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.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Both Benedict and Vezina get claims for best of all-time. I think it's clear that pre-Gardiner (~1928) these two were widely viewed as the best goalies of all-time. There's a third contender that will hopefully come up next round that also gets very very high praise. Between the two



Arguments for Benedict

I might be in the minority in saying this, but I don't think the top goalie spot is clearcut. I believe Benedict was better than Vezina, and I think its worth spending some time to discuss.

Here's a story I did on Benedict for The Hockey News a few years back:

https://thehockeynews.com/all-access/top-100-goalies-no-16-clint-benedict

To quote myself:

"There’s long been a debate on who was the better netminder of the early NHL: Benedict or Georges Vezina. Comparing the two is difficult, since they were polar opposites as goaltenders. Vezina didn’t like to go down to block shots. Instead he stopped pucks with his pads in the stand-up position or slapped them aside with his stick. Benedict was a flopper, doing everything in his power to stop the puck."

"Hall of Famer Punch Broadbent once noted, “Georges Vezina of the Canadiens was a great goalie back then. He’s honored with a trophy practically legend in hockey. But we all thought there was no goalie ever better than Clint Benedict. Clint went on for many years with a distinctive style that included going to the ice for pucks, which has become so much a part of a goalie’s play through the years.”

"Prior to a game between Vezina’s Canadiens and Benedict’s Montreal Maroons, Vezina told Leo Dandurand, the Canadiens owner who donated the trophy in Vezina’s name, “It will be a close battle. I can hold them out at my end, Leo, but it will be tough to score against them. The best man is in the other goal, you know.”

"Dandurand also once claimed to a reporter that he was always very much tempted to trade for Benedict to play goal for the Canadiens instead of Vezina. It goes along with the legend that if Vezina hadn’t tragically died from tuberculosis in 1926, the Vezina Trophy might instead be called the Benedict Trophy."


It should be noted and taken into account that Benedict had some drinking problems and other stuff during his career that had him fall out of favour with some of the high-ranking NHL officials. Even after his career, he wasn't inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame until he was a very old man.

The legend and death of Georges Vezina is a more aesthetically pleasing tale than the one of Benedict's career, and so it's always been Vezina to get the attention and praise from the media. So sadly, Benedict's stellar career gets forgotten about.

Arguments for Vezina

Frankly, I think it's noteworthy that Benedict tied Hugh Lehman (well behind Vezina) on that 1925 MacLean's magazine all-time all-star survey of hockey insiders, most of whom were eastern based (so they would have seen a lot more of Vezina and Benedict than they would have of Lehman). That survey was taken before Vezina ever showed signs of illness.

Of course the timing of the MacLean's article couldn't have been worse for Benedict, who had just been driven out of Ottawa for allegedly showing up drunk to games, and hadn't yet had his Hart finalist year for the Montreal Maroons.

Anyway, I'm going to cut and paste from my Georges Vezina profile, because he really was considered the best goalie in the NHL (over than Benedict) well before he even got sick:

Georges Vezina

​

I. CONTEMPORARY OPINIONS

Attempting to create a chronology, based mostly on newspaper accounts. This post focuses on accounts from Vezina's career. I'll make another post on what people where saying about him in the decades after they retired

1910s: Vezina was considered the best goalie in the NHA/NHL and likely the world

There ???(I assume "is a") strong possibility that the National Hockey assiciation will this year be without the services of its most brilliant goalkeeper, Vezina of the Canadiens.

This paper was poorly scanned, but it was about a proposed deal that when Lalonde was playing out West, Vezina would be traded straight up for him to bring Lalonde back to Montreal.

During the intermission he hustled George Vezina, recognized as the best goal-keeper in the NHA, into one of the Guards uniforms.

This was from an a game where NHA all-stars played an army team. For the third period, the coach of the army team (Vezina's coach on the Habs.) snuck Vezina into the army teams goal. Here is the scoring per period:
1st: 4-1 NHA
2nd: 5-1 NHA
3rd: 3-1 Army

George Vezina, the brilliant goal-keeper of the Canadiens, often said to be as good as two men, jumped into prominence when he joined the Habitants in 1911. Born in Chicoutimi twenty-eight years ago, Vezina started playing goals when a youngster. Manager George Kennedy witnessed a game in which he was playing in 1910, and immediately signed him up. Ever since he has played in front of the nets for the Flying Frenchmen, and today is one of the highest payed goal-tenders in the business.

