Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Considering the last 15 Vezina's have been won by 13 different goalies, that makes sense.
HOH Top 60 Goaltenders of All Time (2024 Edition) - Round 2, Vote 2
- Thread starter Dr John Carlson
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
Considering the last 15 Vezina's have been won by 13 different goalies, that makes sense.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
Dryden vs. Tretiak was a staple debate as greatest goalie, reaching: do they rival the big 3? In debates. But then Dryden retired and became hockey's equal to Barry Sanders.
Note: if Dryden's career had ended like Orr's, due to injury - instead of political, literary and managerial pursuits - he would be HERALDED by more than the few that have done since he hung his skates up.
Yet, despite the persona non grata status by those who baulked at his exit despite having done everything for the length of many careers, in 1998 The Hockey News' Top-100 NHL players ever had Ken Dryden 26th, ahead of 12 other goalies on the list.
I thought Dryden was better than Tretiak but Tretiak continued to shine after Dryden retired - not just keep lacing up and cashing checks with meh play like Lafleur did into the decade after his glory.
Tretiak & Vezina have solid claims to being the best players of their era. In fact, who the hell is close to Tretiak from the 1972 Summit Series to the mid-1980's? (Dryden the only NHLer); Patrick Roy emerged in 85-86 with a bang.
Note: if Dryden's career had ended like Orr's, due to injury - instead of political, literary and managerial pursuits - he would be HERALDED by more than the few that have done since he hung his skates up.
Yet, despite the persona non grata status by those who baulked at his exit despite having done everything for the length of many careers, in 1998 The Hockey News' Top-100 NHL players ever had Ken Dryden 26th, ahead of 12 other goalies on the list.
I thought Dryden was better than Tretiak but Tretiak continued to shine after Dryden retired - not just keep lacing up and cashing checks with meh play like Lafleur did into the decade after his glory.
Tretiak & Vezina have solid claims to being the best players of their era. In fact, who the hell is close to Tretiak from the 1972 Summit Series to the mid-1980's? (Dryden the only NHLer); Patrick Roy emerged in 85-86 with a bang.
Last edited:
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Are you there era bias? It's me, Michael.
I've been a "regular" on the HoH board for well over a decade now. I've done the ATD and even a MLD. I've been a panelist on almost every project in that time. I write this with nothing but the most respect and altruistic intentions for the project.
Growing up without a religious affiliation
The tip of the iceberg/clump of these goalies becoming available immediately after the big 6 (see, how easy it is to change? That's good, because it's probably really the Big 5 haha) flags for me that we might have trouble with this and any future project.
I think we're going to have a major anchoring bias or canon issue and we might not have enough conscientious objectors or time or interest or film or stats to challenge at the potentially correct pressure points.
The Blume is off the rose, for me, on the "oldest" goalies
As many of you know, I've spent a ton of hours watching about 100 years of goalie film working my way backward through time as to not shock the system so bad. I intermixed instructional videos, read about coaching techniques, read about goalies talking about goalies, and reached out to older goalies/goalie coaches when I felt like there was a gap in my technical perspective of the situation.
You: So you hate history?
Not at all. I'm the lone #1 vote for Jacques Plante in the first round - and he turned pro in 1949. I don't think you can show any more respect for the history of the game than by representing it with maximum possible accuracy.
You: So you're just committing era bias? Which we hate! Don't we?!?!
*rabble rabble rabble*
Perhaps. But isn't it just as likely that you're committing era bias? It's not a one-way street. Maybe you're over-representing the era(s) in question and THAT'S historically inaccurate.
The previous goalie list had, what, 4 or 5 goalies from the entire baby boomer generation? One of which is mostly just Gretzky's goalie. There's well more goalies that played pre-consolidation than played during a certain span of my lifetime.
Who are the "80's goalies", to fit it into a box, on the previous list? Roy, Smith, Fuhr, Barrasso - who doesn't even belong, Vanbiesbrouck, and Liut sneaking in last? Including Smith (23rd) and Fuhr (25th) only three made the top 25.
Maybe hockey was a pathetic sport in the 80's? Well...6 of the top 20 centers played in the 80's. You got another 6 or so top 40 wingers from the 80's. 8 of the top 20 d-men. So, it's not that. Hockey seems good...maybe great.
So that means either...ERA BIAS *alarm sound* or the recognition that positions evolve at different rates within the context of the game. I don't live in binary world, so it's not a Y/N choice. I'm sure both have good claims.
It is a little convenient that the 80's guys have bad numbers vs. the rest of history and are not represented, whereas pre-forward pass goalies may be over-represented with the best numbers in history. That's maybe just a coincidence. But I'd give that a quick whiff before I chug it.
