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

[Bear of Bad News]

I gave a very specific, and fundamental, opinion and criticism. I'd be happy to hear a counter opinion on the subject.

"There's no chance that these are decent rankings" is a non-starter for multiple obvious reasons.

Why the heck would anyone choose to engage you when you open with this crap?

 

[DitchMarner]

The previous goaltender rankings done here 12 years ago were really bad (god-awful, in fact). I was expecting some improvement this time (especially because at least a couple participants seem to be doing some good things), but it doesn't look promising.

6 of the goalies from this round are from before 1950, when some of the talent pools were tiny compared to recent decades. There's no chance that these are decent rankings.

Can somebody explain why so many of these early era goalies are being ranked so high?

I'm not saying this is how it should or should not be but simply making an observation.

It seems that the smaller the League, the more individual goaltenders stand out - at least in terms of reputation. There are many legendary goaltenders from the O6 days and before even though there weren't that many goalies overall in the NHL. Now take the present-day NHL. There are more teams and goalies than ever. How many active goalies are truly considered legendary or icons? Maybe a handful?

 

[Professor What]

"There's no chance that these are decent rankings" is a non-starter for multiple obvious reasons.

Why the heck would anyone choose to engage you when you open with this crap?

That's exactly the point. When you start off the "conversation" like that, it tells me that it's not in good faith. We're really working to try to get a good set of rankings.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

That's exactly the point. When you start off the "conversation" like that, it tells me that it's not in good faith.

And violates rules itemized in the first post of the thread.

 

[Staniowski]

I'm not saying this is how it should or should not be but simply making an observation.

It seems that the smaller the League, the more individual goaltenders stand out - at least in terms of reputation. There are many legendary goaltenders from the O6 days and before even though there weren't that many goalies overall in the NHL. Now take the present-day NHL. There are more teams and goalies than ever. How many active goalies are truly considered legendary or icons? Maybe a handful?

Right, and not just a smaller league, but a smaller talent pool (often much, much smaller)....so that a lower-quality goalie in a smaller pool is a bigger star than a higher-quality goalie in a bigger pool. That's the issue.

So, then, are you ranking them by who is the bigger star, or who is the better goalie?

 

[The Pale King]

I'm ranking them by how much they stood out from their peers, with bonus points given if they made innovations to the position, something there was a lot more room for pre-1950.

I hate the idea of holding the talent pool against the older players. If you want to fault the owners for keeping things a north-eastern North American gentleman's club for several decades too long, go ahead.

To look at another sport, one than is truly global, do fans/historians take notches off the early English or Uruguayan World Cup squads because there were only x-number of registered players in North America or South-east Asia (regions that now have exponentially more registered players than in the past)? Of course not. If you played against the best in the world at that specific moment, then that's all we can ask of a historical player.

This is doubly true when we are talking about a position like goaltender, where there were often demonstrably more NHL-quality goalies than spots available in the pre-expansion era.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Every time.

I put stock in face-to-face meetings. One of the reasons Hasek is squarely over Roy.

That's not an answer to my question.

Again, how many games?

 

[snuffelapagus]

Every time.

I put stock in face-to-face meetings. One of the reasons Hasek is squarely over Roy.

That's not exactly how I remember it:

Summit 72 Game 1: Tretiak unquestionably outplays Dryden
Summit 72 Game 4: Tretiak again unquestionably
Summit 72 Game 6: Dryden over Tretiak
Summit 72 Game 8 Dryden over Tretiak
1975 NYE: Tretiak outshines Dryden by a considerable margin
1979 Challenge Cup: Dryden over Tretiak
1979 Challenge Cup: Tretiak over Dryden

That's hardly every time. The games Tretiak outplayed Dryden are those that most remember. The ones Dryden's team won were generally more memorable for other moments besides Dryden's performance such as Henderson heroics Summit games 6 and 8. I still see those matches as Dryden outplaying Vladislav though. Tretiak also lost many important games where his team was heavily favored. Dryden simply did not.

Dryden is getting beaten up on these boards because he played on a historically great team which enjoyed unparalleled success. He is not given enough credit for those successes. because his teams were expected to easily handle all comers. Many are now suggesting his teams won in spite of him.