Vezina, George: Goalkeeper, 28 years old, and from Chicoutimi. Joined the Canadiens in 1910 and made good on the jump. The most consistent goalkeeper in the N.H.A. and as clean a player as the game knows. His success is largely consequent upon the fact that he attends stricktly to business all the time, and never tries to pull any funny stuff.

...the goaltenders, who have demonstrated that they can stop the hard shots a la George Vezina and Hugh Lehman.

From a Regina paper, infers that Lehman is the class of the West and Vezina of the East.

Georges Vezina, goalkeeper of the Montreal Canadiens, who is conceded to be the best net guardian in the game.

early 1920s: Opinion seems to be split between Benedict and Vezina:

Another development at Ottawa was the signing of Clint Benedict to occupy the nets for the Ottawa team during the forthcoming season Clint is generally regarded as the second best to George Vezina of the Flying Frenchmen.

The Senators and Benedict continued their roll into the 1920-1921 season. For the second consecutive year, Benedict was lauded as the best netminder in the NHL, even though Ottawa had dropped to second in the standings.

He certainly impressed a young rookie who joined the Senators before the 1921-1922 season – Francis “King” Clancy.
“He was superb. A lot of people say that Georges Vezina was the greatest goaltender in those early days of hockey, but if you look at the records you’ll see that Clint Benedict…had a better average.”

-Great Goaltenders: Stars of Hockey’s Golden Age by Jim Barber (note that Clancy appears to be referred to GAA).

Months before Vezina became ill, a panel of hockey experts voted him the best goaltender of all-time:

In 1925, MacLean's magazine asked Charlie H. Good, the Sporting Editor for the Toronto Daily News until that paper folded in 1919, to compile All-Time All-Star teams for their March 15, 1925 edition of the magazine. Good called upon his friends in the hockey world to help him with the list. The list of participants reads like a who's-who of the early hockey world:

Charles H. Good, W. A. Hewitt, Lester Patrick, J.F. Ahern, Tommy Gorman, W. J. Morrison, Lou Marsh, Bruce Boreham, K.G. H. McConnell, Roy Halpin, Ross Mackay, Harry Scott, O. F. Young, Art Ross, Frank Shaughnessey, James T. Sutherland, Bill Tackabery, Basil O'Meara, Ed. Baker, "Dusty" Rhodes, Walter McMullin, E. W.Ferguson, Joe Kincaid, and W. A. Boys, M.P.

The selected Vezina 1st Team All-Time-All-Star goalie. Percy LeSueur (of the previous generation) was 2nd team. Vezina's contemporaries Clint Benedict and Hugh Lehman were tied for 3rd Team

The March 17, 1925 Morning Leader report on MacLean's 1st Team makes one suspect that extra credit was given to deceased players. Noteably, Vezina, Cleghorn, and Nighbor were the only still-living players on the 1st Team:

Number One Team- Goal, Georges Vezina; defence, Sprague Cleghorn and Hod Stuart (deceased); center, Frank Nighbor; right wing, Allan, Scotty Davidson; left wing, Tommy Phillips (deceased)"

This timing is important because Vezina would not start to show signs of illness until the following October, was not diagnosed with tuberculosis until Nov 28, 1925, and did not die until March 26, 1926 (source = wikipedia).

So the MacLean's All-Time All-Star list is entirely untainted by Vezina's early death.

II. LEGACY

I'm focusing on opinions of people through the early 1950s - what people who saw them play thought about them after their careers.

The belief that Vezina was the best of his era seems fairly widespread

When you talk about goaltenders, you have to start with Georges Vezina. By an almost unanimous vote of hockey people, he was the greatest the game has ever had. I remember him fairly well.

In 1918 when I broke into the National League with Toronto, Vezina was with Les Canadians. He was near the end of his career, but was still a marvel in the nets, as I found out the first time I skated in on him.

I thought I had him beat, I thought I had a cinch goal, but he had figured exactly what I was going to do, and brushed aside the shot, as easily as you'd strike a match.