So why are we moving to New Jersey?
1. Westchester is too expensive
The film work tells me that the position does ebb and flow. It doesn't evolve consistently or evenly or anything of the sort. That's the nature of sport. The most accessible and obvious thing I can point to here is - we see the highlights from 1975 to 1985 or whatever, right? And yeah, goalies don't make any saves in those usually. But come on, you can get a feel for what's going on. And now for those of you that partook in the Plante and Sawchuk videos that I made can see a MARKED difference between a dude playing in 1955 versus 1985...you want the former, generally.
But film work, especially when you go back and it's scarce, can get people's dander up. That's fair enough. You're not obliged to agree with any of this if you don't want. But as someone who has watched a lot of, hmmm...how to put this...bad hockey in his life, you can usually sort out what you're watching pretty quick if your palette is diverse enough. Like when I posted the Jarmo Myllys video a few weeks back. Yeah, it's a video of him giving up the most goals in a period ever or whatever. But come on...come on...even if that's the worst game of his life, right? Even if it is. Do you think his best game looks like something you'd want to invest in? And maybe this is just my mind's eye, but he's going to be bad no matter what. You can just tell in how he goes about his business. I don't need to watch 20 games of him to figure it out, ya know? It's not a mystery.
I considered bringing film into this now, but I don't know how to present it without re-creating the flipbook that I went through myself. It's unfair to these older goalies if I say, "Hey, look, this is what Gardiner played like...doesn't he look like a goof?" (I don't think that's even true) because there's no context. If you're watching Calgary/Chicago like I am right now, there's a huge difference between Mrazek and Wolf right there in terms of playing style...now I'm gonna show you something from 1928 and go, "yeah, see...this is no good"...? That doesn't make sense for either side.
But what can I say with some degree of confidence is that: if you put a pin in the game in 1967 and work backwards, there's a consistent pattern of technical regression and devolution in the goaltending position. I think the position grows considerably through the 1930's (among the top guys, the position seldom has much depth, the bottom O6 guys aren't worth a damn either). I don't want to name a bunch of names that aren't eligible...but Brimsek and Durnan seem to provide something that the generation before them did not. There's a couple guys in the 30's that are bringing something that almost no one else was. The guys before that..........I don't think too much of. The guys that played before forward passing was liberalized, with little exception, appear to be closer to a low-movement, shot-blocking defenseman. A mostly-standing Anton Volchenkov, if you will.
Is it possible that goalies in 1900 and 1910 were better than 1920? Sure. But why would I conclude that at the rate it was going? Plus, there's a war in there. Just doesn't seem very likely.
For the record, I do NOT find that to be the case with skaters or league quality as a whole. Skaters pop, even going back through the 1920's. And I left some comments to that effect in my notes, guys that surprised me because they jumped off the page (Neil Colville, for instance). I have more reason to believe that there were impact players in the 1920's and back through the 1910's and maybe even further back because they are relatively advanced. Offensive play is more advanced. Goaltending appears to be very, very rudimentary. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But the level of difficulty for goaltenders seems historically low.
2. Long Island is too social
You: Well, contemporary opinion says that guys had great games and stuff...
I'm sure they did. I mean, what else could they have known? It's the old line about transportation in the 1890's: People wouldn't ask for a car, they'd ask for faster horses.
But we do see some folks commenting about the quality of goaltending immediately around the time where the film shows it improving at the top end.
A 1935 Ottawa Journal article refers to forwards having more protection than "the goaltender of the early days". Pictures of Percy LeSueur from 1910 seem to more or less verify that.
We have evidence that shot attempts were counted, as opposed to just shots on goal. Shots seem quite rare based on the film, which is mostly highlights of course. I want to do more work on this but someone hacked a big source of film from back then, unfortunately, and it isn't currently available.
It is fairly routinely stated that up to a certain point goaltenders were the guys that couldn't make it at the other positions because they weren't good enough skaters or stickhandlers. It seems like it was a dumping ground first before it became a specialized position.
We have some rules about not being allowed to screen the goalie. We have the "trick" of Howie Morenz following up his shots on the goalie to score on the rebound (making it seem like that was maybe an advent in the mid 20's), it appears as if the average shot distance is also from further away, etc.
Also, as far as contemporary opinion in the context of an all-time list like we're making here...the contemporary opinion seems to be low on goaltending.
