temper that argument by deleting few names for not being "european enough", I don't mind.. Vasilevskiy and Bobrovsky were born in Asian part of Russia. Nabokov started to play hockey in what is now a part of Kazakhstan, an Asian part of Kazakhstan geographically speaking. Kolzig has been a non-disputated German starting goaltender for decade plus so he's a European as far I am concerned, but he was born in South Africa and trained in Canada so you might scratch his name off too.

List of Europe-born and trained goalies spending their prime in 1991-2024 so far elected to the list:

1. Dominik Hasek
2. Henrik Lundqvist
3. Miikka Kiprusoff
4. Pekka Rinne
5. Tuukka Rask
6. Igor Shesterkin

+ Saros and Vokoun as possible 7th & 8th option.

If the European goaltending magically improved by the fall of Iron Curtain, I'd like to see an evidence of that. Otherwise we're at the risk ignoring a part of hockey legacy just because... well because of why? Being born on the wrong side of geopolitical borders?

Please let's avoid the mentality "I don't know him, never seen that guy... I'd rather have that 15th best 1990s goalie on the list."