Vezina was a big fellow... I'd say he was about five feet 11 inches tall, without his skates on and he looked even taller in uniform because he always wore a red and blue toque. He had big hands and he used an exceptionally long stick.
...
He played a stand-up game, sliding from post to post, making save that seemed impossible by outguessing the puck carriers.

That was his strong point. Like all great goalers, he studied the styles of every forward in the league. He could sense what one of them would do under a given set of circumstances and was usually prepared. He guess wrong sometimes, of course, but not often.
...
I played against Vezina for three or four years. Many times he broke my heart by turning back what looked like a certain score. He was a real master. He had perfect co-ordination and an uncanny instinct.
Click to expand...

Jack Adams then went on to say that due to changes in the nature of the position, Vezina might not actually be any more effective than the best recent goalies (Charlie Gardiner, John Ross Roach, and Tiny Thompson were named). Marty Barry was present for the interview and this is his reaction:

Adams was now striking at one of the legends of hockey. Marty Barry, sitting on a rubber table next to the Honey Walker, was startled. Never before had he heard anyone question Vezina's superiority. He was too surprised to interrupt and Adams went on (about the changes in the game making a goalie's job harder since Vezina's time)
...
"I see what you mean," said Barry, only half convinced.

The Sunday Sun, Feb 1, 1936

I think it's clear that rightly or wrongly by 1936 - 10 years after Vezina's death - "conventional wisdom" considered him the best goalie of the era - better than Clint Benedict, Hugh Lehman, or Hap Holmes.

Later, in 1953:

Jack Adams said he thought that the only old-timer who might measure up to the to the modern goalers was the immortal Georges Vezina himself.
...
But Vezina played in the days of parallel passing and kitty-bar-the-door when a lot of shots were fired from far out. We doubt if he would be as successful today unless he changed his style. But we think that Vezina, Clint Benedict, George Haimsworth, Roy Worters, and other great goalers of the past would be about to adapt to the changing conditions. They were only as good as they had to be.

Montreal Gazette, Mar 9, 1953

There are some who would picked Benedict, however

The boys were talking about goaltending greats in the aftergame discussion at Cornell last night and Jim McCafffrey was firm in his stand that Benedict was tops.... JP is willing to settle for Frank Brimsek among the present-day puck stoppers and calls Jack Crawford the best defenseman of all...

Ottawa Cititzen, March 10, 1943

In 1948, Kenny McKenize, hockey journalist and co-founder of The Hockey News called Benedict the greatest goaltender of all-time. He recalled a save Benedict made on Duke Keats that made Keats "so mad that he couldn't speak for 2 hours after the game."

Vancouver Sun, Oct 13, 1948

Contemporary opinions can be hard to gauge in this regard. Vezina was clearly better in the 1910s, supported by both stats and contemporary opinions. Benedict's run from 1918-19 through 1922-1923 was the most statistically dominant goalie run ever until that point. He was letting in 1-2 goals less per game than Vezina. Statistically, the dominance surpasses peak Hasek. The lead lessens in 1921-22 and 1922-23, but it's still there. In 1923 Benedict gets into his drinking problem and Vezina jumps ahead statistically again. Just three years later and Vezina has passed away.

So from ~1910-1918, Vezina is the clear leader while competing against a young Benedict. Benedict comes into his own (on a dynasty) and runs away with everything. Then Benedict gets into trouble and falters. Then he competes with the memory of the recently passed Vezina for the last four years of his career.

We are still in the 60 minute man era so the impact on high end players is immeasurable.

Those 1919-1923 Senators won three Stanley Cups and made the final in the canceled 1919 Final. They were the clearcut best team of the era. The entire time they have Frank Nighbor, the clear best defensive forward of the era and the player this forum easily voted #1 of the era. The entire time they have Eddie Gerard, who this forum voted #2 of the era for defensemen. The whole time they had Georges Boucher, who this forum voted #4 of the era for defensemen.

It's not that the 1919-1923 Canadiens are bad, but the defensive support is truly a world apart. Most of this time it's a blueline of Bert Corbeau and Billy Coutu. Neither made our top 70, nor were even eligible in the last round. I was the only poster to have them on my initial list. The consensus on this forum was clear: neither player was amongst the best of the era. Sure, Vezina gets lots of goal support from Lalonde and Malone, but neither are in the same world defensively as Frank Nighbor.