The first 12 years of the HHOF's history - only two goalies were elected - both goalies who died while playing (Gardiner and Vezina). Which means, up through 1958, all the HHOF creators/makers/contributors/etc. found basically no one important enough to enshrine. That's pretty damning. We have over 50 years of Stanley Cup hockey at that point...two goalies. Maybe they knew that they were just the fat guy or the slow guy that they stuck back there. And having seen Gardiner for a flash, I'd say that he doesn't look like that. But guys around him do...
The weirdest, most inconsistent, and possibly the most team-dependent position in all of sports perhaps...this is the one that was steady through history?
The first NFL MVP was a center. For the last 30+ years, they're hardly ever first round picks in the draft. NFL has had the tight end position since the 40's. There are 0 tight ends in the HOF that played before 1961. Only 5 that had their prime in the 60's or 70's.
Meanwhile...Gronk, Kelce, Gates, Witten, are all going in...Gonzalez is already there. Those are all guys who played since 2000.
Even quarterbacks in the NFL...who is mentioned before Sammy Baugh (who started in the late 30's)? The NFL itself started in 1920, not even including other pro circuits.
I'm not saying that's right...but I'm just saying there's more wiggle room than "treat every era of this position more or less equally" that tracks away from bias and tracks towards plausible accuracy.
3. Connecticut is too inconvenient
It wasn't a specialized position for a while, but it had no choice but to become one when forward passing was fully liberalized. Notice the big shift after the game changed in 2005 and we fell off goalie-wise until everyone could figure out what to do? Well...
In the non-liberalized passing NHL, skaters that filled in for goalies had these results:
10 players - 357 minutes - 4.37 GAA
(the worst of that is Mummery giving up 20 goals in 192 minutes, which is exactly in line with the starting goalie on the team, they were awful). Without him, it's a 2.18. Granted, very small sample size...but also very biased towards being shorthanded. So you'd expect a really, really bad result. But it's not...no matter how you slice it.
(I just realized I don't have Lester Patrick's 35 minutes in the playoffs in there either in 1928 - that would drop that number even further overall)
This composite goalie, in an impossible situation, is still better than a handful of goalies in this time frame. It's "only" a goal per game worse than Vezina even.
From 1929-30 to 1940 just before the War years...with loosey goosey passing.
12 players - 194 minutes - 8.97 GAA
That GAA is 250% worse than the worst goalie of any legitimate time played. Every real goalie keeps it under 4. The non-goalies are sitting at 9. That feels a little more in line with what you'd "expect", right?
What would it look like if a skater hopped in net during a penalty kill today? Or in 1987 even? Probably not pretty. It can't be close. Something is wrong if it's close.
All right, I have more to say, but I'm running out of steam here.
So, let me say that I'm not fully against all goalies before forward-passing. I do have Gardiner pretty high on my original list (low 20s) because he does show some signs of technical scalability. Very tight, efficient. I don't think he belongs now, but I could maybe be convinced.
Clint Benedict, I'm much less sure about it. So are a lot of folks with the power of modest retrospect. Guys that could see the position evolve in the 30's, 40's, 50's...right now, we're talking about the 7th best goalie of all time...I'd like to be more sure than a guy known for "accidentally falling". But at the same time, if there's a straight story, I'll award some advent points. I'm not even against that either.
We don't necessarily need to have this whole thing out here, but I see we're already teetering towards some of these names and I think it's a critical discussion point to keep on the front lines.
I've been a "regular" on the HoH board for well over a decade now. I've done the ATD and even a MLD. I've been a panelist on almost every project in that time. I write this with nothing but the most respect and altruistic intentions for the project.
Growing up without a religious affiliation
The tip of the iceberg/clump of these goalies becoming available immediately after the big 6 (see, how easy it is to change? That's good, because it's probably really the Big 5 haha) flags for me that we might have trouble with this and any future project.
I think we're going to have a major anchoring bias or canon issue and we might not have enough conscientious objectors or time or interest or film or stats to challenge at the potentially correct pressure points.
The Blume is off the rose, for me, on the "oldest" goalies
As many of you know, I've spent a ton of hours watching about 100 years of goalie film working my way backward through time as to not shock the system so bad. I intermixed instructional videos, read about coaching techniques, read about goalies talking about goalies, and reached out to older goalies/goalie coaches when I felt like there was a gap in my technical perspective of the situation.
You: So you hate history?
Not at all. I'm the lone #1 vote for Jacques Plante in the first round - and he turned pro in 1949. I don't think you can show any more respect for the history of the game than by representing it with maximum possible accuracy.
You: So you're just committing era bias? Which we hate! Don't we?!?!
*rabble rabble rabble*
Perhaps. But isn't it just as likely that you're committing era bias? It's not a one-way street. Maybe you're over-representing the era(s) in question and THAT'S historically inaccurate.