Like many my age Dryden was an early hero. I'm not going to pretend his career did not leave us with many questions. I understand Roy, Brodeur and their contemporaries' careers are the nostalgic darlings of most of this board's demographic. In fact, I'll go along and state Hasek is unquestionably the best I have seen with my own eyes dating back to 1971. Based on what I saw, I will also say that I suspect Plante may be right up there with Hasek. I can't speak to Sawchuk, Hall or those having played prior to Dryden. With all due respect to the stats crunchers here, my eyes tell me unspectacular Dryden's career is in the mix after Hasek for anyone having played since Kenny began his career. While it's clearly an unpopular stance on this board in 2024, Dryden's fall from grace in the goaltending pantheon is unwarranted to this observer.

 

[seventieslord]

What happened to that old history of hockey sticky we used to refer people to? If you look at the rest of his posts about older players, they typically follow the same formula. It seems to stem from a lack of understanding about what 'greatest of all time' lists are trying to accomplish.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

To look at another sport, one than is truly global, do fans/historians take notches off the early English or Uruguayan World Cup squads because there were only x-number of registered players in North America or South-east Asia (regions that now have exponentially more registered players than in the past)? Of course not. If you played against the best in the world at that specific moment, then that's all we can ask of a historical player

I see your point and don’t mean to derail the thread, but the likes of Guillermo Stabile and Vivian Woodward seem rare sights in greatest footballer rankings indeed. The English national team doesn’t receive full marks for what it did in the first 50 years of its existence, the Scottish doesn’t for edging them out, and in general what happened prior to the 1950s seem almost irrelevant in player discussions despite being an infinitely more extensively chronicled era than the early decades of ice hockey. I don’t see anyone getting anywhere of note pitting much older players against those of the great Brazilian teams, the Mighty Magyars, certain European professional teams and their stars, and World Cup performances, most of which generally took place after WWII.

That being said, the sports’ respective histories are just very different. Hockey hasn’t been competitive at an international stage long enough to make these tedious drive-bys against propping early greats in the History of Hockey section legitimate. You’re doing great work documenting, placing attention and due respect exactly where it should be in the context of hockey.

With regards to the criticism… Bill Durnan (b. 1916) is the fourth youngest of the nine players up for discussion. I don’t think Staniowski is in the right going off like that without participating himself, but I agree with one notion planted somewhere in his rants insofar that I too am aware there’s a vast diversity of no doubt knowledgeable opinions present among the participants, and perhaps a bit puzzled/miffed that you landed this group at this point in the project... I guess I fear the voting rounds will reflect a general consensus more than a diversity of valid opinion, but so far we’re looking at the same goalies who made the top 100 players list and sure, it makes sense...

And that being said, if I knew more and wanted my opinion heard, I could have participated. I’m looking forward to this discussion regardless.

 

[Michael Farkas]

If I need to explain, I don't need to explain.

Eyeballing it, Mike Vernon is 26-22 over Patrick Roy.
Hasek was 3-10 against Belfour in his prime (he catches up when they're both well on in age), including losing a job to him.

Should anything be inferred from this in Binary Land or your opinion...?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Can somebody explain why so many of these early era goalies are being ranked so high?

We're not even to the "early era" yet. The guys that are locked on the list are legit for me. There's a few guys available now - not unexpectedly - that I take issue with...not because I don't value the early history of the game but because I don't see how we can value the early history of this position so greatly. A defense to that end is actively being worked on now.

 

[overpass]

I agree that there are fewer modern goalies available for vote now than I would prefer.

My guess is that we probably had more consensus on the old-time goalies than we did on more modern goalies. For goalies who we haven't seen and for whom we have limited stats, we're probably less comfortable deviating from consensus. If true, the aggregate list would rate old-time goalies higher relative to modern goalies than most of the individual lists, because we can't agree on which modern goalies should be up for vote now.

 

[VanIslander]

I wish we kept a no-ranking rule for discussions, to encourage details discussion and nix ego-commitments, strategic posturing and groupthink ("I agree bud.")

There should be zero voting decisions yet.
Certainly no lists!!

Compare aspects of Tretiak with aspects of Dryden. That could be useful. Look at international resumes, playoff opponents, coaching opinions, records against a common opponent, relative specific strengths. Etc.

One of the most interesting and illuminating aspects of HOH projects is considering more and more criteria, becoming less reductive in judgment.

 

[jigglysquishy]

We have three goalies up that had widespread acclaim as best goalie ever (Vezina, Gardiner, Brimsek) and two more that at least had that claim (Benedict, Tretiak). We've already inducted two goalies that played post lockout and will have two if not three more come up next round.

The rules are clear in the OP and they've already been broken. We only have a week and we've lost a day to rude non participants.

The only goalies to be talked about are the ones that are up.