Then we get to Sprague Cleghorn. This forum voted him the best defenseman pre-1928. The contemporary opinion is clear. He's simply the best. And he moved teams so we get a good idea of his impact.

Year	Vezina GAA	Benedict GAA	Difference	The Cleghorn Factor
1917-18	3.93	5.11	-1.18	Cleghorn misses entire season to injury
1918-19	4.27	2.85	1.42	Cleghorn is #1 defenseman on Senators
1919-20	4.66	2.66	2.00	Cleghorn is #1 defenseman on Senators
1920-21	4.12	3.08	1.04	Cleghorn is in contract trouble and ends up in Toronto
1921-22	3.84	3.34	0.50	Cleghorn is the #1 defenseman on the Canadiens
1922-23	2.46	2.18	0.28	Cleghorn is the #1 defenseman on the Canadiens
1923-24	1.97	1.99	-0.02	Cleghorn is the #1 defenseman on the Canadiens
1924-25	1.81	2.12	-0.21	Cleghorn is the #1 defenseman on the Canadiens

We can see the statistical difference when Cleghorn switches teams. Benedict is still ahead, but the gap shrinks considerably.

So we have one goalie who plays with the who's who of the era. The clearcut best player of the era who happens to be the clearcut best defensive forward of the era AND three of the top four defensemen of the era. The other played with scoring forwards and a weak blueline.

I think both should be high up. Both have an argument for the best goalie 1890-1930. Both played forever and had years of statistical dominance.

 

[jigglysquishy]

A collection of Vezina quotes 1912-1920

The Regina Leader - February 12, 1912

Vezina was certainly the star for the Canadiens.

The Regina Leader - October 17, 1914

Vezina, a goal tender of class second to none in the NHA.

The Regina Leader - March 19, 1917

Pitre and Vezina are Real Stars

The Regina Leader - February 16, 1918
On an amateur game, but how Vezina is referenced is interesting

...the shots that beat were rained from two feet out and even Vezina couldn't have stopped them.

Vezina is used as a stand-in for best goalie in the world.

The Regina Leader - March 26, 1918

Lehman is the Vezina of the Coast league. He has been for years acknowledged the best man between the flags on the coast circuit

The Regina Leader - December 4, 1918

The Arenas forced the play from the start and bombarded Vezina at all angles, but the Montreal wizard turned them all aside with rare ability.

The Regina Leader - January 8, 1919

Vezina was the same reliable net guardian as usual and stopped many bullet-like shots from Denneny and Cameron.

The Regina Leader - January 27, 1919

Great work in goal by Vezina kept the score down.

The Regina Leader - February 27, 1919
In reference to a Saskatchewan league amateur game

Goal-minders, who have demonstrated that they can stop the hard shots a la George Vezina and Hugh Lehman

The Regina Leader - March 4, 1919

They had the edge of Newsy Lalonde and is team mates throughout and would have maintained a much larger lead had it not been for the remarkable goalkeeping of Vezina.

The Regina Leader - March 8, 1919

The Regina Leader - March 14, 1919

Georges Vezina, the peer of all goaltenders, had a rocky row to hoe last night as he had some of the best shots in professional hockey against him. However, he made some excellent saves.

The Regina Leader - March 15, 1919

Hugh Lehman, the great goaler of the Vancouver Millionaires, who is reputed to be the best in his position on the coast. In fact, the critics out there say he is as good as Georges Vezina.

The Regina Leader - March 27, 1919

Vezina proved a brick wall in the Montreal net.

The Regina Leader - December 29, 1919

Sterling work in the nets by Vezina prevented the Ottawa team from running up a big tally.

The Regina Leader - February 26, 1920

Vezina played a sensational game and undoubtedly saved Canadiens from a severe lacing.

 

[MadArcand]

I'm randomly happy to see Belfour up for discussion. If I were participating, I almost certainly wouldn't place him in the upper half yet, but I believe the gap between him and Brodeur is less than between him and whoever you have next of the 90s goalies.

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is nothing...but no matter how many times I look at Belfour's numbers...my brain never retains - and therefore is always surprised - by the fact that Beflour played 23 games in 1989, two years before his famous rookie season.