The previous goalie list had, what, 4 or 5 goalies from the entire baby boomer generation? One of which is mostly just Gretzky's goalie. There's well more goalies that played pre-consolidation than played during a certain span of my lifetime.
Who are the "80's goalies", to fit it into a box, on the previous list? Roy, Smith, Fuhr, Barrasso - who doesn't even belong, Vanbiesbrouck, and Liut sneaking in last? Including Smith (23rd) and Fuhr (25th) only three made the top 25.
Maybe hockey was a pathetic sport in the 80's? Well...6 of the top 20 centers played in the 80's. You got another 6 or so top 40 wingers from the 80's. 8 of the top 20 d-men. So, it's not that. Hockey seems good...maybe great.
So that means either...ERA BIAS *alarm sound* or the recognition that positions evolve at different rates within the context of the game. I don't live in binary world, so it's not a Y/N choice. I'm sure both have good claims.
It is a little convenient that the 80's guys have bad numbers vs. the rest of history and are not represented, whereas pre-forward pass goalies may be over-represented with the best numbers in history. That's maybe just a coincidence. But I'd give that a quick whiff before I chug it.
So why are we moving to New Jersey?
1. Westchester is too expensive
The film work tells me that the position does ebb and flow. It doesn't evolve consistently or evenly or anything of the sort. That's the nature of sport. The most accessible and obvious thing I can point to here is - we see the highlights from 1975 to 1985 or whatever, right? And yeah, goalies don't make any saves in those usually. But come on, you can get a feel for what's going on. And now for those of you that partook in the Plante and Sawchuk videos that I made can see a MARKED difference between a dude playing in 1955 versus 1985...you want the former, generally.
But film work, especially when you go back and it's scarce, can get people's dander up. That's fair enough. You're not obliged to agree with any of this if you don't want. But as someone who has watched a lot of, hmmm...how to put this...bad hockey in his life, you can usually sort out what you're watching pretty quick if your palette is diverse enough. Like when I posted the Jarmo Myllys video a few weeks back. Yeah, it's a video of him giving up the most goals in a period ever or whatever. But come on...come on...even if that's the worst game of his life, right? Even if it is. Do you think his best game looks like something you'd want to invest in? And maybe this is just my mind's eye, but he's going to be bad no matter what. You can just tell in how he goes about his business. I don't need to watch 20 games of him to figure it out, ya know? It's not a mystery.
I considered bringing film into this now, but I don't know how to present it without re-creating the flipbook that I went through myself. It's unfair to these older goalies if I say, "Hey, look, this is what Gardiner played like...doesn't he look like a goof?" (I don't think that's even true) because there's no context. If you're watching Calgary/Chicago like I am right now, there's a huge difference between Mrazek and Wolf right there in terms of playing style...now I'm gonna show you something from 1928 and go, "yeah, see...this is no good"...? That doesn't make sense for either side.
But what can I say with some degree of confidence is that: if you put a pin in the game in 1967 and work backwards, there's a consistent pattern of technical regression and devolution in the goaltending position. I think the position grows considerably through the 1930's (among the top guys, the position seldom has much depth, the bottom O6 guys aren't worth a damn either). I don't want to name a bunch of names that aren't eligible...but Brimsek and Durnan seem to provide something that the generation before them did not. There's a couple guys in the 30's that are bringing something that almost no one else was. The guys before that..........I don't think too much of. The guys that played before forward passing was liberalized, with little exception, appear to be closer to a low-movement, shot-blocking defenseman. A mostly-standing Anton Volchenkov, if you will.
Is it possible that goalies in 1900 and 1910 were better than 1920? Sure. But why would I conclude that at the rate it was going? Plus, there's a war in there. Just doesn't seem very likely.
For the record, I do NOT find that to be the case with skaters or league quality as a whole. Skaters pop, even going back through the 1920's. And I left some comments to that effect in my notes, guys that surprised me because they jumped off the page (Neil Colville, for instance). I have more reason to believe that there were impact players in the 1920's and back through the 1910's and maybe even further back because they are relatively advanced. Offensive play is more advanced. Goaltending appears to be very, very rudimentary. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But the level of difficulty for goaltenders seems historically low.
2. Long Island is too social
You: Well, contemporary opinion says that guys had great games and stuff...
I'm sure they did. I mean, what else could they have known? It's the old line about transportation in the 1890's: People wouldn't ask for a car, they'd ask for faster horses.
But we do see some folks commenting about the quality of goaltending immediately around the time where the film shows it improving at the top end.
The Hockey News - Mar 16 1949 said:
Pasadena Independent - Nov 10 1948 said:
A 1935 Ottawa Journal article refers to forwards having more protection than "the goaltender of the early days". Pictures of Percy LeSueur from 1910 seem to more or less verify that.
We have evidence that shot attempts were counted, as opposed to just shots on goal. Shots seem quite rare based on the film, which is mostly highlights of course. I want to do more work on this but someone hacked a big source of film from back then, unfortunately, and it isn't currently available.
It is fairly routinely stated that up to a certain point goaltenders were the guys that couldn't make it at the other positions because they weren't good enough skaters or stickhandlers. It seems like it was a dumping ground first before it became a specialized position.
We have some rules about not being allowed to screen the goalie. We have the "trick" of Howie Morenz following up his shots on the goalie to score on the rebound (making it seem like that was maybe an advent in the mid 20's), it appears as if the average shot distance is also from further away, etc.
Also, as far as contemporary opinion in the context of an all-time list like we're making here...the contemporary opinion seems to be low on goaltending.
The first 12 years of the HHOF's history - only two goalies were elected - both goalies who died while playing (Gardiner and Vezina). Which means, up through 1958, all the HHOF creators/makers/contributors/etc. found basically no one important enough to enshrine. That's pretty damning. We have over 50 years of Stanley Cup hockey at that point...two goalies. Maybe they knew that they were just the fat guy or the slow guy that they stuck back there. And having seen Gardiner for a flash, I'd say that he doesn't look like that. But guys around him do...
The weirdest, most inconsistent, and possibly the most team-dependent position in all of sports perhaps...this is the one that was steady through history?
The first NFL MVP was a center. For the last 30+ years, they're hardly ever first round picks in the draft. NFL has had the tight end position since the 40's. There are 0 tight ends in the HOF that played before 1961. Only 5 that had their prime in the 60's or 70's.
Meanwhile...Gronk, Kelce, Gates, Witten, are all going in...Gonzalez is already there. Those are all guys who played since 2000.
Even quarterbacks in the NFL...who is mentioned before Sammy Baugh (who started in the late 30's)? The NFL itself started in 1920, not even including other pro circuits.
I'm not saying that's right...but I'm just saying there's more wiggle room than "treat every era of this position more or less equally" that tracks away from bias and tracks towards plausible accuracy.
3. Connecticut is too inconvenient
It wasn't a specialized position for a while, but it had no choice but to become one when forward passing was fully liberalized. Notice the big shift after the game changed in 2005 and we fell off goalie-wise until everyone could figure out what to do? Well...
In the non-liberalized passing NHL, skaters that filled in for goalies had these results:
10 players - 357 minutes - 4.37 GAA
(the worst of that is Mummery giving up 20 goals in 192 minutes, which is exactly in line with the starting goalie on the team, they were awful). Without him, it's a 2.18. Granted, very small sample size...but also very biased towards being shorthanded. So you'd expect a really, really bad result. But it's not...no matter how you slice it.
(I just realized I don't have Lester Patrick's 35 minutes in the playoffs in there either in 1928 - that would drop that number even further overall)
This composite goalie, in an impossible situation, is still better than a handful of goalies in this time frame. It's "only" a goal per game worse than Vezina even.
From 1929-30 to 1940 just before the War years...with loosey goosey passing.
12 players - 194 minutes - 8.97 GAA
That GAA is 250% worse than the worst goalie of any legitimate time played. Every real goalie keeps it under 4. The non-goalies are sitting at 9. That feels a little more in line with what you'd "expect", right?
What would it look like if a skater hopped in net during a penalty kill today? Or in 1987 even? Probably not pretty. It can't be close. Something is wrong if it's close.
All right, I have more to say, but I'm running out of steam here.
So, let me say that I'm not fully against all goalies before forward-passing. I do have Gardiner pretty high on my original list (low 20s) because he does show some signs of technical scalability. Very tight, efficient. I don't think he belongs now, but I could maybe be convinced.
Clint Benedict, I'm much less sure about it. So are a lot of folks with the power of modest retrospect. Guys that could see the position evolve in the 30's, 40's, 50's...right now, we're talking about the 7th best goalie of all time...I'd like to be more sure than a guy known for "accidentally falling". But at the same time, if there's a straight story, I'll award some advent points. I'm not even against that either.
We don't necessarily need to have this whole thing out here, but I see we're already teetering towards some of these names and I think it's a critical discussion point to keep on the front lines.
Can someone post the cliff notes from this novel?