Every time: "Hmph, look at that..."

 

[jigglysquishy]

A selection of quotes on Clint Benedict 1917-1923. Research was difficult since Benedict XV was Pope 1914-1922.

One thing I notice is Benedict, Cleghorn, and Gerard are noted as a "trio" with regularity.

The Regina Leader - January 11, 1917

Benedict's fine work in the nets for Quebec and poor shooting by the Quebec forwards kept Ottawa in the lead.

The Regina Leader - January 15, 1917

Benedict had very little to do.

The Regina Leader - March 8, 1917

Benedict in this period was given little effective assistance in the nets.

The Regina Leader - December 27, 1917

Both Benedict and Lindsay were warned for getting on their knees but were allowed to go unpenalized althrough they offended several times.

The Regina Leader - December 31, 1917

Gerard and Shore, with Benedict, formed the regular defense of the Ottawas and comprised a bulwark through which the visitors rarely penetrated.

The Regina Leader - January 3, 1918

Both Sammy Hebert and Clint Benedict playing remarkable games.

The Regina Leader - February 28, 1918

There was no score in the third period thanks to Benedict

The Regina Leader - November 9, 1918

Clint Benedict, the crack goal-keeper of the Ottawa Senators

The Regina Leader - January 29, 1919

Benedict's brilliant performance

The Regina Leader - December 29, 1919

Cleghorn and Nighbor looked the best of the Ottawa team, while the work of Benedict in the nets was also good.

The Regina Leader - January 22, 1920

For the Senators, Darragh, Broadbent, and Nighbor played great hockey. The defence held like a stonewall and Benedict had one of the lightest sessions of the season.

The Regina Leader - March 29, 1920

Benedict made a most miraculous save time and again

The Regina Leader - April 6, 1921

Even Hughie Lehman skating half way down the ice and taking shot on the Ottawa goal which Benedict was called on to save.

The Regina Leader - March 13, 1922

Benedict looked weak on long shots.

The Regina Leader - March 14, 1922

Benedict made two most brilliant stops..... Benedict had to stop a long one.

The Regina Leader - December 18, 1922

Benedict was given a rather busy session.

The Regina Leader - March 15, 1923

Client Benedict probably the busiest 60 minutes that he ever was subjected to.

A thing I take away as I go through all these reports. Nighbor and Cleghorn and Gerard get a lot of praise. It's not so much what we read, but what we don't read. Another outstanding game by Nighbor and Gerard. Another game where Benedict isn't mentioned.

 

[overpass]

All-star voting shares for the six goaltenders who played in the NHL since 1930.

Goalie	Seasons w/ votes	AS Shares
Bill Durnan	7	5.99
Ken Dryden	7	4.78
Frank Brimsek	8	4.39
Turk Broda	8	2.91
Ed Belfour	12	2.86
Charlie Gardiner	4	2.53

The 1940s trio has a pretty clear ordering here, Durnan-Brimsek-Broda. But this is regular season only, and the playoff reputation of the trio is probably the reverse order.

Dryden's record of 5 1-AS and 1 2-AS almost matches Durnan's 6 AS. They both had six outstanding regular seasons. But Dryden had some all-star selections where he didn't stand out as much in voting as Durnan. In 71-72 he was narrowly outvoted by Tony Esposito, in 76-77 Rogie Vachon was close behind, and in 78-79 he edged Chico Resch in voting.

Charlie Gardiner finishes last due to his short career, with only four seasons where he rated in all-star voting. Maybe you could add 1929-30 to the list as well - he didn't receive all star votes from the coaches (who picked Tiny Thompson), but he was 7th in Hart voting.

Ed Belfour's numbers are hurt by two factors. First, he had to compete for all-star spots against three goaltenders already named to our list in Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur. Second, he played in a much larger league where random goalies who might not have made a smaller league could have a peak season and get all-star consideration (e.g. Ron Tugnutt in 99). If you take out Hasek, Roy, and Brodeur, Belfour led all-star voting 4 times instead of 2, adding 1995 and 1998 to 1991 and 1993. And he would have finished 2nd to Kirk McLean in 1992 and 2nd to Marty Turco in 2003.

I think Turk Broda's regular season record is pretty clearly #9 for this round.