Plante #1...Gardiner in the low 20s...Benedict not worthy of this round's discussion...keep it up and you're going to talk your way out of having voting privileges here.
Also...touch grass man. Holy smokes.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 5,041
- 2,471
If I post now that we have never, ever ever thrown out people's votes as a way of enforcing consensus, will everyone get it and stop asking for that to happen?
No?
Ah well, Einstein didn't actually say that was the definition of insanity anyway.
We don't throw out voters to enforce consensus.
No?
Ah well, Einstein didn't actually say that was the definition of insanity anyway.
We don't throw out voters to enforce consensus.
I made a post about Tretiak's career path during the 2018-19 Top-100 Players project that I think is still relevant. I'll repost shorter version with minor adjustments.
Tretiak's phases of development:
a) 1970-1972 (age 17-19)
Teenager Tretiak recorded impressive 0.950 at WHC 70 (tournament's highest SV%) but I wouldn´t think too highly of this yet. I´ve read the game reports and Tretiak´s usage was extremely sheltered, most of his 6 games that he officially played were just 1 or 2 periods against the low-level opponents (Poland, E. Germany, Finland). Kudos to Tretiak that he approached these games conscientiously, as he should have, but there is nothing of a serious value yet... Tretiak didn´t get a single vote in either WHC all-star team voting or subsequent SPOTY voting.
Then comes the WHC 71, Tretiak posted impressive 0.930, 2nd only to Holecek, but it's still just 5 games played, when Konovalenko (7 games) acted as a starting goalie. Kudos to Tretiak for how he played and that he again posted higher SV% than his partner, but it was Konovalenko who received a couple of votes in AST voting, Tretiak didn´t receive any. Tretiak did at least become Soviet all-star goalie (instead of Konovalenko) and finished 5th in SPOTY voting (ahead of Konovalenko, so we can make a solid judgement that Tretiak became the best Soviet goalie already at this point in time. But I don´t see anything of serious value on a macro-level yet.
OG 72, I didn´t read anything of Tretiak´s big contribution to the gold medal, there was no award voting for Olympics but goalie Mike Curran pretty much stole the show with the way he led the underdog USA team to silver medals. Tretiak had solid 0.921 but it was only 4th best SV%, Curran led the tournament with 0.928.
Moving to the WHC 72, the tournament where Soviets didn´t win for the first time in 10 years or so. Tretiak posted 0.912 which was 2nd among starters (behind Holecek) and he received 10 votes in AST voting of the championship for the first time which was 4th best result (Holecek, Molina and Valtonen had more votes). Moreover, I´ve read the game reports from this championship, Tretiak was shaky precisely in both crucial games against Czechoslovakia, allowed some weaker goals from shots from the blueline. I have read plenty from this particular season (aside from game reports also descriptions from Gól magazine and post-seasonal hockey yearbook 1972) and I can say with certainty that Tretiak was still viewed firmly below the top tier of Czechoslovak, Swedish and Finnish goaltenders (namely Holecek, Dzurilla, Holmqvist and Valtonen). Tretiak finished 6th in ´72 SPOTY voting which was notably weak voting finish for the top Soviet goalie (you had almost guaranted top 5 SPOTY placement if you were a Soviet starting goalie).
b) 1973-1976 (age 20-23)
Summit series, summer of 1972, this is where Tretiak took the next step. It was interesting to read contemporary Czech comments to this series, regarding Tretiak, Czechs had thought pretty much the same as Canadians prior to series - that is, Tretiak, weak Soviet goaltending generally, will be the main reason why Soviets would lose the series. Otherwise Czechs expected that the Soviet forwards are going to shock the Canadians and generally assumed rather close series. It was a big surprise for all the sport writers and columnists in the Czech press to see Tretiak playing so well.
Tretiak had somewhat average WHC 73 (7 games with 0.921, 6th SV% overall, 4th among starters, no award recognition) but finished 4th in SPOTY in pretty good competition.
What followed then? Tretiak´s incredible 3-year stretch of winning the 'Soviet player of the year' award in 1974, 1975, 1976... This run can get both overrated and underrated. Tretiak wasn't the best Soviet player, nor the best European goalie. His SPOTY wins were based on him having no competition whatsoever among the Soviet goalie pool. Soviet writers voted him due to relative value - Tretiak's nearest replacement goalie couldn't hold his stick against Poland, and the USSR's success was more dependent on Tretiak more so than on any skater because the USSR had plenty of forward/d-man replacements.
But let´s also not discount what Tretiak showed here, he was firmly in the wider range of best players in Europe during this time (I'd say one of the top 10 players in Europe for sure), he showed up well vs. NHL opponents. Looking at his 73-76 span, there´s nothing wrong with being "only" 2nd best goalie in Europe. There were simply 2 elite goalies, one who was at his peak (=Holecek) and the other one (=Tretiak) whose peak performance came up later.
c) 1977-1979 (age 24-26)
I'll skip this time frame, it´s less important.
d) 1980 (age 27)
Probably Tretiak's worst season of his career. 'Miracle on ice', Soviets losing to American college students. Tretiak was definitely an accomplice with his uncharacteristically low 0.840 SV%:
Tretiak ended up 8th in SPOTY voting (his worst career finish if you disregard the 1970 season) and for the first and last time, different Soviet goalie, V. Myshkin was voted ahead of Tretiak on the 7th place...
e) 1981-1984 (age 28-32)
...Which leads us to Tretiak´s, in my opinion, peak phase of his career. '80 season and 'miracle on ice' fiasco had to motivate him to change something. Whatever that was, it was working. During this stretch, Tretiak recorded 0.9377. This period consisted of 5 major international tournaments (WHC 81, CC 81, WHC 82, WHC 83, OG 84) and their average aggregate SV% was merely 0.8843. The award voting points to Tretiak´s excellence at this timeframe. Soviet Player of The Year voting: 1st (1981), 3rd (1982), 1st (1983), 2nd (1984).
We're fortunate to have the voting record of 'European Golden Stick' award (also known as 'Izvestia trophy' for the best players in Europe) from late 70s to late 80s. Tretiak in 1981-1984 period looks just as good which points to conclusion that his 1980s performances this time weren´t just a fluke. Neither his popularity couldn't have been based on relative value to his home country's goaltending competition since polled writers came from many different countries. Tretiak´s Izvestia trophy voting record during this stretch:
That's 3x in row being considered the best PLAYER in Europe, not just the best goalie. And that is precisely why I think Tretiak actually was the best goalie in the world in this timeframe, not just in his own country or continent.
Tretiak was 28-32 years old between 1981-1984. Pretty common age for goalkeepers to have lived their top athletic performance.
Soviet press noticing progress Tretiak made after 1980. This was written after 1981 SPOTY announcement:
Tarasov noticed another progress in Tretiak's game. This was published after 1983 SPOTY announcement:
Summary:
I think we can for all intents and purposes structure Tretiak´s career this way:
Elite (= one of the best goalies in the world) seasons: 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984.
Very good, meaningful seasons in all-time sense (let´s say top 10-12 best player in Europe / ca. 2nd best goalie in Europe): 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.
Seasons which hold no value in all-time sense: 1970, 1971, 1972, 1980.
Tretiak's phases of development:
a) 1970-1972 (age 17-19)
Teenager Tretiak recorded impressive 0.950 at WHC 70 (tournament's highest SV%) but I wouldn´t think too highly of this yet. I´ve read the game reports and Tretiak´s usage was extremely sheltered, most of his 6 games that he officially played were just 1 or 2 periods against the low-level opponents (Poland, E. Germany, Finland). Kudos to Tretiak that he approached these games conscientiously, as he should have, but there is nothing of a serious value yet... Tretiak didn´t get a single vote in either WHC all-star team voting or subsequent SPOTY voting.
Then comes the WHC 71, Tretiak posted impressive 0.930, 2nd only to Holecek, but it's still just 5 games played, when Konovalenko (7 games) acted as a starting goalie. Kudos to Tretiak for how he played and that he again posted higher SV% than his partner, but it was Konovalenko who received a couple of votes in AST voting, Tretiak didn´t receive any. Tretiak did at least become Soviet all-star goalie (instead of Konovalenko) and finished 5th in SPOTY voting (ahead of Konovalenko, so we can make a solid judgement that Tretiak became the best Soviet goalie already at this point in time. But I don´t see anything of serious value on a macro-level yet.
OG 72, I didn´t read anything of Tretiak´s big contribution to the gold medal, there was no award voting for Olympics but goalie Mike Curran pretty much stole the show with the way he led the underdog USA team to silver medals. Tretiak had solid 0.921 but it was only 4th best SV%, Curran led the tournament with 0.928.
Moving to the WHC 72, the tournament where Soviets didn´t win for the first time in 10 years or so. Tretiak posted 0.912 which was 2nd among starters (behind Holecek) and he received 10 votes in AST voting of the championship for the first time which was 4th best result (Holecek, Molina and Valtonen had more votes). Moreover, I´ve read the game reports from this championship, Tretiak was shaky precisely in both crucial games against Czechoslovakia, allowed some weaker goals from shots from the blueline. I have read plenty from this particular season (aside from game reports also descriptions from Gól magazine and post-seasonal hockey yearbook 1972) and I can say with certainty that Tretiak was still viewed firmly below the top tier of Czechoslovak, Swedish and Finnish goaltenders (namely Holecek, Dzurilla, Holmqvist and Valtonen). Tretiak finished 6th in ´72 SPOTY voting which was notably weak voting finish for the top Soviet goalie (you had almost guaranted top 5 SPOTY placement if you were a Soviet starting goalie).
b) 1973-1976 (age 20-23)
Summit series, summer of 1972, this is where Tretiak took the next step. It was interesting to read contemporary Czech comments to this series, regarding Tretiak, Czechs had thought pretty much the same as Canadians prior to series - that is, Tretiak, weak Soviet goaltending generally, will be the main reason why Soviets would lose the series. Otherwise Czechs expected that the Soviet forwards are going to shock the Canadians and generally assumed rather close series. It was a big surprise for all the sport writers and columnists in the Czech press to see Tretiak playing so well.
Tretiak had somewhat average WHC 73 (7 games with 0.921, 6th SV% overall, 4th among starters, no award recognition) but finished 4th in SPOTY in pretty good competition.
What followed then? Tretiak´s incredible 3-year stretch of winning the 'Soviet player of the year' award in 1974, 1975, 1976... This run can get both overrated and underrated. Tretiak wasn't the best Soviet player, nor the best European goalie. His SPOTY wins were based on him having no competition whatsoever among the Soviet goalie pool. Soviet writers voted him due to relative value - Tretiak's nearest replacement goalie couldn't hold his stick against Poland, and the USSR's success was more dependent on Tretiak more so than on any skater because the USSR had plenty of forward/d-man replacements.
But let´s also not discount what Tretiak showed here, he was firmly in the wider range of best players in Europe during this time (I'd say one of the top 10 players in Europe for sure), he showed up well vs. NHL opponents. Looking at his 73-76 span, there´s nothing wrong with being "only" 2nd best goalie in Europe. There were simply 2 elite goalies, one who was at his peak (=Holecek) and the other one (=Tretiak) whose peak performance came up later.
c) 1977-1979 (age 24-26)
I'll skip this time frame, it´s less important.
d) 1980 (age 27)
Probably Tretiak's worst season of his career. 'Miracle on ice', Soviets losing to American college students. Tretiak was definitely an accomplice with his uncharacteristically low 0.840 SV%:
Tretiak ended up 8th in SPOTY voting (his worst career finish if you disregard the 1970 season) and for the first and last time, different Soviet goalie, V. Myshkin was voted ahead of Tretiak on the 7th place...
e) 1981-1984 (age 28-32)
...Which leads us to Tretiak´s, in my opinion, peak phase of his career. '80 season and 'miracle on ice' fiasco had to motivate him to change something. Whatever that was, it was working. During this stretch, Tretiak recorded 0.9377. This period consisted of 5 major international tournaments (WHC 81, CC 81, WHC 82, WHC 83, OG 84) and their average aggregate SV% was merely 0.8843. The award voting points to Tretiak´s excellence at this timeframe. Soviet Player of The Year voting: 1st (1981), 3rd (1982), 1st (1983), 2nd (1984).
We're fortunate to have the voting record of 'European Golden Stick' award (also known as 'Izvestia trophy' for the best players in Europe) from late 70s to late 80s. Tretiak in 1981-1984 period looks just as good which points to conclusion that his 1980s performances this time weren´t just a fluke. Neither his popularity couldn't have been based on relative value to his home country's goaltending competition since polled writers came from many different countries. Tretiak´s Izvestia trophy voting record during this stretch:
That's 3x in row being considered the best PLAYER in Europe, not just the best goalie. And that is precisely why I think Tretiak actually was the best goalie in the world in this timeframe, not just in his own country or continent.
Tretiak was 28-32 years old between 1981-1984. Pretty common age for goalkeepers to have lived their top athletic performance.
Soviet press noticing progress Tretiak made after 1980. This was written after 1981 SPOTY announcement:
Tarasov noticed another progress in Tretiak's game. This was published after 1983 SPOTY announcement:
______________________
Summary:
I think we can for all intents and purposes structure Tretiak´s career this way:
Elite (= one of the best goalies in the world) seasons: 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984.
Very good, meaningful seasons in all-time sense (let´s say top 10-12 best player in Europe / ca. 2nd best goalie in Europe): 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979.
Seasons which hold no value in all-time sense: 1970, 1971, 1972, 1980.
Last edited:
